All Things in Moderation

Bits & Pieces (Monday Night Open Mic)

Hat tip to Ace of Spades HQ. I have never been to San Francisco, but this was still very funny.

Share this:

• Facebook
• Pinterest
• Tumblr
• Print
• Email

Like Loading...

Related

Filed under: Uncategorized |

25 Responses

1. 

   Michigoose, on December 13, 2011 at 12:25 am said:

   Having been to SF many times (and love visiting the place) as well as having been married to a Cali–and having relatives in the state still–this is pretty much spot on. Thanks, Kevin!

   LikeLike

   Reply
2. 

   lmsinca, on December 13, 2011 at 1:52 am said:

   I'm sorry but I think this is so funny, even funnier than your map Kevin. And hey, did you know the south has had something like 80% of the executions in the country for the past decade or so, he should add a hangman's noose to the map. But Gingrich’s plan cut taxes further than Perry, with a flat 15% rate on income and a corporate tax rate of just 12.5%, while retaining most major deductions, from the child tax credit and the Earned Income Tax credit to deductions on charitable giving and mortgage interest. He would also eliminate the capital gains tax and gradually replace the payroll tax with private Social Security accounts. What you don’t see here is any effort to balance major giveaways in the tax code with any increases elsewhere.Nobody had any interest in actually scoring Gingrich’s plan until he surged in the polls. But now, the Tax Policy Center has taken a look. And they found that his plan would give the top 1% a $428,000 annual tax cut, and the top 0.1% a tax cut of $2.3 million. By contrast, wage earners in the lowest quintile would save around $649. The percentage change in after-tax income is relevant here. Low-income Americans would see their after-tax income rise by 2.6%. The top 1% would see it rise by 33.6%, and the top 0.1% would see it rise by 44.2%. The data on average federal tax rate changes are similar. If you want to use millionaires as a baseline, their average tax break would be almost $760,000.As I mentioned, Gingrich’s plan gives out free money. Nobody’s taxes go up under his plan; in fact, taxpayers have a choice of sticking with the old plan or going with the flat tax. (Most low-income people do better under the old plan, in fact). So as a result, the federal deficit explodes under this plan. Howard Gleckman of the TPC estimates a $1 trillion addition to the deficit per year, and $1.3 trillion by 2015, for a 10-year budget window cost of well over $10 trillion. The majority of this windfall would go to the rich and the upper-middle class. Among individuals, 81% of the total tax breaks go to people making over $100,000 a year, and 35.4% go to millionaires.

   LikeLike

   Reply
3. 

   yellojkt, on December 13, 2011 at 2:49 am said:

   That map is hilarious and 100% accurate as I see it.lms,There is some sort of bidding war amongst the GOP candidates over who can pander the most to the 1%.

   LikeLike

   Reply
4. 

   jnc4p, on December 13, 2011 at 4:50 am said:

   "But Gingrich’s plan cut taxes further than Perry, with a flat 15% rate on income and a corporate tax rate of just 12.5%, while retaining most major deductions, from the child tax credit and the Earned Income Tax credit to deductions on charitable giving and mortgage interest. He would also eliminate the capital gains tax and gradually replace the payroll tax with private Social Security accounts"This isn't the "flat tax".

   LikeLike

   Reply
5. 

   kevinwillis.net, on December 13, 2011 at 1:00 pm said:

   If you want to use millionaires as a baseline, their average tax break would be almost $760,000.They should probably do their numbers another way. I realize they aren't saying that a person making a million dollars a year gets $760k carved out of their income, but that's sort of what it sounds like. I imagine they're talking about people who make tens-of-millions per year, but I don't know, since that wasn't made clear.

   LikeLike

   Reply
6. 

   ScottC, on December 13, 2011 at 1:36 pm said:

   kevin:but that's sort of what it sounds like.That was almost certainly the intent.It is obviously deceptive because it descibes the average benefit of a demographic defined by a minimum income. Hence the outrageously inflated figure relative to income level. Note also that they don't tell you what the average tax bill already being paid by these people who will be saving $760,000 is. There's a reason for that, too.Beyond the deception, I continue to be amazed at liberals' seeming need to point out what amounts to little more than obvious mathematical truism….if you cut tax rates, those who pay the most will benefit the most.

   LikeLike

   Reply
7. 

   kevinwillis.net, on December 13, 2011 at 1:46 pm said:

   Scott: Don't know if you read the article, but this is the headline:Gingrich’s Tax Plan: Give $760,000 to Every Millionaire in AmericaWhich is wrong because, clearly, every millionaire (usually defined as someone who has over a million dollars in assets, not yearly income) will not being getting $760k in tax benefits. In fact, precious few of them will. But it's also wrong for a more irksome reason to me (and, as you know, I do support more progressive taxation): the government doesn't give people their own money. Strictly as a semantic point about the meaning of words, it's their money. If I plan to charge you $10 for something, then give you a $1 discount, I've given you a $1 dollar discount. I haven't given you a $1. I think this is even more relevant as regards compulsory taxation.

   LikeLike

   Reply
8. 

   kevinwillis.net, on December 13, 2011 at 1:49 pm said:

   Do any of those people talk about all the money Wal-Mart gives them, charging $100 for a Blu-Ray player that was $225 a year ago? Or how much money Apple and AT&T are giving them, giving away free 3GS phones (with 2 year contract) that cost $199 a year and a half ago? By that metric, Wal-Mart alone gives billions of dollars away to poor and middle-class Americans every year. But I bet they don't think of it like that.

   LikeLike

   Reply
9. 

   ScottC, on December 13, 2011 at 1:54 pm said:

   kevin:But it's also wrong for a more irksome reason to me (and, as you know, I do support more progressive taxation): the government doesn't give people their own money.Yes, I noticed that too. I have made that point about this particular rhetorical deceit many times. Unfortunately I think there is a particular strain of liberalism that does indeed believe that the money people earn is not their's until the government "allows" them to keep it. Certainly there were those on PL who believed it.

   LikeLike

   Reply
10. 

    ScottC, on December 13, 2011 at 2:01 pm said:

    Kevin:But I bet they don't think of it like that.I truly believe that for a significant portion of the tax-the-rich crowd, it is more about a disdain of great wealth in and of itself than it is about any benefits that might accrue to the poor/middle class.

    LikeLike

    Reply
11. 

    lmsinca, on December 13, 2011 at 2:29 pm said:

    I take it you two didn't think much of my link. Any thoughts on the deficit problem it would create for the next 10 years?

    LikeLike

    Reply
12. 

    ScottC, on December 13, 2011 at 2:58 pm said:

    lms:Any thoughts on the deficit problem it would create for the next 10 years?Not really. If the point of the article was to raise concerns about the effect on the deficit, it would have spent more than a single sentence discussing it. And the headline would have read something like "Gingrich plan to explode deficit". Instead it spent most of its time engaging in typical class warfare pandering.

    LikeLike

    Reply
13. 

    kevinwillis.net, on December 13, 2011 at 3:13 pm said:

    lmsinca: Any thoughts on the deficit problem it would create for the next 10 years?Well, combined with a lack of spending cuts, the likely reductions in revenue would lead to much higher deficits. Of course, just as there will not be spending cuts, it's highly unlikely Gingrich would get his plan passed, just as it's unlikely he'll be elected. I don't personally see a pressing need to lower taxes on folks making over $250k. Would like to see taxes lowered on people making less than that, but not at the cost of another trillion dollars in deficit spending.

    LikeLike

    Reply
14. 

    lmsinca, on December 13, 2011 at 3:20 pm said:

    Lol Scott, so it's the way the piece is written that disturbs you rather than the proposal, got it. Kevin, mark and I and a few others believe Gingrich will quite possibly be the R candidate. Although I agree it's doubtful his plan would ever be enacted, who knew Bushs' tax cuts would make it through either and even be extended.

    LikeLike

    Reply
15. 

    ScottC, on December 13, 2011 at 3:27 pm said:

    lms:so it's the way the piece is written that disturbs you rather than the proposalWhat "proposal"? What bothers me about the article is the very point of it…class warfare pandering. Not to mention the use of deception while doing so.

    LikeLike

    Reply
16. 

    kevinwillis.net, on December 13, 2011 at 3:39 pm said:

    lmsinca: It's always possible, but highly unlikely. The GOP establishment considers Gingrich unelectable, and I expect that will count for something once actual primary voting starts. Gingrich is a highly vulnerable candidate, and I expect he's likely to have a very hard time in the general. Debating is his strength, and the loads of recent debates play to that strength. But there's more to winning a primary or a general than debates.I was pretty much 100% certain the Bush tax cuts were happen. I thought they were a good idea at the time, thought they were brilliant politics, and except for the sunset provision, it turned out exactly as I thought it would. I thought they'd be permanent–but the Democrats proved more resourceful than I thought. I didn't really expect the tax cuts to be extended. But Obama folded on that.Of course, Democrats have conceded that it's good for the economy for consumers to have more money in their hands, rather than in the government's–otherwise the Obama admin wouldn't have come up with these payroll tax holidays. Or insisted on keeping the middle-income tax breaks, even if we let the tax breaks for the rich expire. That alone has been a huge conservative victory, IMO. I'll bet you a nickel Gingrich is not the Republican nominee. I think he'll win some primaries, but I don't think he's going to be the nominee at the end of the day. Newt Gingrich teamed up with Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi to help fight Global Warming. He's going to have a hard time living stuff like that down. The far right folks do not like Newt. Glenn Beck said he'd consider voting for a 3rd party Ron Paul over Newt Gingrich. Michael Savage offered Newt Gingrich $1 million dollars to drop out of the race. He's been attacked by folks ranging from David Brooks to George Will to Ann Coulter. The GOP establishment doesn't like Newt, and lots of grass roots conservatives aren't big fans, either. He does great in the debates, and that has washed his campaign of the stench of inevitable doom it was suffering from four months ago. But the fundamental problems are still right there, and that hasn't changed.

    LikeLike

    Reply
17. 

    kevinwillis.net, on December 13, 2011 at 3:42 pm said:

    Although, as with Reagan, I think Democrats make a mistake if they believe that Newt is destined for defeat and will inevitably lose to Obama and support Newt on that assumption.

    LikeLike

    Reply
18. 

    lmsinca, on December 13, 2011 at 3:42 pm said:

    ScottWhat "proposal"?Gingrich's proposal. All you had to do was look up the TPC evaluation (are they left wing too) to get the specifics without the "class warfare" pandering as you call it.The Gingrich plan would reduce federal tax revenues dramatically. TPC estimates that on a static basis, the Gingrich plan would lower federal tax liability by $1.28 trillion in calendar year 2015 compared with current law, roughly a 35 percent cut in total projected revenue. Relative to a current policy baseline, the reduction in liability would be roughly $850 billion in calendar year 2015. If taxpayers were required to file under the flat tax option (that is, they could not opt to remain under current tax law), revenues in 2015 would fall by about $1.25 trillion relative to a current law baseline and by about $830 billion relative to a current policy baseline.

    LikeLike

    Reply
19. 

    ScottC, on December 13, 2011 at 4:05 pm said:

    lms:Gingrich's proposal.I'm not at all "disturbed" by Gingrich's proposal.All you had to do was look up the TPC evaluation (are they left wing too) to get the specifics without the "class warfare" pandering as you call it.I was responding to your link, not Gingrich's proposal. If you had wanted to discuss the effect of Gingrich's proposal on the deficit, you probably should have linked to an aritcle that actually talked about that rather than linking to the silly FDL article with it's a deceptive headline about "giving" millionaire's $760,000.

    LikeLike

    Reply
20. 

    lmsinca, on December 13, 2011 at 4:08 pm said:

    silly FDL articleGot it. Any thoughts then on the TPC evaluation the "silly FDL article" took quotes from?

    LikeLike

    Reply
21. 

    ScottC, on December 13, 2011 at 4:15 pm said:

    lms:Any thoughts then on the TPC evaluation…Just two.1) Such forecasts are dependent upon assumptions that rarely prove accurate.2) Gingrich's plan has virtually no chance of becoming law.

    LikeLike

    Reply
22. 

    lmsinca, on December 13, 2011 at 4:30 pm said:

    Okay scott, no answer then. Is Bloomberg silly also?Gingrich Plan to Add $1.3T to DeficitTax CutsUnder Gingrich’s plan, the analysis found, 70 percent of households would receive a tax cut, compared with what they’re paying now. The top 1 percent of taxpayers, who earn more than $629,809, would receive an average tax cut of $343,993 in 2015. That change would boost their after-tax income by 25.5 percent and put their average federal tax rate at 12.8 percent. The top 0.1 percent, or households with incomes exceeding $2.9 million, would get an average tax cut of $1.9 million.Gingrich’s plan would cut taxes for people in all income groups and raise them for no one. For households earning between $50,000 and $75,000 a year, 91.3 percent would receive tax cuts averaging $1,847, boosting their after-tax income by 3.1 percent. Among the 20 percent of households earning less than $19,342 a year, many don’t pay income taxes or have income tax credits that outweigh their payroll taxes. Under Gingrich’s plan, 26.9 percent of those households would receive a tax cut and their average federal tax rate would drop to 1.4 percent.

    LikeLike

    Reply
23. 

    ScottC, on December 13, 2011 at 4:47 pm said:

    lms:Okay scott, no answer then.No answer to what? You asked me if I had any thoughts. I gave you two thoughts. Not quite sure what you expect.Is Bloomberg silly also?The portion you have excerpted is, yes. But since that was just two paragraphs out of a much longer article dedicated largely to discussion about its impact on the deficit, it is not nearly so silly as your FDL article.(Note the difference in headlines.)

    LikeLike

    Reply
24. 

    lmsinca, on December 13, 2011 at 4:51 pm said:

    So it's the headline that bothers you and the reason I picked those two paragraphs is because they made the same point the FDL piece made re the changes in income level for the wealthiest. I guess I was hoping to find out what you think of the plan on it's face, not the assumptions or the possibility of it becoming law.No big deal, I'm back to work now anyway.

    LikeLike

    Reply
25. 

    ScottC, on December 13, 2011 at 5:00 pm said:

    lms:So it's the headline that bothers you I already told you what bothers me. It was not limited to the headline, although that certainly does encapsulate the focus and intent of the article.

    LikeLike

    Reply