Silliness
Democrats propose this ...
The House's top Democratic tax writer on Thursday unveiled a $1 trillion plan to repeal the alternative minimum tax and lower the tax burden of most lower- and middle-income people.
The proposal would be paid for by requiring the wealthy and some corporations and investors to pay more.
In laying out the plan that would effectively rewrite many of the tax policies put in place under Republican control of Congress, Rep. Charles Rangel of New York said the changes would bring a net tax reduction to almost all families with incomes under $500,000 and that some 91 million families would receive tax relief.
And they reply ...
"This is the largest individual income tax increase in history," Rep. Jim McCrery of Louisiana, Rangel's low-key GOP counterpart on the committee, wrote fellow Republicans. Rangel, he said, "is selling pure snake oil."
A tax reduction for 91 million families is the 'largest income tax increase in history' ... beg pardon, but that seems like some fuzzy math on your part Rep. McCrery.
The House's top Democratic tax writer on Thursday unveiled a $1 trillion plan to repeal the alternative minimum tax and lower the tax burden of most lower- and middle-income people.
The proposal would be paid for by requiring the wealthy and some corporations and investors to pay more.
In laying out the plan that would effectively rewrite many of the tax policies put in place under Republican control of Congress, Rep. Charles Rangel of New York said the changes would bring a net tax reduction to almost all families with incomes under $500,000 and that some 91 million families would receive tax relief.
And they reply ...
"This is the largest individual income tax increase in history," Rep. Jim McCrery of Louisiana, Rangel's low-key GOP counterpart on the committee, wrote fellow Republicans. Rangel, he said, "is selling pure snake oil."
A tax reduction for 91 million families is the 'largest income tax increase in history' ... beg pardon, but that seems like some fuzzy math on your part Rep. McCrery.
posted by Jmac at 1:10 PM
25 Comments:
As I understand the Rangel plan, everybody making over 100k gets hit with higher taxes.
Wow. Never knew we were rich, til just now. Thanks, Charlie. Happy Days Are Here Again.
Not true.
A replacement tax to make up for the lost revenue, since Democrats are adhering to pay-as-you-go rules, would be 4.6 percent on income in excess of $500,000, or $250,000 in the case of a single taxpayer.
Tax cuts don't lose revenue; they increase it. Lower tax rates = broader tax base. JFK knew that; Reagan did, too; so does W.
But good plan, Dems: tax the people who do the hiring in this country. That'll really help stimulate the economy.
Good luck getting a job from a poor person.
ut good plan, Dems: tax the people who do the hiring in this country.
Except, they ain't hiring. Maybe giving folks some additional cash to spend might grow the economy too.
A shocking idea, I know.
But I do love you being on record for keeping taxes low on the wealthy while refusing to give tax reductions to the middle-class and lower-class.
Why should people not paying taxes in the first place get reductions?
Exactly, Josh. I'm with President Bush on this.
Give tax breaks to tax payers. All of them.
The Jmac-Rangle plan is akin to giving an auto rebate to a guy who doesn't buy a car.
Sheesh.
And honestly, JMAc, folks are hiring. There's a 95+ plus employment rate in this country now. During the Clinton years, that was known as "full employment." With W, it's soup lines.
Sheesh again.
Taxes are not 'low' on the wealthy. 'Low' and 'high' are relative terms, so I'm sure what you meant was "Thank you for being on record for being in favor for keeping taxes lower-than -what-the-Dems-are-suggesting on the wealthy while refusing to give tax reductions to the middle- and lower-class." But when it is put that way, the accusation sets you up for a reductio, since even if the wealthy already paid a 90% income tax you could still say the same thing about anyone who opposed raising their taxes even further.
That said, though, I am tired of all this tinkering around the edges. A few hundred dollars here, a percentage point there. I agree that we should cut taxes for everyone (who pays them). But our cuts need to be DRASTIC. Kill the income tax, replace it with nothing, and stop the runaway inflation caused by the Federal Reserve. That ends up being its own 'tax', and it is one that afflicts the poor and (to some extent) middle-class worst of all.
Jmac:
Read the fine print. Farmers. Small business owners who claim business income as their own. Anyone who makes $150K as an individual (including farmers and business owners) or $200K cumulatively is hit with this thing. It will hit small businesses, family farms, etc. very hard. This isn't who needs higher taxes.
Making up for the AMT, which was never designed to tax the middle class, is a poor excuse. As if the pending elimination of the Bush tax cuts isn't enough, and then you add another 4% is ridiculous.
BB
Again, I'm on record saying I like a plan that reduces taxes for folks making under 200,000 a year.
Y'all aren't.
Xon ... how would the federal government raise revenue? I assume, as a libertarian/paleoconservative, you'd advocate for providing for the national defense.
What would you do to fund that?
Honestly curious.
JMac, how did the federal government raise revenue before 1913?
It's been done before, you know. Income taxes are not necessary.
There are lots of possibilities besides an income tax. Tarriffs that are low and consistent across the board are how we raised most revenue before 1913. This provides plenty of revenue for a minimalist central government.
But, to be even more radical, since even tarriffs represent a harm to the economy, why not get outside the box of taxes altogether?
How about: user fees, advertising (for volutnary donations), lotteries, etc. There are other ways to raise money besides simply taking it.
And, I'm 'on record' as supporting a tax break for everyone who currently pays taxes, as is anonymous. Everyone includes people making under 200k. So your assertion that we oppose such tax breaks is simply false.
"Again, I'm on record saying I like a plan that reduces taxes for folks making under 200,000 a year.
Y'all aren't."
You've got to be kidding with that. You're either being intellectually dishonest or stubborn, because you can't actually believe that to be true. As Xon says, I'm for tax cuts across the board, but you should actually have to pay taxes to have them cut for you.
The Democrats want to punish success and reward irresponsibility (and yes, having babies when you need a "tax credit" to raise them is irresponsible). Where will continued actions like that eventually take this country?
And to top it off, Rangel uses the "working families" crap on us, as if people that earn over $200,000 are busy all day eating grapes fed by their "coluheds."
Well, of course I was being glib, so my apologies for that. Cheap laughs are fun, but not sincere.
But ...
The Democrats want to punish success and reward irresponsibility (and yes, having babies when you need a "tax credit" to raise them is irresponsible). Where will continued actions like that eventually take this country?
... this is profoundly ridiculous. If you surely believe that Democrats want to punish success, then you're either so removed from reality you're trapped in a bubble of blissful ignorance (as if higher taxes 'punishes' anything) or rehashing talking points spouted by those same GOP operatives you repeatedly claim to abhor. Yet, time and time again you magically fall back on silly assumptions and name-calling rather than engage in honest debate.
Would I support a plan that raises taxes on individuals making over a certain income level, one presumed to be a 'higher-income' level, if it offsets another tax deduction? Yes.
Do I support a plan that provides tax relief for more than 91 millions families? Yes.
Do I support across-the-board tax relief? If it was appropriate and maintained the level of funding needed for our government to provide its existing services.
Now, to address your 'irresponsibility' comment ... if you favor tax relief across the board, the responsibility of another individual is irrelevant, isn't it?
Xon ... interesting philosophical discussion. Arguably you wouldn't favor tariffs, but I'm somewhat surprised you'd be OK with a lottery or advertising run by the state.
So long as they fund it through the proceeds from the advertising/lottery itself, then I have no problem with it philosophically since it does not require coersion.
I'd need to re-check with my lawyers, of course (zing on Romney!), but I think there would be some Constitutional issues there that might require an amendment in order to allow the government to raise money in those ways. But I'm not sure. In the meantime I would settle for an even and low tarriff across all imports. No political special-dealing to favor one region over another, or one industry over another, etc.
I used to be stymied by your question, JMac: "how do I propose that gov't raise money?" I didn't know how to answer this, as my previous answers to you over the years probably showed. I am convinced that taxation is theft, but I also believe that we need a certain minimal amount of government, which must be funded somehow. So I was at a loss, until I finally realized (with the help of both my own thinking and some outside reading) that there really are other ways to raise money. We already do it through lotteries, the post office does it through 'user fees' (stamps), etc. If the government took out television and radio ads that asked for donations to support the court system, for example, I'll bet they could raise some money. If they can't, then like anybody in the private sector they should ask themselves "Why aren't people willing to support what we are doing?" And then they will have to figure out some changes to entice people to donate. Accountability to the people increases, and I honestly have little doubt that money could come in that way. (I also understand, though I need to re-dig up the links for this, that various European nations are experiementing with these alternative fund-raising methods, but I might be smoking crack on that).
Interesting. Wouldn't a tariff be a form of taxation? Why not advocate a sales tax instead?
If the government took out television and radio ads that asked for donations to support the court system, for example, I'll bet they could raise some money.
I have severe doubts about this, but that's just me (and, well, a lot of people, but no matter).
"If you surely believe that Democrats want to punish success,..."
The Democrats want to prey on wealth envy in order to get votes. And raising taxes on one group just so you can lower taxes on another is theft and, yes, a form of government-mandated punishment. The government should never be in a position of deciding who has too much money, and that's exactly what Rangel is proposing.
"This group has too much money, so we're going to take it from them and give it to those more deserving."
How can you possibly defend that?
That, of course, was not a direct Rangel quote, but my paraphrasing.
"... this is profoundly ridiculous. If you surely believe that Democrats want to punish success, then you're either so removed from reality you're trapped in a bubble of blissful ignorance (as if higher taxes 'punishes' anything)..."
I myself woulnd't say that Democrats WANT to punish success. (At least not most of them) But I think they advocate policies which, in effect, do just that. Regardless of their intentions, higher taxes on certain people amount to a dis-incentive to whoever those certain people are. Those people who come under the higher taxes are receiving negative reinforcement not to do whatever it is that is causing them to get hit by the higher tax.
This is just human nature, and it's all that I mean when I say that a tax is a 'punishment'. It is 'negative reinforcement', as the psychologists would say, which is what punishment is. Of course, really rich people probably have enough other good reinforcements for making a lot of money that the higher tax is not going to make them no longer want to be rich or anything. But just the same, taxes represent penalties as far as the individual's psychological decisions-making is concerned.
If you're going to buy beer, you're going to pay extra taxes. If you're going to buy gas, you're going to pay the same amount over again in taxes. If you're going to make a lot of money, you're going to give a lot of it to us. These all represent disincentives, penalties, to doing the behavior that brings on the tax.
Me: If the government took out television and radio ads that asked for donations to support the court system, for example, I'll bet they could raise some money.
I have severe doubts about this, but that's just me (and, well, a lot of people, but no matter).
I thought it was a new idea. Where are your doubts coming from? Advertising works for other folks...do you not think that the government does things that people would want to support?
"These all represent disincentives, penalties, to doing the behavior that brings on the tax."
Maybe, but your logic assumes that the wealthy got to where they are w/out the help of anyone else --never making use of any publicly funded facility (education, hospitals, roads etc) nor off the backs of those who may work for them. Given that this is, in fact, very unlikely to have happened it is morally acceptable for govt to tax them at a higher rate to pay for these govt-provided things and to provide for redistribution of wealth to support those at the bottom of the heap, most of whom, contrary to the right-wing rubbish that is often spouted, are not at the bottom because of their own "laziness" etc --we do, after all, have a class system here in the good old US of A :-)
Josh, would you prefer poor people sterilized, educated on how to use condoms and birth control, or forced to remain abstinent?
Are people free to have sex or not?
Anon, my view assumes NOTHING about whether the wealthy got where they are through help from others or not. Even if they did, taxes on wealth are still a disincentive to amass wealth.
Post a Comment
<< Home