Associated Press
The New York Times ran an interesting item the other day -- unfortunately, it was the day after Thanksgiving, when it was easy to miss -- about just how far Republicans are prepared to go to prevent tax rates from increasing on the wealthiest Americans.
Congressional negotiators, trying to avert a fiscal crisis in January, are examining ideas that would allow effective tax rates to rise for the wealthy without technically raising the top tax rate of 35 percent. They hope the proposals will advance negotiations by allowing both parties to claim they stood their ground.
One possible change would tax the entire salary earned by those making more than a certain level -- $400,000 or so -- at the top rate of 35 percent rather than allowing them to pay lower rates before they reach the target, as is the standard formula. That plan would allow Republicans to say they did not back down in their opposition to raising marginal tax rates and Democrats to say they prevailed by increasing effective tax rates on the rich.
Got that? We've talked about how easy it is to mock wealthy-but-ignorant people who go to great lengths to keep their income at $249,999 because they don't understand how marginal tax rates work. But under the plan being floated by Republicans, those silly folks would actually be correct -- GOP policymakers would apply the higher rate to all of their income, rather than just income above a certain threshold, creating a legitimate reason for some wealthy folks to avoid a higher tax bracket.
The larger point, of course, is that these GOP tax-policy contortions -- raising revenue without raising rates -- are becoming farcical. Republicans are arguing that the only meaningful goal in this debate is keeping tax rates exactly where they are, and once that premise is in place, everything else is open to conversation, even scrapping marginal rates for the wealthy.
This, for lack of a better word, is kind of nuts.
Josh Marshall had a good piece on this yesterday.
[I]f the country needs more tax revenue we have a way to do that: raise rates. It's the simplest and most efficient way to go about it.... We've been doing this for a century. When you want to efficiently raise revenues, you raise rates. [...]
Usually when people say they're willing to raise revenues but want to do it by closing loopholes, they're BSing you. And that's most of what we're hearing today. But I think we're at the point where some of the Republicans making these arguments have gotten themselves so wrapped up in a ball of anti-tax verbiage that they may actually be ready to accept some bizarre Rube Goldberg approach to deduction caps which would raise something like the same amount of revenue as tax rate hikes.
I'd just add that what Democrats are talking about is incredibly modest: Clinton-era rates on income above $250,000. That's it. Those folks would still get a tax break on their first quarter-million dollars in income, but they'd pay a slightly higher rate on the rest of their income.
We know these rates don't undermine the economy, because the economy soared in the 1990s. We also know these rates would help reduce the deficit, which Republicans occasionally pretend to care about. And we know that if anyone is going to pay more, policymakers should ask more of the wealthiest earners, since they can afford it and it would have the least impact on economic growth.
And yet, GOP lawmakers are prepared to go to comical lengths to strike a deal that keeps the lower rates -- forever. There's a perfectly sensible and responsible solution -- one that would have been considered a bipartisan no-brainer just a couple of decades ago -- and it's genuinely absurd to see policymakers twist themselves in knots trying to avoid the obvious answer.
Leave a Comment:
Just let the Bush tax cuts expire. Done and done!
I agree. Even if it means going over the "cliff". That may be the only way to do it, anyway. I am not afraid of the fiscal cliff at all. What I fear is what the Bush tax cuts, if continued, will do to the deficit and the working people in this country.
How about we go back to the rates that were in place before Kennedy...those were what like 80-90%?
No problem, just bring back all the deductions, loopholes, and shelters available then. And while you're at it, firebomb the manufacturing capability of our competitors like we did in WW2. That's the secret of that prosperity.
Blankman, just when I was holding out hope for you. When tax rates were at 80% - 90% those at the upper end still paid about 70% - 75% in taxes after deductions - there were far less loopholes in the tax code then, then have been carved into the tax code now.
As for "manufacturing" - again, WE made things, things that lasted longer than 1 or 2 years - and "manufacturers" didn't get breaks for sending American jobs to low/no wage nations...
My point was that compared to that 30-35% is pretty minuscule. I would also point out that it is a rate that is in keeping with most other western democracies.
You and I have had this conversation before shooter. The ultimate point is that we as members of a society are responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of that society. The alternative is to return to the Dickensian dystopia of 1850's
It's always funny when the Tea Partiers exclaim that "even Kennedy knew that lower rates increase revenue!" without stating that he was getting rid of those 90% rates.
Taxes rates are the lowest they've been in 60 years or more. Why is it so hard to believe that we found the best combination of rates in the 1990's, and went a little too far in the Bush era, and now need to correct back to the rates that worked best?
dragoon, the rich are already doing their part and some of everyone elses. The 1% cover 37% of the income tax burden. What else do you want?
Mike what makes you think Clinton rates worked best? Put another way, what makes you think higher taxes helped produce the prosperity?
Once again, basketball boy steps to the free throw line, takes aim, shoots....
And misses! At least you're consistent, Pooper.
Higher taxes helped fund certain government and public research that led to advances in electronics and the creation of the internet. When such projects became viable from an investment perspective, the private sector jumped in and made a bundle through economies of scale produced from our consumer base. The higher tax rates are an acknowledgement that a lot of private profit is facilitated through public investment.
The smart billionaires understand this and also understand that there needs to be broader prosperity in order for their businesses to continue to profit. What we need is investment in the economy, and right now businesses will not invest and hire without evidence of increasing demand. Due to lower investment during the post-Reagan years, we now face a crumbling infrastructure. We need to correct the negligence of past administrations through direct investment that creates jobs in the short term. Long-term, we need to incentivize new manufacturing technologies and industries to put the economy back on solid ground.
What makes you think the Bush rates worked best? Put another way, what makes you think lower taxes produce prosperity? Please provide an answer that incorporates economic data from the Bush years. Hint: the only "prosperity" came at the cost of incurring massive debt from unpaid tax cuts. The net has always been a negative.
Shooter I think the words you are trying to find here are "noblesse oblige" and in the case of the 1% (or more specificity the 0.5%) I just don't see any.
This is about a class of people essentially whining that they are "Special" because they have more money than the rest of the population. Considering the security and insulation that their wealth affords them from the slings and arrows that plague we poor mortals on a daily basis I don't feel particularly sorry for them.
There is no doubt the rich could pay more in taxes but is still doesn't address the out of control spending by the government. If we don't get this under control we will all go down.
Wrong on your out-of-control spending assertion. Go to the Federal reserve website (http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/) and construct yourself a spending-to-GDP graph. Or, you could look at this:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/25/a-short-history-of-takers/
Les Pappas, President Obama has reduced spending during the last four years. He has not raised taxes nor spending. That is a GOP lie that they keep spouting all the time.
IN NO WAY is Obama a tax and spend president. The T-party keeps perpetuating this myth. It is NOT TRUE.
Yes Obama has raised spending, and no he didn't raise taxes. Yes he actually reduced taxes.
Meanwhile for all that, we aren't in recovery because of the anti-business attitude of the administration. It's so bad the EPA had to create secret email accounts to talk about their actions. If you discourage money making, you discourage job creation, and tax revenue streams.
Not to worry. We'll go over the fiscal cliff and actually make a dent in the deficit.
Wrong, shooter. Obama is business friendly. Check the link on my avatar page about how he has NOT raised spending.
Blankman,
Please point to what levels of spending have been raised by this administration. So far if I remember correctly this administration has spent less by almost $1 trillion than under his predecessor. This link should help you get your information correctly:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/
If you don't mind I'll refer to official Govt stats. They say that Obama spent less in 2010 than 2009 but it's been upward since then. (pg 27 PDF) http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/hist.pdf
I hate to break it to you but there are hundreds and hundreds of rules recently written and yet to be written, that can wipe out any given industry. Coal plants for instance. That's an anti-business atmosphere.
This is pretty funny Zero, you'll howl if 2009 is included in Obama's debt, yet set it as bench mark for comparison when it benefits you. No thanks.
@Shooter
Honest question here. Please give me an example or two of an "anti-business attitude of the administration" vs what you would consider sensible government regulation. I'm really interested to hear because sweeping generalities get in the way of understanding.
@Shooter, you do know that this administration has brought down the deficit (not debt) by $200 billion this year, correct? If the Senate would actually work like it is supposed to, it would be have been brought down more than that. The spending you are talking about is what people on your side are calling entitlement spending. Well, get this straight and spread it around, we pay into them with the understanding of a defined benefit when we retire. In the real world, that is an insurance program. Not an entitlement.
Obama did want to spend money on infrastructer, but for some reason the senate republicans decided that we can't afford it. That would have put us back on the right path. FDR and Eisenhower knew that for every $1 we spend on infrustructer, it's $5 that the gevernment gets back in taxes. Why is it we have had two different Presidents show us the way out (and it has been proven it works) but rebuplicans think that it will not work? Instead they just want to cut spending and give more tax breaks like in Europe. The UK is a prime example that austerity does not work. Yet congress keeps trying to pull us into the same boat. The only way out of this is a spending package that puts the middle class back to work. It will cost us now, but the ROI will be 5x what we spent. Any businessman should be able to see that.
Zora,#3.5,
Thanks for that link! I couldn't pull mine up for some reason. They are similar. I hope shooter reads it.
They never do, though. Their minds are fixed on this wrong idea about Obama, and you can't make them see differently.
Mindbend, here you go.
Those a few of my favorite things. Lastly "You didn't build that" pretty much says it all.
As for you acolytes of Obama's financial acumen (heh) having a smaller deficit after the all time record is not too impressive, just like this chart about employment and previous recoveries demonstrates his failings...
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-EWouogKfASQ/UG7XS4tBLpI/AAAAAAAASSk/3I8Qqm8-cVs/s1600/JobLossesSept2012.jpg
How many of those previous recoveries were intentionally sabotaged by the opposing party?
Also Shooter, even the shreds of credibility you're lift with are frittered away when you go back to the "didn't build that" BS nonsense. It doesn't work here.
@Shooter
I was hoping that you'd also give me an example of what you felt was sensible government regulation. But I'd like to flesh out a couple on your list.
Keystone Pipeline: First, I'll eat my hat if it isn't approved by March 2013. The sticking point was the route of the pipeline. The aquifer that the pipeline crosses provides water to a very large region and a spill would be disastrous. They've come up with a reroute that will probably be accepted. (I still have my own issues with it but that's for another time)
Obamacare and new taxes: While I, personally, don't like the new taxes on durable medical equipment, I don't have an issue with the mandatory tax on those who can easily afford health insurance but chose not to buy it until they need it. First, the way the law is written, the IRS is powerless to penalize those who don't buy it. Second getting everyone into the insurance system is the best way to reduce overall costs.
What I'm trying to get at is where you draw the line between sensible regulation and government over reach. For me, Keystone was a no brainer. The people's right to reliably clean drinking/irrigation water trumps any business interest (and profit motive).
You're years late and many pipelines short on your wish to keep keystone away from water. http://www.keystonexlnebraska.com/the-facts/the-ogallala-aquifer/ogallala-aquifer-and-existing-pipeline-map
As for Obamacare, there are so many waivers that the mandatory tax will be negligible
Sensible regulation would be reinstatement of Glass-Steagal, or requiring the shadow markets to be visible.
Glass-Steagal will never return. Wall Street successfully lobbied repubs to water down Dodd-Frank to the point where it didn't accomplish much at all, and the original bill had nowhere near the teeth of Glass-Steagal. Wall Street and the banks will never allow it to be reimposed. The party of the 1% will do as their masters tell them to do.
@Shooter
Holy Crap!!! I agree with you on something! Who knew?
Mindbend, LOL Good on ya.
Uff, the Republicans had absolutely nothing to do with Dodd-Frank, it was all Democrats, and you're going to have to own it.
But this idiotic Republican idea -- they almost all are -- actually IS raising rates.
In a more intelligent, more sane world, this Republican clown act would be hysterically funny. Unfortunately, we have a butt-stupid media that gets jerked around by this idiocy and takes the clowns seriously.
I just heard Amy Kramer, a T-Party spokesman, on MSNBC, discussing why Grover Norquist is correct in asking Congress to sign his pledge. She said that George H.W.Bush lost the election over raising taxes when he had said he would not.
Has anyone besides me thought they could be wrong on that first premise? All presidents have raised taxes during time of war. There was nothing unusual about Bush doing so at the time. I would love to see a good investigative journalist look into the Bush administration and find what it was that lost him the election. I think Norquist's argument is fallacious. GHWB did not get my vote, but it had nothing to do with his raising taxes.
We have got to let these Bush tax cuts to the wealthy expire. We simply cannot sustain the cost of keeping them. I don't know why the right-wing can't see that. Amy Kramer said it was not a congressman's pledge to Norquist, but to his constituents. Really? I am to believe that all their constituents make over $250,000.00 a year. Deep in the heart of Dixie? In rural Ohio? In Western PA?
Give me a break. Time to get some reason going here, some reality! Send out the clowns!
Grover is upset, don't believe him. Bush senior lost for similar reasons to Robme - he was another out-of-touch with the people 1%, who presumed that he would get the Presidency simply because "he was there"! Right now Grover is out-of-his mind at the thought that rethugniCons are actually saying "they don't care about his pledge" - he's hysterical, someone needs to slap him hard to calm him down.
I saw that segment this morning. They're now resorting to outright threats. Grover's doing the same thing. I think that these examples show that they're more interested in their own relevancy than anything else.
The saddest part of this is the amount of elected officials who are more interested in stroking Grover Norquist's ego than they are the American people.
Here's this guy running congress, making them sign pledges, and creating serious problems for the country.
Who voted this Grover Norquist to head the government? I sure didn't. I don't recall any one dying and putting him in charge, either.
This is crazy! He's a damn lobbyist and he's running the congress? This has to stop.
Every time I hear a repub speak about deficit reduction, I end up wondering how such stupid people end up in positions of power. This morning, Pat Toomey from PA was on Morning Joe talking about how to bring the deficit down. His solution? Cut the tax rates, and eliminate loopholes and deductions in a way that was deficit neutral. I immediately wondered if he ever passed 1st grade math, or knew what "deficit neutral" actually means. He was proposing to reduce the deficit in a manner that he himself stated would neither add to nor decrease the deficit! The abject stupidity of the approach is absolutely breathtaking. And we are supposed to consider people like this to be the responsible adults that will deal with the looming fiscal cliff?
Yes, but in GOP Land, somehow by neither costing people any more or less, growth will be absolutely unleashed!
It's the kind of magical thinking that drove the economy into the ditch in the first place, but these lugnuts are still considered to be "experts". SMH.
Now I know the origin of Jack trading the family cow for some 'magic beans'!
We already have Toomey's plan enacted. It's call the AMT.
I live in PA and am familiar with Toomey. Yeah, there are no responsible adults around anymore. It is just all the same old GWB ideas that failed us.
I do not understand this at all. They couldn't be more wrong!
They could save a lot of frustration and grief if they just let the temporary rates expire (go back to Clinton rates for everyone), and institute, instead, a larger standard deduction. Ideally, a standard deduction the size of Wyden-Coats: $15,000 for an individual, $30,000 for a couple.
This would get everyone off the talk of the unpaid-for "Bush tax rates"---which we're all sick of hearing about since it's gone on and on for 12 years---and instead focus on how to simplify the tax code and make it more progressive at the same time.
Moreover, Nate Silver had an interesting article today about why such an approach could be more punitive for people who are modestly wealthy (in modern terms) but actually decrease taxes for the very wealthy!
That's kind of the point for these guys and the people who've bought their votes.
IT'S A TRAP!!!
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _,,,-------------------,— . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,-‘ : : : :::: :::: :: : : : : :º ‘-, . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .,-‘ :: : : :::: :::: :::: :::: : : :o : ‘-, . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . ,-‘ :: ::: :: : : :: :::: :::: :: : : : : :O ‘-, . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .,-‘ : :: :: :: :: :: : : : : : , : : :º :::: :::: ::’; . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .,-‘ / / : :: :: :: :: : : :::: :::-, ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;\ . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . /,-‘,’ :: : : : : : : : : :: :: :: : ‘-, ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;;| . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . /,’,-‘ :: :: :: :: :: :: :: : ::_,-----,_’-, ;; ;; ;; ;; | . . . . . . .
. . . . . _/ :,’ :/ :: :: :: : : :: :: _,-‘/ : ,-‘;’-‘’’’’---, ;; ;; ;;,’ . . . . . . . .
. . . ,-‘ / : : : : : : ,-‘’’ : : :,--‘’ :|| /,-‘-‘--‘’’__,’’’ \ ;; ;,-‘ . . . . . . . .
. . . \ :/,, : : : _,-‘ --,,— : : \ :\ ||/ /,-‘-‘x### ::\ \ ;;/ . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . \/ /--‘’’’ : \ #\ : :\ : : \ :\ \| | : (O##º : :/ /-‘’ . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . /,’___— : :\ ‘-#\ : \, : :\ :\ \ \ : ‘-,___,-‘,-`-,, . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . ‘ ) : : : :’’’’--,,--,,,,,,¯ \ \ :: ::--,,_’’-,,’’’¯ :’- :’-, . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .) : : : : : : ,, : ‘’’’---------’ \ :: :: :: :’’’’’¯ :: :,/\ . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .\,/ /|\\| | :/ / : : : : : : : ,’--, :: :: :: :: ::,--‘’ :,-‘ \ \ . . . . . . . .
. . . . .\\’|\\ \|/ ‘/ / :: :_---,, : , | )’; :: :: :: :,-‘’ : ,-‘ : : :\ \, . . . . . . .
. . . ./¯ :| \ |\ : |/\ :: ::-----, :\/ :|/ :: :: ,-‘’ : :,-‘ : : : : : : ‘’-,,— . . . .
. . ..| : : :/ ‘’-(, :: :: :: ‘’’’’--,,,,,’’ :: ,-‘’ : :,-‘ : : : : : : : : :,-‘’’\\ . . . .
. ,-‘ : : : | : : ‘’) : : :¯’’’’---,: : ,--‘’’ : :,-‘’ : : : : : : : : : ,-‘ :¯’’’’’-,— .
./ : : : : :’-, :: | :: :: :: _,,-‘’’’¯ : ,---‘’ : : : : : : : : : : : / : : : : : : :’’-,
/ : : : : : -, :¯’’’’’’’’’’’¯ : : _,,---’’ : : : : : : : : : : : : : :| : : : : : : : : :
. : : : : : : :¯’’------------’’’ : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : | : : : : : : : : :
The only reason they are proposing this is to be able to say that Democrats cannot be trusted to limit the scope of the tax increases.
Todoln
You have waaaay too much time on your hands.
I love the irony that the party that gave us two wars, a Medicare drug benefit and a huge tax cut, all unpaid for, is still trying to convince us that they are the true deficit hawks, the party that can bring spending under control! Many of the very people making that argument were the same ones who voted in favor of every one of those big budget busters. Why oh why can't we have some journalists with the balls to ask people like Boehner and McConnell why they voted in favor of all those budget-busting, unpaid-for programs under Bush, but now suddenly think they can't support anything other than budget cuts and more tax cuts for the wealthy? Could it be that it's because there is a dem in the White House, and he also happens to be the polar opposite of a cranky rich old white guy?
Steve -- Nuts? On the contrary! The Other Side is betting on the ingrained innumeracy of the American Public and the cynicism of their inside-the-Beltway colleagues. What could be surer bets?
Let's make the Cayman's the 51st state or find another way to repatriate all the hidden money, with a one time surtax of 40% and a decreasing future tax rate, based on the percentage of that money invested in American business, especially R&D and worker wages. If 40 or 50% is invested in American business the tax rate can approach say !0% on the previously sheltered money.
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/14732-a-grand-bargain-is-a-grand-betrayal
Regarding the plans to deal with the "crisis," the web page above has a very interesting article by Mr. Paul Rosenberg. It lays out a lot of what is happening in plain sight. And it is a wakeup call to those of us who realize that Obama sometimes needs to be pushed in the direction he needs to go.
The Taliban/Teaparty don't have an A game. All they can hope for is confusion to distract from the old snake oil salesman behind the curtain.
And every time it works, it gets easier because people hate having to admit that they've been conned.
The reason why Republicans do not want the rates to increase is because it will be next to impossible to strip away any of the deductions and credits from the wealthy. The lobbyists will be swarming Congress like a plague of locusts and Dems will be have to deal with lobbyists who are trying to protect their deductions and credits. It will be harder for Dems to limit deductions because of the lobbyists and force the Dems to limit deductions to the middle class which has no lobbyists. In addition, the rates are more valuable to the wealthy than the limitations on deductions. The fund managers are not going to easily give up their preferential tax rates on income which is treated as capital gains instead of ordinary income. This tax rate affects only a handful of people in the country and is costing us billions of dollars in taxes over the last few years. Let the rates go up and Republicans can negotiate which deductions will be limited, but at least the Dems won't be painted into a corner.
Mike, #14
Good post. You are correct.
These people are stuck in a rut that they've carved out for themselves by going round and round with their heads down. They haven't looked up and out for a very long time. They've done the same thing over and over and over and people have rewarded them for it - the poor and middle class by voting for them and the rich by funding them. They simply don't want to upset their one way roundabout pathway. The Republicans have decided to dig in and make the world drag them into a new direction of doing and they are screaming because the the tides of change are doing just that. Most people, when they are in debt understand they need to cut extracurricular spending and bring in more revenue to help pay the bills. This has been the formula for getting out of debt since money replaced the barter system. Obama seems to understand this and seems to understand that it will take a while to get out of debt. Perhaps we could get completely out of debt if everyone in the US agreed to forgo all entitlements : Medicare, medicaid and SS and all the military personal agreed to not be paid for their service and every single senator and representative forwent their salaries and benefits and every single person making 250,000 or more agreed to give everything they made above that threshold to paying down the debt for however many years it takes to pay it off completely. Everyone would have to pitch in and pay. While one solution it certainly isn't plausible and possibly not sustainable with the mindset around money these days.
I appreciate that Obama is trying to think of ways to pay down the debt without taking away more of my meager salary, but I would be willing to pay a bit more if that bit more would be applied to the debt only. I dislike sales tax, but perhaps implementing a 1% Federal sales tax on everything in the US and designating it toward debt would work. The downside of that would be it would never go away once the debt was reduced or paid off, and worse, Congress would siphon off funds for other pet projects. Another solution is to get together with other countries and simply declare all worldwide debt null and void for all countries, corporations and citizens. There are solutions, if the people we entrusted to guide this country would just get their heads out of the rut.
A federal sales tax is unacceptable. Why should the middle class and poor pay for the tax cuts for the rich who have gotten wealthier since the Bush tax cuts which were not funded and two wars that were not paid for with one being unnecessary? The rich got the money and the middle class and poor are going to end up paying the bill through cuts in federal programs and higher taxes. Let the rich pay back those tax cuts with higher rates and their proportionate share of the wars. The federal contractors pocketed the money from profits on the wars and they should pay their share too. The middle class and poor have already paid for those wars with blood. There is no reason why they should pay for the wars and tax cuts. Next time a Republican is elected, the rich will think twice before letting the president start an unnecessary war.
Hey, let's fix SS and Medicare while giving the GOTP an even deeper tax cut ! How ? Eliminate the cap on FICA, and extend it to ALL income sources for those reporting more than $249,999.00 GROSS. If your income is from rent, royalities, interest, bonuses, whatever, 14% self employement rate on every dollar other than wages/salary, 7% all salary. One, there is almost no way congress could spend that FICA surplus, like they have since Reagan era. Two, with that new revenue source I expect that we could cut marginal the income tax rate over $250k to 30% or less while eliminating the annual deficit and paying down the national debt. What's that ? Bush 43 had to push those cuts to restore deficit spending since they secondary bond market was running out of T-Bills to deal ? Oh, yeah what ever will Wall Street do if we cut the deficit ???? Find business opportunies to nurture ??
The GOP's latest dumb idea may well be an easy way to bring back private pensions. If high earners tax rates jump when their AGI exceeds $250K, everyone will make crazy efforts to keep salaries lower in order to avoid this. One way is to have the employers contribute to pensions - deferred compensation. At the same time, the GOP has spent the last 40 years railing against private pensions. It's hard to be consistent when you are crazy.
This reminds me of what Warren Buffett said last year, "I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation."