Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktWell, gee, there’s a surprise. Paul Ryan on the Buffett Tax, “It adds further instability to our system, more uncertainty and it punishes job creation and those people who create jobs,” Ryan said on Fox News Sunday. “Class warfare may make for good politics but it makes for rotten economics.” And, of course, Mitch chimes in.
Instability? Uncertainty? Punishes job creation? I call BS on this. Righties here, are you on board with the Republican leadership line on Buffett Tax? If so, on what basis?
Republicans criticize tax on millionaires idea
Update: Edited for clarity at 3:06PM MST/
Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: Buffett Tax |
All Things in Moderation 
I'll be curious to see their responses okie, good idea for a post. I'll be back in a little while. I left a link on the previous thread, glad I finally figured that out.
LikeLike
I'd like to hear a defense of the ideas expressed by Cantor & McConnell. Is there one beyond the claims as stated by them?
LikeLike
I'm dubious, though I do not know all the details. The response regarding "punishing job creation" is, to me, cliched and not credible. If theynare seriously advancing that position, they need to come up (or someone does) an explanation as to how the wealthy can have so much more wealth than they did ten or twenty years ago, and yet the job market is worse, not better. Incentives are clearly against job creation already. The wealthy are much wealthier, yet they clearly aren't putting that wealth into things that create jobs in this country. Which is not to argue that we should confiscate the wealth, only that we shouldn't pretend at outrageously broad proposals will magically fix complicated problems. Giving rich people more money is not going to solve all our problems; taking a tiny fraction of it will not necessarily cause problems. Similarly, just raising taxes isn't going to solve complicated, jillion-input problems like unemployment and long term economic growth.Right or wrong as policy, I think the arguments being presented are poor. I don't buy the instability and uncertainty arguments (there may be uncertainty and instabiity, but it's not caused by the possibility of a small tax increase on hugely wealthy individuals). And, clearly, ifnrich people having more money was such a significant factor in job creation, we would have much lower unemployment right now. Just my opinion, of course.
LikeLike
kevin, we are on the same page here I think. taking a tiny fraction of it will not necessarily cause problems. Similarly, just raising taxes isn't going to solve complicated, jillion-input problems like unemployment and long term economic growth. Not a be-all-end-all, but I view this as an important step. Given the outrageously skewed income distribution here now, hell yeah! I think the wealthiest should pay a bit more in income taxes, and I think that would make an appreciable dent in our deficit and consequently debt reduction.Anybody have a link to more current data than 2008? I am sorry to source this to wikianswers: "According to the IRS, in 2008 there were 321,294 U.S. taxpayers with an adjusted gross income of $1,000,000 or more. That's 0.23% of all taxpayers in the United States. Yes, less than 1/4 of 1% of all taxpayers make more than $1 million dollars a year."
LikeLike
The NY Times piece has a few salient facts, even though we don't know all the specifics of the "Buffet Tax" yet, that should be recognized in the discussion.* The richest Americans generally pay a smaller share of their income in federal taxes than do middle-income workers, because investment gains are taxed at a lower rate than wages.* The administration wants such a tax to replace the alternative minimum tax, which was created decades ago to make sure the richest taxpayers with plentiful deductions and credits did not avoid income taxes, but which now hits millions of Americans who are considered upper middle class.* The millionaires’ rate would affect only 0.3 percent of taxpayers, they said. That would be fewer than 450,000; 144 million returns were filed for 2010.
LikeLike
We won't know the specifics of Obamam's plan until tomorrow but Ezra Klein highlights a few of the plans that have been floating around for the past year or so.Here's the one I like, I think.Another option would be to create a series of tax brackets for millionaires. After all, someone making $1,500,000 annually is in a very different position than someone making $10 million annually. Rep. Jan Schakowsky has advanced a proposal along these lines that would tax income between $1 million and $10 million at 45 percent, income between $10 million and $20 million at 46 percent, income between $20 million and $100 million at 47 percent, income between $100 million and $1 billion at 48 percent, and income over $1 billion at 49 percent. Her office estimates this proposal would generate $78 billion in revenue in 2011, which implies that it would raise close to, or perhaps more than, $1 trillion over the next 10 years, depending on how fast incomes rise.
LikeLike
Obamam's = Obama's, I did not do that on purpose and I even previewed it. I think I need a nap.
LikeLike
Well, I agree with Rysn in that it creates the things he says it creates. We can argue the real impact of those issues, but not their existence.Let's admit that this really is an issue, for many on the left, about "fairness" and not revenue generation. I know that we are going to have massive tax increase even above the 1/2 trillion or so that comes with Obama care. Our total debt by the end of '13 will be over 16 trillion and the GDP growth rate will be low as long as we carry this massive debt, continued massive borrowing and an unsustainable welfare state. I'll fight tooth and nail however, against any kind of tax increase as long as the government continues to grow. If we can have to successive years of total Federal expenditures that are either equal to, or less than our current Federal expenditures, with a third approved budget signed by the President, I would be willing to have taxes raised substantially (as long as all the tax increases we're du settee in 3 years and there was a BBA).
LikeLike
Should be "if we can have two… ". Sorry.
LikeLike
Jeebus. Should also be " as long as the tax increases were sunsetted… ". I don't know what the hell that was.
LikeLike
Well, I agree with Rysn in that it creates the things he says it creates. We can argue the real impact of those issues, but not their existence.um . . . no, troll, I do not agree with you carte blanche on this. It is not a given. Specifically, how does the proposed Buffett Tax mean uncertainty and instability and how does it punish job creators?
LikeLike
Okie:Uncertainty because those it effects will not know it's impact (how the IRS says it's structured, what can and cannot be deducted / included, what level and type of income, capital gains, for example, etc.)until every aspect of the tax is not just passed, but written into effect by the IRS and then fully litigated. It can take quite a while for all of this to work out, regardless of how clear (snicker) Congress writes the law. It's just another reason to hold back resources from investment to see what happens with the execution of the law , i.e. uncertainty.Uncertainty always creates instability, the question is how much uncertainty. A teeny amount would have a negligible effect, a large amount would have a huge effect. Finally, I think anytime taxes are raised in a non-uniform manner, remember it took the 16th amendment to allow income taxes, it works in a manner I believe is punishing to job creators. It takes capital to employ people, those that have it employ people to help create more of it (the capital.) Any time taxes go up on those with the capital to create employment, there is an impact on how that person decides to allocate their capital. if they think that a large enough chunck is going to be taken away in taxes, then many won't bother. If you know that every dollar above X amount is going to be taxed at a higher rate, you might decide to not do things that get you above that X amount. Or you might decide to get your revenue in a different manner, a la Buffet. He could choose to pay himself a very large regular income, in which case he would be taxed at a higher rate than his secretary, but he chosen to compensate himself through other means that are taxed at a lower rate. Why do you think he does this?
LikeLike
troll, those are all BS talking points. Back it up with something substantial.
LikeLike
troll, not to be too personal, but . . . are you in the $1,000,000/year adjusted gross income bracket or are you just shilling? You are among the upper appx 1/4 of 1% of US taxpayers?
LikeLike
Well, thanks for the critique. Talking points or no, I believe everything I've written. Again, we can argue the extent of the impact of Barry's proposed "Millionaire's Tax," but not that it will have no effect. And why do we need a new tax above and beyond the AMT anyway? Isn't that what the AMT is for? Why not just propose an increase the rates in the AMT? Or stop "fixing" the AMT? Unless you're playing politics…If every dollar above X is taxed more, at some point I'm going to decide that it's not worth it. So would you. Since we're all different, some are going to have lower threshold than myself and others higher.
LikeLike
troll, my whole point is whether or not we are basing decisions based on knee-jerk reactions without looking at the empirical picture. You are talking about knee-jerk with no data behind it, correct?
LikeLike
Well, oops. I just set fire to my kitchen while I was here. Back later. (Troll, can I please blame this on you? LOL)
LikeLike
Okie, no, I'm nowhere near that bracket. As I wrote above, the advocacy of this tax isn't about revenue generation it's about "fairness." My opposition to the tax is less about "fairness" (though I'm opposed to a progressive tax code) and more about doing whatever I can to stymie government tax revenue until the size and scope of government has been stopped and reversed. It doesn't mean that I don't believe the arguements I put forward, I do, it does mean that the #1 reason for my opposition is an attempt to deny the government further revenue until it behaves in a manner I think is sustainable, as in, smaller in size and scope.
LikeLike
Damn, okie, talk about being involved in a conversation! Go put out that fire!!Just breaking in to say that I'm about to throw up a "Testing" post so that I can try following my own instructions for the FAQ. lms has volunteered to be my guinea pig, so when she gets back she's going to try out my instructions that I'm sending her via e-mail so that I can clean them up a little before throwing them out there for everyone to test and edit. See y'all later.And, BTW, Troll, I love your new avatar! More cowbell! 😀
LikeLike
You seem to think that I'm arguing that a "Millionaire's Tax" will have a HUGE impact. I'm arguing that any tax increase has some sort of impact, the argument isnt about whether or not there's an impact, but what that impact will be.How about another question, what will this new "Millionaire's Tax" accomplish that the AMT is not?
LikeLike
My suggestion is to table this discussion until we know the specifics of the proposed tax and the number and types of taxpayers it'll impact (and how much) vs. the existing AMT.
LikeLike
Fire out. Yay.MsJS, thank you for again being the voice of reason. Although I think the details are not going to change the discussion that much, I see the sense in waiting until we have a specific proposal.
LikeLike
Testing the live link> to my Testing post.
LikeLike
New post up seeking your input!
LikeLike
Since the republican dogma on taxes has zero pragmatic evidence to support it, and nearly a century of evidence refuting it, letting the republicans stipulate their position and then using that as a basis for debate is futile.Trying to participate in a blog takes time. You have to read the posters, until you learn which posters are best put in your do not read, do not respond files. Now at least you can skip the posts that have no promise of meaningful debate. But in a single long and unindented blog following a meaningful discussion is hard enough, and having to skip over many inches of text increases the problem. But to follow a thread requires you read posters for intent and content. When you have learned that the intent is to steer the talk away from the real to the fantasy, and the content is endless repetition of material long ago refuted, and you have to wade past the crud to find actual content, it takes more time and dedication than I have. Right now you are just assembling the project, and there will be lots of nuts and bolts chatter about the hows, which I read, as i have time, and sorting out of personas in this new forum. I'll be around, reading every day and contributing when I can, but I already have other better places to post in semi private, and the Plumb Line is still the best forum to use to post in public, where the target of your argument isn't the post you comment on, but the readers who read it and your comments.But as for QB and Scott, they are hopeless. They themselves are irredeemable, because they post to enforce, and not to inform. They want the discussion to be about what they want, and it is mostly about things of dubious fact when fact is present at all. What they do is highly toxic to informed discussion, and destructive of public discourse because it drives away all commenters that are not of their party line. They may think they have something new, but it was something taught to Lenin by earlier Russian Revolutionaries, and they probably learned it from earlier malcontents. Make the forum hostile to any point of view that disagrees with yours until only those who share your point of view remain, then poll the participants and validate your point of view as universal.I'll be around, because Imsimca and mark and the man of many names but one nature have points worth considering. But I have other callings and PL is still one of them, and it takes time to surround, absorb, process, and cogitate.
LikeLike
"troll, those are all BS talking points. Back it up with something substantial."There are nicer ways to ask for clarification. Just sayin'.Be nice, and show respect, and all will be right with the world.As Morticia Addam's tells Joan Cusack's character in Addam's Family Values, those aren't just pretty words. : )
LikeLike
troll mcwingnut writes"If every dollar above X is taxed more, at some point I'm going to decide that it's not worth it."Great. That will open a spot in the economy for someone else to earn the dollars you choose not to.
LikeLike
"It doesn't mean that I don't believe the arguements I put forward, I do, it does mean that the #1 reason for my opposition is an attempt to deny the government further revenue until it behaves in a manner I think is sustainable, as in, smaller in size and scope."This seems like a perfectly rational argument to me, Mr. McWingnut. At what point do you think it would be more sustainable?
LikeLike
""If every dollar above X is taxed more, at some point I'm going to decide that it's not worth it."This is not only a first world problem, but a first world problem unique to the already very wealthy. It's not invalid as an economic incentive, but I don't think it's an operating incentive that drastically impacts the overall economy. I'm dubious that it impacts it enough to worry about at all, until top marginal rates are at least in excess of 50%.
LikeLike
"Since the republican dogma on taxes has zero pragmatic evidence to support it, and nearly a century of evidence refuting it,"I think this requires substantiation. I don't believe either statement is 100% correct. Indeed, if it were 100% correct, there would be no debate. I understand you don't have time to do this, but I believe there is clearly a point at which heavy taxation has a negative impact on the overall economy, as did JFK, and that a rising tide raises all boats. If Republican dogma on taxes is 100% incorrect, then we'd never have tax cuts, and economic doldrums would follow tax cuts as the night follows the day. And Democrats would be advocating, generally, a return to 79% top marginal rates, not anemic 3% or 5% increases.
LikeLike
"But as for QB and Scott, they are hopeless. They themselves are irredeemable, because they post to enforce, and not to inform. They want the discussion to be about what they want, and it is mostly about things of dubious fact when fact is present at all. What they do is highly toxic to informed discussion, and destructive of public discourse because it drives away all commenters that are not of their party line."Arguably, this is also sorta toxic to conversation. At least, I tend to think so. I think occasionally they do a few things that are not helpful to productive public discourse (not, unlike, the above, at least to me).Accusations of dubious fact are equally dubious without some substantiation. I understand you don't feel you have the time to try and engage qb and Scott (and myself, I assume). I'm sure we could have benefitted. But, I've been there, so I understand. Chances are, everybody's "facts" have issues, but sometimes I think the weak link is our communication and perception, sometimes, and less the "dubious facts" we feel the other party is attempting to pass off as truth.Anyhoo, understand. Hope you find us a good place to participate with in the future. Thanks for giving it a try!
LikeLike
Also, I mentioned this in the overnight thread, but I'll mention it here, to. We should probably figure out a disclaimer/mission statement. I see this as being a place where people of widely divergent views get together to be seek to understand and to be understood, preferably in that order. That if we feel it necessary to start critiquing the person (or name calling, etc) then we're doing something wrong, and need to step back. Honestly, I don't know what the best approach is, but I think it's a worthwhile effort to attempt to "get to know the other", as it were, and make sure that if we are going to disagree, that we really understand what we're disagreeing about. I think that often we don't understand the fullness of the other person's position as well as we intuitively feel that we do. Ah, well. More to cogitate upon. Later, my friends.
LikeLike
"troll, those are all BS talking points. Back it up with something substantial."There are nicer ways to ask for clarification. Just sayin'.Noted. troll, my apologies — and thank you for your responses.
LikeLike
Kevin, I entirely agree with your 8:05, as I hope my comment on the admin thread I started reflects.I suppose it is too late for me to defend not raising taxes on "millionaires" right now, but there will be future occasions. For the record, I think that all these ideas of what are really capricious and arbitrary tax increases on "the rich" do stifle growth, create unpredictability, and penalize risk taking (probably not in that order), and I see them as having no sound normative justification.
LikeLike