home

Balancing The Budget By Cutting Taxes For The Rich

Krugman:

OK, let’s say goodbye to the deficit commission. If you’re sincerely worried about the US fiscal future — and there’s good reason to be — you don’t propose a plan that involves large cuts in income taxes. Even if those cuts are offset by supposed elimination of tax breaks elsewhere, balancing the budget is hard enough without giving out a lot of goodies — goodies that fairly obviously, even without having the details, would go largely to the very affluent.

Most of us knew the Catfood Commission was a Clown Show. This makes it official.

Speaking for me only

< Catfood Commission Chooses Irrelevance | What Party Sends Seniors Running To the Other Side? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    My favorite Krugman quote: (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 01:27:16 PM EST
    So you're going to tell janitors to work until they're 70 because lawyers are living longer than ever.

    Seemed an appropriate quote to mention on this board ;-).  

    And pretty much true.  People who don't have good access to AFFORDABLE health care (i.e. the less affluent) are NOT living longer. Of course, the elitists on the Catfood Commission probably are so far out of touch they have no idea what he's talking about.

    Krugman gives one of the best definitions (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by MO Blue on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 03:08:55 PM EST
    of a D.C. compromise that I have read for a while.

    Still, I guess this is what it takes to get compromise, if by compromise you mean something the center-right and the hard right can agree on.


    Parent
    It's really worse than that... (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 03:10:05 PM EST
    you're telling that janitor to work till 70 so we can continue to fund a massive military we don't need, a drug war we don't need, welfare payments for people born with more money than that janitor made in his life...it's really sick.

    When all the bullsh*t has been cut, when cost-efficiency has been maximized, when everyone is paying their fair share of the freight...then you talk about raising the retirement age if we're still short...and not a second before.

    Parent

    But...it was Obama's Clown Show. (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Anne on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 01:54:40 PM EST
    Not the Clown Show of a Republican president with a majority GOP Congress, but of a so-called Democratic president with - until January - majorities in both houses.

    And he established it by executive order over the heads of the Congress that rejected it.

    So, why was this so important to Obama?

    Who was the commission really for, really all about?

    Wall Street.

    Banksters.

    I keep asking myself, why should there have been one Democrat even remotely interested in being part of this Clown Show?  


    Quite a few Democrats are on record (none / 0) (#4)
    by MO Blue on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 02:06:05 PM EST
    both by supporting the initial proposal in the Senate (only failed because some Republicans voted Nay) and by remarks on the issue that they are eager to be part of this Clown Show.

    Parent
    Not too many (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 02:11:24 PM EST
    And none take this proposal seriously.

    It is D O A.

    Parent

    36 Democrats and Joe Lieberman (none / 0) (#7)
    by MO Blue on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 02:24:28 PM EST
    voted in favor of creating a Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible Fiscal Action. Approximately 38% of the Dems seems like quite a few to me. But YMMV. rollcall

    I agree that the proposal as written by the co-chairs is DOA.

    Parent
    None of them will vote for a proposal (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 02:28:14 PM EST
    that cuts Social Security or eliminates the mortgage deduction.

    Parent
    If it comes up for a vote, (none / 0) (#10)
    by MO Blue on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 02:36:54 PM EST
    I do think that several of the the original 37 would definitely vote to raise the retirement age and possibly agree to change the formula for calculating benefits all under the guise of "saving Social Security."

    Since there would not be enough support for  eliminating the mortgage deduction, I doubt it would be included in a bill to that reachs the floor.

    Parent

    IIRC, the final vote (none / 0) (#11)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 02:38:06 PM EST
    will be up or down on the entire report, not on parts.

    Parent
    O.K. let me be very clear (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by MO Blue on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 02:52:08 PM EST
    I do not think that the total recommendations as written  by the co-chairs will be what is even voted on by the commission let alone be presented to the Senate for a vote. Even the the co-chair acknowledges that will not be the case.

    We're not asking anybody to vote for this plan. This is a starting point," Bowles said.

    The proposal presented today is definitely DOA but the committed is free to cherry pick certain items from the recommendations or chose other options. There is a possibility that a much leaner package that just raises the retirement age or calculates the benefits by a different method could receive the necessary 14 votes to merit a vote by Congress in the lame duck session. If that happens, I do think it will receive some Yea votes from the original 36 Democratic Senators and Joe Lieberman that voted to establish the Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible Fiscal Action.

     

    Parent

    That's why it is DOA (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 02:40:03 PM EST
    All it will take is for enough (none / 0) (#16)
    by Anne on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 02:57:48 PM EST
    GOP members, plus the non-Congressional members, to refuse to take the mortgage interest deduction out unless the even more odious recommendations are left in, and for enough Democrats to give in so they can fulfill their executive-ordered mission, for some very bad things, all packaged together as one, to happen once it hits up-or-down vote time.

    It's happened over and over and over - why should this be any different?

    Because they will lose their jobs?  Look how many won't be returning to the Congress in January - they have no jobs to save, so what do they care?

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 02:40:32 PM EST
    You have your view and I have mine.

    Parent
    Yep, that we agree on 100% (none / 0) (#14)
    by MO Blue on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 02:50:47 PM EST
    I doubt it (none / 0) (#49)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 08:11:56 PM EST
    the initial support was for the creation of a commission not for its proposals- hell the 9-11 commission had virtually unanimous support, was far, far more publicized and had its actual proposals all but ignored.

    Parent
    Math correction (none / 0) (#28)
    by MO Blue on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 04:11:31 PM EST
    62% of  the Dems seems like quite a few to me.

    Parent
    Interestingly (none / 0) (#48)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 08:10:38 PM EST
    this Commission is actually better than the Senate proposal- its recommendations if they are ever made (and this leak makes me very, very skeptical that this will happen- after all why make your own 2 person report if you have any chance of getting 12 others to sign off) can simply be filibustered while the Senate proposal would've gotten an up or down vote.

    Parent
    Wrong. The recommendations (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Anne on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 08:38:26 PM EST
    package - assuming the commission can pass one -  cannot be debated, amended or filibustered: what is presented to the Congress gets a vote, period.  It lives or it dies, in whatever form it is presented.  Period.

    It was one of the reasons why many felt the deck was stacked.

    Parent

    Perhaps it was stacked (none / 0) (#54)
    by christinep on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 09:40:14 PM EST
    Differently than you thought, maybe.

    Parent
    Yeah, sure, christine (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Anne on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 10:13:35 PM EST
    whatever you say; this will all prove once and for all that Obama is simply the master of all masters at infinitely-dimensional chess...

    Parent
    We'll see soon (none / 0) (#56)
    by christinep on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 10:18:15 PM EST
    But, Anne, most people (voters) do not know (none / 0) (#36)
    by christinep on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 05:57:04 PM EST
    What people will find out is what Boehner introduces. Hmmmm? Again: There are sometimes strategic advantages to these kinda "Blue Ribbon" Commissions. After the field is cleared, the WH has more playing field. (Since you were talking about political perception, I'd thought it might be appropriate to weigh in with classic political strategy. Maybe or maybe not.)

    Parent
    Actually (none / 0) (#37)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 06:25:40 PM EST
    the headlines are already reading Obama's Commission recommends cuts to Social Security. So no, Obama was not smart to do this because he is the one who is going to own it.

    Parent
    The "headlines" out here (none / 0) (#40)
    by christinep on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 07:20:05 PM EST
    are different. Seriously.  I hope the President is up to the coming face-off; and, I've grown to believe that he is. What strikes me is that we will see the cuts on the table--at least some of them--in January. It won't take the public long to see who is where.  Both sides will try to pin it on the other; but, remember the cards are stacked a bit...because President Obama gets to say what he wants, and Boehner does have to "fish or cut bait" (for his various constituencies) on what fiscal proposals the House puts forward.  Again, my read of what the "headlines" say is quite different thus far--based upon the national TV network CBS and upon PBS Jim Lehrer.  So....

    Parent
    Whoa..what makes you (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by observed on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 08:00:01 PM EST
    think obama will suddenly develop a spine?

    Parent
    evolution. (none / 0) (#52)
    by cpinva on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 09:04:40 PM EST
    Here is a link to the draft (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Anne on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 03:56:44 PM EST
    of the Commissioners' Report, and here is a summary of the "highlights" from D-Day:

    * They're nice enough to wait a whole year to implement the cuts; they wouldn't start until FY 2012 - in other words, the next budget.

    • Their goal is to put revenue and spending at 21-22% of GDP. Their plan would reduce the deficit below the recommended 3% of GDP by 2015, down to about 2.2%.

    • They put in spending caps, maybe the worst idea known to man, the kind of program that has turned Colorado so sharply negative that the business community begged the state to lift them. These caps, which are unenforceable, as a current Congress cannot be bound by a previous Congress, would bush spending 18% below the baseline by 2020, a drastic bit of austerity.

    • 75% of the solutions in the co-chair mark are spending reductions, 25% are tax increases.

    • They want to add co-pays to the Veterans' Administration and TRICARE, as well as pushing individuals covered by TRICARE into an employer policy. They also want to freeze noncombat military pay for three years. And, they want to end schools for families on military bases, instead reintegrating soldier's kids into the public school system (because that's so easy for a military family that moves every other year).

    • They would cut the federal workforce by 10%, freeze all salary increases and bonuses for three years, and reduce Congressional and White House budgets by 15%. Surely this is the way to a better and more efficient federal workforce.

    • They would eliminate all funding for commercial space flight, as well as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and increase fees at national parks and the Smithsonian museums.

    • Increase co-pays in Medicaid and cost sharing in Medicare. In addition, the plan would cap Medicaid/Medicare growth, so that the government would have to either increase premiums and co-pays or raise the Medicare eligibility age if the cost grows above the baseline.

    • Massively overhaul the tax code. They have a couple different options on this. In the first, there would only be three brackets: at 8%, 14% and 23% for the top bracket. All tax expenditures - $1.1 trillion, including the Earned Income Tax Credit and the child tax credit, would be eliminated. The corporate tax rate would go down from 35% to 26% as well. Option 2 borrows from the Wyden-Gregg tax reform, establishing rates at 15%, 25% and 35%, increasing the standard deduction, capping the mortgage interest deduction (and eliminating it for second homes), limiting the charitable deduction, eliminating other tax expenditures, and capping the employer deduction for health care. Corporate rates would also go down, with loopholes removed.

    • They would increase the gas tax by 15 cents a gallon beginning in 2013, to pay for transportation projects.

    • They would pay for the "doctor's fix" by cutting other reimbursements to hospitals and drug companies, as well as through tort reform (yeah, that'll do it). They would also speed up a lot of the cost controls in the health care law. They also ask, if health care costs are still rising after the implementation of the exchanges, for Congress to consider a variety of options, including this:

    Add a robust public option and/or all-payer system in the exchange

    • Reduce farm subsidies by $3 billion per year.

    • On Social Security, gradually increase the retirement age to 69 by 2075. They would also institute progressive price indexing to cut scheduled benefits for middle and high-income earners. They would index cost of living increases to inflation and not wages. They would also increase the payroll tax to capture 90% of wages, rather than the current 86%. Social Security savings would stay inside the program to keep it solvent, not be used for deficit reduction.

    There's a lot more in there, but those are the highlights. It's a very aggressive plan.

    And here is the WH response, which should dispel the notion that Obama's planning to kill the commission before it issues a report:

    Statement on the Initial Bowles-Simpson Bipartisan Fiscal Commission Proposal

    "The President will wait until the bipartisan fiscal commission finishes its work before commenting. He respects the challenging task that the Co-Chairs and the Commissioners are undertaking and wants to give them space to work on it. These ideas, however, are only a step in the process towards coming up with a set of recommendations and the President looks forward to reviewing their final product early next month," said White House spokesperson, Bill Burton.

    Third Way thinks it's "Leadership" - even if they don't seem to realize that this is not "the" report:

    With huge deficits projected for decades to come, it's now time to put up or shut up, in short to lead or leave. This is the first real leadership test for both parties in a divided capitol: will they embrace the Fiscal Commission recommendations, or cop out and pick the plan apart?

    No plan will be perfect, but without a serious, long-term commitment to balance the budget, we're going to stifle economic growth for decades and ultimately have to make draconian cuts in spending. Only by acting aggressively now do we avoid a budget doomsday. President Obama, Democrats, and the new House Republican majority all campaigned on a pledge to get the deficit under control and reform entitlements.

    The moment of truth is here. The Commission report is the only game in town - and if this wasn't just a campaign slogan, the parties must come together and demand a vote on the Commission's recommendations.

    Oy.

    To all of it.

    I couldn't get past the cuts affecting Veterans (none / 0) (#47)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 08:05:49 PM EST
    Could these proposals get any more odious?  
    And doesn't the delayed start of some of the elements sound all too much like the so-called HCR?

    Again, I hope to be proven wrong, but I think this Admin wants to pass a lot of what's in these proposals. Otherwise, why appoint a commission with people known to support such ideas?  And again, I think the Admin is counting on MSM to continue sounding the theme of "we can't afford to keep funding Social Security" and "Social Security is bankrupt".  False as these mantras may be, their continued recitation by the "news" has been effective in making many think these mantras are true.  

    Parent

    A 20% cut (none / 0) (#50)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 08:13:47 PM EST
    in the Defense budget- yeah this is a serious report because Congressmen are going to actually vote to cut Defense spending 20%.

    Parent
    shorter krugman: (none / 0) (#3)
    by cpinva on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 01:55:39 PM EST
    you're kidding, right?

    one bit of tax facts that i never see addressed, by anyone, ever:

    that unearned income (dividends, interest, portfolio income in general) is taxed at a lower rate than earned income. in effect, "joe sixpack's" hard earned wages are considered less valuable, for tax purposes, then "sydney effete's" interest & dividend income, "earned" while relaxing by his pool, sipping on a lovely glass of merlot.

    it just always struck me that this is the perfect democrat issue. and yet..................nothing.

    Sure, wages are already taxed. (3.50 / 2) (#6)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 02:24:15 PM EST
    Interest and dividends come from investments you made with wages that you have already paid your taxes on.

    Does not surprise me that the tax on investments made with already-taxed wages is not as high as the tax on the wages when they are originally earned.

    And since investing in our economy is generally thought to be a good and necessary thing, it does not surprise me that there is some incentive like this from the gvt for us to do it.

    Does not surprise me that dems consider this a non-starter...

    Parent

    How do we know... (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 02:58:55 PM EST
    the roll they're investing with was already taxed?  

    And we're talking about the tax rate on the profit from the investment, right?  The principal doesn't get taxed "again", does it?  I thought it was just the profit.  

    Always struck me as a tax injustice too...the capital gains rate should be the same as the rate on a big gambling win...I'm down with lowering the gambling rate though:)

    Parent

    How could the roll they're investing with (none / 0) (#18)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 03:04:30 PM EST
    not already be taxed?

    Parent
    Bank in Cayman... (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 03:14:50 PM EST
    or other sheltered wealth, unreported income...there are lots of tricks and loopholes.

    Regardless, isn't the capital gains tax just applied to the gains, not the principle?  Why shouldn't the gain be taxed the same as my gain via cubicle jockeying?

    Parent

    If you had a mutual fund in 2009 (none / 0) (#24)
    by me only on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 03:38:38 PM EST
    you would know the answer.

    Parent
    Don't follow... (none / 0) (#25)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 03:48:40 PM EST
    I assume you mean everybody lost a bundle...so they paid no capital gains tax.  Sounds about right, I only pay gambling taxes when I win, and at a higher rate.  Injustice.

    Parent
    At what level do you owe the Feds (none / 0) (#27)
    by republicratitarian on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 04:04:29 PM EST
    taxes on gambling? I've never researched it. I could Google it, but I"m that lazy sometimes. lol

    What game do you play?

    Parent

    Last I checked... (none / 0) (#30)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 04:41:20 PM EST
    600-1 odds or better win and you're taxed, at rates up to 50%.  But you can write off losses to offset.  Capital gains is 15%, I believe.  It's an outrage.

    I'm mostly a poker and ponies guy...and a serious jones for roulette.

    Parent

    I'm NL Hold'em all the way (none / 0) (#32)
    by republicratitarian on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 04:48:02 PM EST
    Mostly at the poker room at our local Greyhound track, occasionally to the casino's in Biloxi, MS for some overnight debauchery. Not sure that I've ever done quite well enough to get the IRS's attention.

    Parent
    At the Borgata in AC... (none / 0) (#33)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 04:54:15 PM EST
    they won't even let you chop anymore at the end of a tourney...somebody must be the 1st place winner and eat the tax form...makes it complicated making deals.

    Parent
    For casual gamblers (none / 0) (#35)
    by me only on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 05:01:18 PM EST
    it is just income, taxed like any other income.

    If you win big (like the lottery), they withhold immediately at the highest rate.

    Parent

    No, you are completey wrong (none / 0) (#29)
    by me only on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 04:40:02 PM EST
    I paid capital gains taxes in 2009 when my portfolio dropped.  And in 2008 when it tanked.

    You assume that you know how these things work.  News flash, you don't.

    Parent

    Silly me... (none / 0) (#31)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 04:43:29 PM EST
    I thought "gain" meant ya know, "gain". How could I ever make such a mistake!

    Parent
    That's because you don't know (none / 0) (#34)
    by me only on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 04:54:48 PM EST
    what constitutes a gain.

    Don't even get me started on dividends or the worst tax, interest.

    Parent

    Are you sure... (none / 0) (#41)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 07:37:38 PM EST
    it's me who doesn't know?

    If you had 10k in your mutual whosamawhatsa Jan. 1 2009, and 8k on Dec. 31 2009, you pay capital "gains" tax on that 8k whosamawhatsa in 2010?  Things are worse than I thought.

    Parent

    Yes, I am sure you don't know (none / 0) (#57)
    by me only on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 10:31:20 AM EST
    the value of your fund isn't what you pay tax on.  The fund itself owns equities, bonds, etc.  When it sells them it might have a gain.  Even if the overall fund falls in value, you have to pay tax on that "gain."

    Unless, of course, you cannot afford the tax and have to sell the fund at a capital loss.  Brilliant idea, which drives the market down even more.

    This is one of the reasons I will never vote for a progressive candidate.  They are clueless how taxes work on regular people.

    Parent

    bank in Cayman, reports the dividend and interest income on that hidden income to the Fed Gov?!

    Parent
    Although, that's beside the point. (none / 0) (#42)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 07:40:09 PM EST
    There are, what 200 million Americans who have dividend and/or interest income every year. The 2 McCourts and the handful of Cayman Island bank people are not the point...

    Parent
    Nah... (none / 0) (#43)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 07:45:34 PM EST
    I think somebody could stash untaxed income in Cayman and then gamble it on Wall St., hence paying capital gains on any winnings on that "untaxed" gamble.  Like if I got on an off the books sidejob and invested some of my earnings in a $1 trifecta that paid $800.

    All theoretical of course, me only has taught me capital gains is more like a vig than a tax, if you pay 15% win or lose.

    Parent

    Again, probably 200 million Americans (none / 0) (#44)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 07:58:54 PM EST
    have dividend/interest income.

    I first started earning interest income when I got my first job and opened my first bank account when I was 13.

    The overwhelming majority of the people earning dividend/interest income are average Americans.

    Parent

    I don't know how... (none / 0) (#46)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 08:04:12 PM EST
    you average Americans do it my man.

    Parent
    Might want to ask the McCourts (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by MO Blue on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 03:23:50 PM EST
    The McCourts, who own the Los Angeles Dodgers (so she says; he says he's the owner and she's not), jointly pocketed income totaling $108 million from 2004 through 2009, according to documents Jamie McCourt recently filed in the couple's divorce case in Los Angeles County Superior Court.

    On that sum, they paid zero federal and state income tax. Jamie suggests that some tax breaks will apply this year too. link



    Parent
    Thanks MO... (none / 0) (#23)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 03:34:25 PM EST
    I was gonna whip out my Leona Helmsley "only the little people pay taxes" line, but the McCourts are a better more recent example.

    There's a reason the tax code is a telephone book and not a 5 page pamphlet:)

    Parent

    They sure did pay income tax on it, (none / 0) (#38)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 06:41:14 PM EST
    they overpaid/prepaid in previous years and applied it to that year, if my memory serves.

    Regardless, what the heck do the McCourts have to do with you and me and the other 200 million Americans who have made a few sheckles in dividend and interest?

    Don't bother answering that as the answer is: nothing.

    Parent

    so what? (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by cpinva on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 09:09:37 PM EST
    Interest and dividends come from investments you made with wages that you have already paid your taxes on.

    the former has no relation whatever with the latter. the source of the investment is totally irrelevant to the character of the income earned by that investment. your comment is, to be kind, a staggering display of ignorance.

    i inherit a million dollars, not taxable to me, because it is a gift. i invest that million dollars, and those investments earn both dividend and interest income. both are taxable to me. according to your "logic", they shouldn't be, because the original funds i invested weren't.

    don't quit your day job.

    Parent

    It may be "so what?" to you (none / 0) (#58)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 12:40:43 PM EST
    but it's not to most people nor to dem pols. That, combined with the aforementioned gvt incentive for us to invest in our economic system, and probably some other reasons as well that I'm too lazy to look up, is why the issue is a non-starter for pols regardless of political affiliation.

    What really makes me laugh, with embarrassment for you, specifically, is the predictably disingenuous insinuation presented by you and several others on this thread that dividend and interest is some rarefied source of unmitigated wealth reserved only for people who inherit a million dollars, the McCourts, and/or the handful of people with off-shore bank accounts to hide their ill-gotten gains.

    Do you even have a day job?

    Parent

    Most dems, anyway... (none / 0) (#8)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 02:25:48 PM EST