President Obama is pushing a modest, popular tax plan: those making under $250,000 get to keep their tax cut for another year. The top 2% get to keep their tax cut for their first $250,000 in income, but would pay Clinton-era rates on the rest.
How will Mitt Romney fight against a middle-class tax cut in an election year? By labeling Obama's plan "extreme."
Mitt Romney on Tuesday branded President Obama's tax plan as an "extreme liberal" position that would halt job creation. [...]
"The very idea of raising taxes on small businesses and job creators at the time we need to create more jobs could is the sort of thing only an extreme liberal could come up with," Romney said.
Let's unpack this a bit because it's a pretty important part of the presidential race.
We know, for example, that for any fair-minded person to characterize Obama's plan as "extreme" liberalism is demonstrably ridiculous. We also know that if anyone's plan is going to qualify as "extreme," it's Romney's.
When Romney first unveiled his tax plan in the Spring, the non-partisan Tax Policy Center published a fairly detailed analysis, showing that the Republican's proposal would raise taxes on those struggling most, while delivering more huge tax breaks for the wealthy -- a Bush/Cheney plan on steroids.
Now, in fairness, Team Romney has said the TPC analysis is mistaken, because it doesn't include various incentives and deductions that the Republican administration would support. But given that Romney refuses to tell anyone what those details might look like, we can only scrutinize the policy the way it currently looks on the page. (Derek Thompson noted a related analysis yesterday that suggests even more Americans would face a tax increase under Romney's plan.)
What's more, if we ignore Romney's vague plan and look only at the Paul Ryan budget plan that Romney endorsed, the tax changes are more extreme, not less.
And what about small businesses? I'm glad you asked.
Romney told voters that the Obama agenda would "raise taxes on small businesses" because some small businesses would fall into the category of earners making more than $250,000. But how many? Fox News told viewers yesterday the change could affect "as many as half" of small businesses. To say that's a wild exaggeration is to insult wild exaggerations.
Sahil Kapur noted that, according to Congress's nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, only 3.5% of small business tax filers would pay a higher rate. And by most measures, that's on the high end of recent estimates -- the Treasury Department puts the figure closer to 2.5%, while the Brookings Tax Policy Center estimated it's only 1.9%.
Taken together, somewhere between 96.5% and 98.1% of American small businesses would keep their tax cut under Obama's plan, and wouldn't see their taxes go up at all.
Romney appears to have overlooked this little detail -- or more accurately, he's hoping you'll overlook this little detail.
Leave a Comment:
I expect to see this revisited on Friday under the heading of Mitt's Mendacity.
The really DUMB thing (on the part of the Obama Admin) was to create an opening at all that puts the idea of NOT letting the Bush Tax Cuts fully expire in play!
Why oh why would they even let this thing roll around between the houses at all? Like Rachel said last night (relating to policies on women's health and right to abortion), just letting a law come up for potential negotiation and consideration is in itself a wedge that the far right sees as an opening big enough to drive a truck through.
I'm not saying people in the $200K income range wouldn't benefit from some tax relief as additional stimulus. That's not a bad idea.
But let the Bush Tax Cuts expire and sunset properly FIRST, deep six them for all time, and then create a single issue bill with no other riders, to address some of the bracket creep unfairness that is buried in the tax code. Maybe fix the Alternative Minimum Tax too, except nobody seems capable of fixing that.
I just wish the Obama Admin were better FIGHTING strategists, because of their weakness on negotiating. Oh, they are clever strategists, for sure. They do triangulate well, defang and trojan horse, but there's too much openness for an opponent who is all gall and no shame and uses a by-any-means Scorched Earth strategy.
That's been the Obama Adm's problem all along. They like to box by Queensberry Rules. They totally suck at Back Alley Bare Knuckles stuff.
I love that this is a historic presidency. But I'd rather have Scorpio Hillary Clinton in a back alley fight with me any day.
They'll never do that. Leaving the AMT as-is and the Clinton-era tax rates on the books as the permanent rates that we will never-never-never see again and continuously tweaking the rates by temporary fixes to the AMT and "Bush tax cuts" that expire every year or two -- this is all a part of having their cake and eating it, too.
See, they propose these temporary tax breaks to both general income and payroll taxes, and then they calculate the deficit on a 10-year time horizon -- which assumes that these temporary rates expire and we are paying full Clinton-era rates plus unfixed AMT rates for the last 8 of the next 10 years. And, wa'la! Deficit numbers that don't look as bad as they will be if we were honest...
Excellent reasoning, Bruce! I hadn't thought of that.
And even if you take the 3.5% of small businesses seeing a tax increase as the accurate number, HOW much will they go up of course depends on how much they make. A small business owner making just over 250K a year possibly won't even notice the difference. I mean, I'm sure my math is off, but someone who makes 260K will pay something like $300 more under this plan, right? Someone who makes 750K will pay $15,000 more, assuming there are no deductions or ways to hide some of that income, but tht's someone making the threshold for the higher tax rate...PLUS HALF A MILLION MORE.
It's time we stop demonizing taxes in this country. That might be a good first step. No one likes to pay them, but if something you've come to expect that's paid for with tax dollars gets taken away, oh we all whine. Someone making 750K should understand that if they're paying more and shifting less of the tax burden to people with less money, it means they have MORE MONEY TO SPEND, which will probably benefit them in the long term by having more money back in the economy for "small businesses" to rake in with their goods or services. The whole no tax argument is a cut-off-your-nose-to-spite-your-face bout of idiocy that needs to be addressed by Dems early and often. It's so friggin' simple to comprehend - if more people have more money, they spend more money, more money in the economy is better for everyone and results in more sales taxes, more businesses needing more employees who get paid which means more income taxes. Prime the pump, the water flows. Cut off the flow of water, and the well may dry up. Believe me, I am a total idiot, and I get this, so why it's not shouted from the rooftops of Dem campaign headquarters is a total mystery to me.
True, and where do most people get money? From a job. Where do jobs come from? Business.
For that matter where does Govt get their tax money? Business, via employment and directly. So one would think that blowing tax money isn't as smart as letting business create jobs, yes?
Oh well.
Business HAS BEEN allowed to create jobs, and has done it substantially, but prefers to sock away the money that could create more or give it to CEOs and the like to sock away. This means that business is reducing income itself, through no fault of anyone but themselves. That means business has failed and needs some help. If government jobs hadn't been so severely cut, we'd be down another percentage point on unemployment... but that's good news to you, right, Shooter? Because we can't have an honest effort to improve the employment situation; that might make Obama look good! That's why all the jobs bills have somehow gotten lost on their way to the Senate.
Shooter ... And where do businesses get their revenues? From customers. People who have jobs (including public employees), money to spend, and feel free to spend it. Creating jobs in China and India that pay next to nothing isn't doing much for most domestic firms' bottom lines. And firing lots of teachers, policemen, and other public employees doesn't help that situation any.
Businesses have plenty of capital available. If they want higher sales and more profits, they need to start hiring people who live in THIS country.
Henry Ford figured this out way back in the days of the Model T. He paid his employees generously, with the aim that they should make enough money to buy a Model T themselves. Before Ford, cars were playthings for only the wealthy. The secret sauce of the modern economy is money in people's pockets, without which even the best products will not sell enough to keep people working. Even Junior Bush knew this. When the economy slowed, he sent a check to every taxpayer likely to spend it (not the rich taxpayers). That's called priming the pump, and is classically Keynesian, even though he called it a "refund." If Obama were to do that, socialist would be the kindest epithet hurled.
OK guys, I've got a question that seems slightly silly, but has you stymied. Did Henry Ford pay his employees that better wage before, or after, he built his factory?
Did the jobs come before the business, or after it?
Let me give you a better one, Shooter: How long would his factory have been in use--in fact, how long would his business have lasted--without customers who had enough income to buy his products?
The question remains, where did these people get their money?
@shooter
This discussion sounds familiar...
The economy is like an eco-system. Nothing happens in a vacuum.
Workers in one company are the customers for another company.
Someone needed to make the initial investment to get the Ford factory up and running. I don't know if it was Henry Ford himself or if he had other investors.
But the factory would not have been built or the first cars made if they didn't have the reasonable expectation that someone would buy the cars.
Money first came from the government, cycled through businesses and consumers and wages and investments. Ford wouldn't have had his money to pay people if people hadn't had it to give to him. So your assertion that the rich-person came first is incorrect, but you'd know that if you thought a little. I know it hurts, but try.
Yes, the workers, the people that have jobs. Let me try it this way... Do you think the people in Sudan want stuff? Do they have wants and needs? Of course they do. So, I think we can agree there's a lot of untapped demand there, yes?
So why are they so poor and destitute? If demand is all that's needed, they should be prosperous, no?
MPGuy: I don't get your logic: Creating jobs in China and India that pay next to nothing isn't doing much for most domestic firms' bottom
If you have lower costs. doesn't your bottom line look better
And firing lots of teachers, policemen, and other public employees doesn't help that situation
We are in a structural economic realignment in this country. States and cities must balance their budgets. They cannot create money. They are facing today the costs hidden for years in future benefits for employees. It was an easy way to keep current costs low, and bought loyalty of employees.
Businesses have plenty of capital available. If they want higher sales and more profits, they need to start hiring people who live in THIS country
Businesses hire when they see higher demand
If you have lower costs. doesn't your bottom line look better
???? Of course it does. Revenue - costs = bottom line
If you've got bad revenue, then your bottom line is going to look bad no matter how many "costs" (aka workers) you shed. If you're doing that poorly, you should close up shop and try something you're better at.
If you're shedding workers just to make the bottom line look more appealing, then you're lying to investors by pretending that everything's fine when you're actually going downhill. And if you're not going downhill and you're just wanting to be a greedy bastard, then you're a dirtbag and don't deserve to be in business.
By a careful examination of Mitt Romney's birth date, I have concluded that he was in fact alive and fully an adult in the 1990s, which means that he should have some memory of what conditions in the country were like the last time these rates were in effect--the economy was strong, and the government had a surplus.
But don't worry! Those job creators are definitely going to start creating all the jobs they aren't creating now once the top marginal rate is a negative number.
"Those job creators are definitely going to start creating all the jobs they aren't creating now once ..." that man they can't bear to have in the White House is out of office.
"Business" has steadily been creating jobs, but it could have invested more of those record profits into creating more--had it wished to.
Piece of the Pie
Whether anyone wants to admit it or not, there is only so much money (pie) IN the economy. When we print more money it just devalues the money already in existance. So basically, there is only so much money (pie) to go around, and with a growing population (esp. with so many people against family planning) the pieces of the pie are getting smaller and smaller. If there is going to be 500 million people in this country there is not enough money (pie) for everyone to have 1 billion dollars worth of money (pie), but some would have us believe differantly. Some would have us believe that if they were in total control, everyone would have a billion dollar slice out of a million dollar pie
So you're advocating the people who have lots of money start paying more in taxes so we don't have to print more money that will otherwise devalue the currency? Excellent suggestion.
Exaclty Slappy, there is only so much pie to go around, and when ANY billionaire can justify why they NEED a billion dollars, when the rest of the country is in need, why they can justify buying politicians instead of paying their emplyees more, then I will rest my case.
Egad, the pie fallacy appears again.
Actually no. The amount of money in the system fluctuates constantly. Most of our money supply comes from credit. The Fed gives JPM $10 and JPM lends it out ten times creating $100. All day, every day, 24/7.
Nothing goes around. There is no pot of money, nor ultimate being, who decides how much anyone person "gets". The "pie" is actually a pie chart showing how much each group contributes to the total. If your group only claims 10% of the "pie", it's because your group contributed only 10% of the total.
No they aren't. Economies are inherently growth oriented. (except ours at the moment.) If your presumption were true we would have run out of resources centuries, no, millenia ago.
Whatever a billionaire has won't affect you in the least. (Aside from political meddling) All the billionaires could retire tomorrow and your life won't change a bit.
Any questions?
I have a question, shooter: Do you really believe the bullcrap that you post?
Donna,
I realized years ago that few of them actually believe the things they say, but as long as they consider such things to be useful propaganda, they will say them.
Feel free to point out where you think I'm wrong.
It's not a set quantity, but the percentages are. The fact that the rich are claiming an ever-greater percentage (whether it's $5, $500, or $5000000) is where the pie comes in. The fact that the lower 80% is left with a sliver to get by is the problem. If you want to look at a different pie, that's fine, but don't pretend that the "money going in" pie has anything to do with the "money going out" pie.
Our economy IS growing, so you're wrong there. You must be a citizen of Europe if YOUR economy is shrinking.
What they HAVE doesn't affect us; what MORE THEY TAKE does. And they do take, at the very least by pretending that they don't owe their success (and their fair share of taxes) in part to artifacts of American socialism: law and order, infrastructure, etc. Pretending that giving them further breaks at cost to the country and general populace will somehow magically, after 30+ years of trickle-down lies, result in improvement for the country as a whole is ignorant, disingenuous, and Republican.
Shooter ... You're right about the money supply being somewhat expandable, and about the way fractional reserve banking works. Yes, the goal is to create additional wealth, and it's true that the fact that someone is wealthy doesn't necessarily make everyone else worse off.
However, there is some upper bound beyond which this expansion cannot continue. Central banks can only produce so much usable credit before things start to go off the track. That means there is some point at which wealth accumulation by the upper crust of society begins to have a negative effect.
A healthy economy depends on a stable and expanding middle class, one where people are moving up--not down. That's not what we have now. If the 1% or 2% or whatever percentage we want to refer to want to continue increasing THEIR wealth, it's in their best interest to have lots of people working at decent paying jobs with reasonable levels of supplemental benefits. Jobs that people can count on for more than a few weeks or months at a time. Republicans have worked hard to eliminate those kinds of jobs, thinking that, just because Oriental and/or SE Asian workers can do them for less that, somehow, "we'll all benefit in the long run."
As Schumpeter said, "In the long run, we're all dead." Unless we re-inflate some kind of financial bubble, the "new normal" for a society that doesn't provide a place for far too many of its citizens to contribute to the economy is going to be economic cycles with long periods of stagnation or recession, interspersed with short periods of "prosperity" that eludes a large percentage of our citizens.
Instead of working for short-term "profit maximization," business as a whole might start thinking about "satisficing"--making a little less profit, but having profits they are more likely to grow and sustain.
Claiming? Are you saying there is some pot of money somewhere and that the rich line up like in a buffet? Where is it? Can i see it? Who decides who gets what?
Take from where, take from who? Are rich mugging poor folks in an alley to steal their wallets?
Nobody pretends success happens in a vacuum, and the wealthy pay all their share and part of yours too. I can't wait to hear how you rationalize your protestations.
You act stupid, and you say stupid things, but I know you're not THIS stupid. The rich are the ones deciding who gets what and in what quantity, through use of their monetary leverage and influence over politics. It's happening on the national, state, and local level. Stop being an ass... if that's possible.
They're taking money from the middle class by forcing higher productivity at lower wages, in the circumstances where they're even paying wages here. They're taking it from us by pushing for more regressive tax schemes that sit on our backs heavily and on theirs hardly at all. They're taking it from us by demanding that tax dollars be used to make them richer at the expense of programs to help the poor, who pay taxes too but just can't seem to get themselves a lobbyist.
Actually, you've pretended it on this very blog many times over. They do NOT pay their share; 15% is NOT their share, it's less than half of their share, and that's not even considering their lower burden when it comes to sales taxes and the like. I'd love to hear you rationalize anything, but you're not rational so I'm not holding my breath.
mpguy, Glad we can agree on your first para. Onward.
I not so sure about upper limits, Japan has a debt load of 200% of GDP, double ours. I used the credit example as a teaching moment. As for wealth accumulation, that's not really dependent on credit levels. (Except for banksters) Most rich people are rich because they have something people are willing buy.
Yes it would be good to have more jobs, but that requires more business. And as you point out it needs to be domestic business. Which makes things like the Keystone pipeline so demoralizing. We are now the Middle East of oil and gas, production of which stays here, and Obama kills it. When the crunch comes, one can't sell what wants, one sells what one can.
I understand your point, but perhaps you should consider all the short term landmines business gets thrown in front of it. Boeing in North Charleston had invested billions and hired a thousand people, after which the NLRB declared it all illegal. After that, any CFO proposing expansion is being negligent. Taxmageddon is going to be the largest tax hike in history... maybe.
I'm going to give this a try...
Hmmm the shady cabal story, eh? Actually the Libor scandal was a shady cabal. Point for Grumpy. On the other hand you may remember this article by the NYT about who was actually in the 1%. Lawyers, doctors, athletes, movie stars, all sorts of people. Not so shady, not much of a cabal.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/15/business/the-1-percent-paint-a-more-nuanced-portrait-of-the-rich.html?_r=2
Here's where I have to start getting literal. Business isn't charity. You compete, or you end up on the unemployment line. You may find that unpleasant but it's the reality that has to be met. Meanwhile jobs go wanting because if a politically incorrect project. That makes your complaint weak.
Half the country pays no income tax. See my fingers? I'm playing the world's smallest violin.
Do you have an actual example of a federal program for the poor, being cut? Considering the Govt. can print up all the cash it needs I find that hard to believe.
Should we ever have a discussion about payroll and local taxes, that will get due consideration.
I'd be interested in hearing how you arrived at that figure for what's fair. Meanwhile 15% only applies to a small subset of the well to do, and personally I agree it looks awful. Sadly, a lot pay the full tab with a resulting average/effective rate of 24%. That's pretty close to the 30% rate you imply is proper. You should feel much better, no?
Politically incorrect? Try environmentally, fiscally, and factually incorrect, if you're referring to your pet project Keystone. Otherwise, you're correct; there are a lot of infrastructure jobs going unfilled because the GOP doesn't want to let Obama help the country, and would rather vote against a cost-and tax-saving healthcare measure for the 33rd time than deal with actual jobs legislation. If it was actual competition, you'd be correct... but when one side has its thumb on the scale and a large number of the referees in its pocket, you can't rightly call it competition.
You should be playing for them, BECAUSE IT MEANS THEY'RE TOO POOR TO BE LIABLE FOR IT, you nitwit. Can you process "They get so little that they don't owe taxes, because to demand them of them would be cruel and inhuman"? This is the end effect of your beloved corporate policy.
I've got a whole list; most are on the state level, where the GOP has slashed low-income programs like they're kudzu. Rachel's mentioned a number on the show; don't tell me you don't watch, and just come here to troll and fail? Shocking!
We are having one about them; they're integral to the burden that the middle class bears and the upper class ignores. Just because YOU decide it isn't germane doesn't mean it isn't.
The top rate is 35%, so that 24%? Not real close to what they should be paying. Add to that the fact that our country did its best when the top tax rates were much higher, and you get an idea about how badly you're encouraging sabotage of the country. 24% is awful, when you consider that, in many cases, what's left over after that person's taxes could swallow the pre-tax income of most middle-class neighborhoods.
Well I gave it the old college try.
So let me see if I have this straight... 50% of taxpayers are so poor that asking anything additional of them is cruel and inhuman? That's just inane. 10% certainly. 20%, I can go for that. 50% is just stupid. Sayonara.
Feel free to look at the relevant data, not that you'd believe it because it doesn't fit your fantasy world. They already pay a bunch in state and local taxes; adding on even more would just push them even further down. You obviously have this mistaken idea that the lower half of the populace are just living it up and cleverly dodging the income tax through artful manipulation of their myriad accounts and investments, but sadly they're "dodging" it even more effectively than Romney does by not making it in the first place.
But hey, still no reason to raise the minimum wage to a livable level, right? Because poverty creates character, and that's SOOO much more valuable than food! At least, that seems to be the argument on your side.
If only I could believe in the "sayonara"...
Shooter ... Boeing is a good example of the shortsightedness I'm talking about with the reference to short-term profit maximization. They built the plant in SC to avoid paying higher wages and providing better benefits than would have been the case in union-friendly Washington state. They incurred a tremendous expense, in a somewhat legally questionable manner, to pay a level of wages that provides less spendable income to employees who would likely show a greater tendency to fly on Boeing's planes.
The pipeline is a different, and I believe somewhat phony, issue in this context. The oil isn't intended for the U. S. Its destination is foreign markets. If I were Obama, I would say the following: "OK. You can build your pipeline. But you'd better plan on building some additional refineries, too. Because we're going to forbid exports of ANY domestically produced oil until we become self-sufficient in petroleum products. Now, do you want your pipeline--or not?" This would end up producing some permanent, high paying, American jobs that can't be off-shored.
Re: Boeing Believe it or not, I actually thought a company had the freedom to move and pay less, especially since not one job was moved out of WA. And you wonder why companies move out of the country?
Re: pipeline the whole point of the pipeline was to get oil to LA where the refineries are. And damn right it was going to China after that. Now it's going to Asian refineries and not ours. Gad.
Consider NatGas. Here it costs $2.50 a unit. In China it's going for $17.00 a unit. Do you want to get some money back from China or no? The "demand" for oil is there, but Obama has blocked business. No business, no jobs, no tax revenue. Is that really what you want?
Blocked... huh, the fact that America has more wells and production than ever before is a funny way to block it. Maybe he's conniving to flood the market, ruin the oil companies through success? But you don't ever acknowledge that point, do you, Shooter; it's just an inconvenient fact.
Companies certainly have that right. But they don't have the right to be exempt from criticism by acting in a shortsighted manner. Yes, they can cut costs. But the money they "save" is often lost because the people they would have paid it to won't the ability to buy their products. That's the problem with being part of an economic ecosystem. It makes me think back to a great cartoon (that I wish I could find again), showing an executive in a corner office saying something along the lines of, "I just can't understand it. I downsized all my employees and my customers all went away." You're talking about what they have the RIGHT to do. I'm talking about what's PRUDENT for them to do if they want long-term economic sustainability.
I'm fine with exports, personally. But I'm damn sick and tired of Republicans demagoguing the issue by claiming that, somehow, the Keystone Pipeline is going to provide us with enough domestic oil and petroleum products to make us self-sufficient when that's clearly not the goal at all. Republicans need to come clean and admit that the goal is to provide additional resources for Asian growth and development and that it won't produce ANY permanent U. S. jobs once it's built.
A little truth, that's what I'm after. With my strategy, Obama would be calling the Republicans' bluff.
It's much like the Repubs' suggestion about selling health insurance across state lines. My reply would be: "OK. You got it. Along with the creation of the new Federal Insurance Commission--with funding levels tied to those firms' ability to continue selling across state lines--that's going to regulate that activity, so that insurance companies can't go shopping for lax regulation that screws over consumers." We would find out quickly just how interested Republicans are in their own idea.
But the money they "save" is often lost because the people they would have paid it to won't the ability to buy their products.
Obviously that's not the case with airplanes, yes? And no Keystone won't cure all our ills, but it is a step in the right direction, But Obama has declared that path off limits. North America is the new Saudi Arabia. One would look at Norway's oil boost to the economy, and the opportunity to render the ME irrelevant, as a boon. But buying votes is more important.
That tells me Obama doesn't give a hoot about America, just his own election.
So, your idea of not caring about America is someone who's interested in preserving our national environment, creating real and lasting jobs through infrastructure legislation, making sure that people aren't ruined by medical circumstances outside their control, and seeking fair pay for all Americans. Interesting thought process, considering your alternative is a spineless outsourcer who's promised to make 50 million Americans his first victims in an ideological war against America's interests.
Keystone is purely in the interest of the OIL COMPANIES, not in the interest of America, since it doesn't help our energy issues, our employment issues except in the shortest term, or our environment. Pretend differently all you like, but it doesn't make it true.
Grumpy...,
Sh!tter doesn't really care about what is true, he is a devotee of Mammon and all he cares about is the Gospel according to Ayn Rand.
I know, oh believe me, I know. There needs to be a recurring theme like "Mendacity of Mitt", entitled "The Sh!t and Slander of Shooter242", to categorize all the ways he's been proven wrong and a liar.
Since it is painfully obvious that he is only here for malicious purposes, he does not deserve to be here at all. Getting rid of him (and other trolls) would make a theme about him (or them) unnecessary. Decent people should not have to deal with people like that here. It is a waste of time and effort. People who are aggressively doing wrong should not be provided with a forum.
Steve Benen. Another whale washes up on the beach.
Fail.
No no no. Figure out why this... what you limply label mendacity works. Because, there is no sense denying that Rove's tactic of using strengths against the opponent works.
If you understand the mechanism of how the Right is immunizing themselves, then you can defeat it. Merely labeling it dishonest assumes some sort of non existent Socratic world where your devastating logic and facts will convince the electorate.
Rove will gladly hand you your head if you persist.
It's simple what he is doing. You took biology Steve. You know how vaccines mimic a malevolent pathogen in order to stimulate an immune response. Well Obama's messages are the viruses, and Rove is the doctor putting out messages that strengthen the immune response of wavering voters.
The indignation response to trigger? Romney thinks you are all children. If you use a fact, you go to the forest view rather than the trees. The forest view is the scoreboard. Wealth of 1% goes up over the last 4 decades. US GDP way way up. Middle class wealth down.
And Romney wants to push it down further.
You didn't address the NEWEST talking point of the surrogates. That is that the 2% of the 'small businesses' that WILL pay some additional tax are the really IMPORTANT part of the small business meme...THEY are the ones that 'create' ALL the jobs and hire ALL the people. The 98% are just barely above water...see Sununu yesterday.
Let's see what the MSM reports. If they report the lie, the lie will become truth. If the lie becomes truth, America is screwed.
I never bought into the small business argument.
We're talking about the personal income taxes of small business owners...small business owners who are doing very well, thank you very much. They're doing well thanks to roads, highways, bridges, levies, damns, ports, national defense, and the rest. They're benefiting the most from government-provided goods and services, and they need to contribute their fair share.
They will also benefit from "Obamacare".
So the Romney Campaign, with the candidate who has the SECRET Offshore Bank Accounts, wants us to believe him, when he says he has a 'Secret Plan' for eliminating deductions??? LMAO !!
Anyone else hear Taps being played for truth and justice?
This keeps up I might have to actually send a donation to the DNC or look into Canadian real estate.(I do so much hate cold weather but I hate watching republicans destroy America more)
The dream is over.
Don't worry. Just wait another 20 years and Canada won't be cold any more.
This whole job creator meme is getting so on my nerves. It has been around since the Bush/Cheney days. Where are all those jobs? They were wiped out in the last decade. So, quite obvious low tax rates for the super rich do NOT create jobs. A failed policy! Now we supposed to believe that it will work a second time around? No way!
Why not create a real progoressve tax system? Let us tax those "job creators", i.e. super rich, at up to 98%. Then give them tax reductions for every full paying job with benefits. Let's see them bring their tax rate down to 14%. Oh, yea, treat capital gain just like any other income.
I've never understood how the 'greatest tax increase in the history of mankind' claim gains traction anyway. How many times has this claim been made against Obama now? Truth is we're all paying less in taxes now than has been the case in decades, yet the only time I've really seen that reported was on this webpage today. I just happened to stumble across that fact awhile back when checking out Reagan's tax rates as opposed to what we pay today.
What is wrong with people? Anyone working in 2009 should have noticed the increase in his/her take home when the stimulus kicked in, yet most people seem to not be aware of that. Yeah, it's been three years, but that's not so long that memory should have faded.
And don't forget that even though the rates paid by the average American is 17.4% now, that's still higher than Romney's less than 14% he paid according to the one tax return he's allowed us to see.
I think we're doomed.
Going off subject, Romney just got booed at the NAACP gig when he said he would repeal ACA. What was he thinking?!
You don't get it because you are looking at the literal level. Politics is literature. Romney knows he isn't getting any votes out of this demographic. This is Romney's Red Badge of Courage to strengthen his credentials with the far right, and right leaning centrists.
"...to strengthen his credentials with the far right, and right leaning centrists."
Such as the trolls on this site.
Question: what is the actual dollar amount of the bottom quintile? how much do you actually have to make to be taxed by Romney?
The tax rates Obama is advocating are below those of the 1990s. How could these new rates be "extreme" and harm job creation when so many jobs were created in the 1990s (allegedly by Romney) under higher tax rates.
The REALLY stupid thing about this "taxing the job creators" meme, is that if these small business owners would actually create a job or two, their taxes would go DOWN.
We are talking about individual income here. For a small-business owner, that's called "net profit." Profit that was not spent on re-stocking, or new equipment, or rent, or supplies, or SALARIES.
If the economy is going to come back even faster than we need to invest in some new strategies . Clearly what we've been doing hasn’t worked, so why don't we change our plan of attack? The current plan of taxing one community to try and supply another with resources –that don’t come through- hasn’t worked and won’t (http://bit.ly/RXu0rj). Im not so sure that this is the right or only way to go about actually having a real economic recovery. In the US, as a society that's willing to try anything why can't we try to change our minds about this? we can’t just have continually tax and squander resources.
It's not an exaggeration if you understand two things:
Still LOLing Shooter242's arguement earlier. Shooter, do you really believe that credit is the same as cash? Credit isnt real money, it's fake money people PRETEND to have to impress each other. It doesn't actually exist.
Of course it does. Let me walk you through it.
When the Fed gives a bank $10 as a reserve, The bank is entitled to lend it out 10 times. It will actually create 10 new checking accounts for 10 different people, each with $10 in it, for a total of $100.
That is real spendable money, created out of thin air. If you want confirmation see "fractional reserve banking"
This is also part of our current woes. The Fed has stuffed banks with all the reserves it can handle, but people are so far in debt they don't want to borrow any more money, leading to less spending.
Maybe Obama should just accept the Republican rhetoric that taxes have never been worse and propose going back to the rates we had under Reagan in 1988.
Republicans consider Bank of America (that paid NO tax for 2010 or 2011) a "small" business. Ditto Monsanto - which is a multi-national.
I think we ought to go back to the tax structure under President Eisenhower - the economy was booming and everyone was earning enough to have upward mobility.
So let's say half of the top 2% are small business owners who pay through personal income tax. For the first $150k above $250k - we're talking about 2% incremental tax - about $3,000 in tax. Hardly an issue that would prevent hiring another employee if the business opportunity supports it. For the money over $400K, I suspect most of these "small business owners" are the lobbyists, hedge fund, and self-incorporated motivational speakers etc - basically rich folks who are "businesses." They are the ones who grabbed all the cookies for the past 10 years, and it is time to pay up.
Rachel - you are awesome at sorting out the facts. Go for it.