Sometimes you just get the feeling that the various people with whom you're arguing all got together a few days ago and agreed on a talking point. (Fans of the wonderful Costa-Gavras movie Z will know of what I speak: "lithe and fierce as a tiger...")
In almost every single debate I've had regarding the president's budget plan, when confronted with the fact that they have thus far refused to accept new tax revenues as part of a deal for deficit reduction, conservatives cry foul. To the contrary, they cry. They'd be happy with far more revenue than the $1.5 trillion called for in the president's budget. But it must come from "lowering the rates and broadening the base."
For example, I've heard many say they want to follow the recommendations of the Bowles-Simpson commission, which goes way -- and by "way" I mean half-a-trillion bucks -- beyond the president in terms of revenues.
Can this be for real? I'd really like to believe it is, but it's awfully hard to imagine. First, it breaks the Norquist pledge, or at least it does if it's revenue neutral. Grover's been a bit muddy on this point, but I'm pretty sure he won't let his minions raise taxes over here to pay for a cut over there.
And, of course, that's what we're talking about here. "Broadening the base" means some win and some lose. Those not benefiting from the credits and deductions that base-broadening gets rid of come out ahead. Everybody else pays more. And for the record, simply recouping the revenue you lose by lowering rates through the broader base isn't enough. Our fiscal reality is that these plans must be revenue positive, not just revenue neutral.
Fact is, as Bowles-Simpson revealed, there's real money here -- tax expenditures now amount to over $1 trillion per year. There's the mortgage interest deduction, the exclusion of employer health premium contributions, 401(k) contributions, accelerated depreciation for equipment purchases, capital gains tax breaks, and tons more.
Now, it's absolutely true that many of these should go, as I've stressed in these pages before. And if my conservative friends truly want to stand up to Grover, engage in some 1986-style brush-clearing in the tax code, and raise even more revenue than the president, then I will gladly fight alongside them.
So, here's a real time test. Treasury Secretary Geithner Tuesday announced that the administration was ready to propose corporate tax reform "... that will lower rates, broaden the base and eliminate or wipe out... dozens and dozens and dozens of special tax preferences for businesses."
If the people touting this meme of lower rates, broader base stand up and applaud the reform, I'll take them a lot more seriously than I have thus far. If they do not, I will remind them of their refusal to do so next time we speak.
This post originally appeared at Jared Bernstein's On The Economy blog.
Jared Bernstein: Corporate Tax Reform: Be Careful What You Wish For
nekati from
http://www.elsatercume.com
Doubting ratification of the 16th Amendment by three-fourths of the states, Bill Benson and M. J. "Red" Beckman traveled to 48 states (Alaska and Hawaii were not states in 1913). They got certified copies of all ratification documents from each of the legislatures, (17,000 documents) and, in a two-volume work, proved that not one state had legally ratified the 16th Amendment as written. See: www.thelawthatneverwas.com
That isn't all. "The Internal Revenue Service was never authorized by Congress." - Public Notice - Media Bypass, March, 1997 - An unconstitutional act is enforced by an unauthorized agency.
Withholding taxes, an emergency measure initiated only for World War II, are still collected.
Income taxes pay only Federal Reserve debt and IRS expenses. "Income taxes do not fund any government function." - Page 12, President's Private Sector Survey on Cost Control, January 15, 1984 - Library of Congress.
A far better reform would be to flatten and lower personal income tax rates to two tiers and eliminate all deductions and credits except for a personal and dependent deductions, then eliminate corporate taxes and credits altogether in favor of raising capital gains to personal income tax rates to avoid the double taxation problem. One simple system based on individual income.
VP Joe Biden financial adviser, you are right.
These tea loons/radicals/Republicans have no morals, no idea of what they are talking about, and should be run off from Congress.
They have no sense of what the country is going through, as they view everything from Norquist's playbook, and the rich's bubble.
They probably get their message of the day from Luntz's talking points and is picked up on FOX, and the lemmings ALL head for the camera to spit and spew. But I think they are scared of being replaced since their latest favorable s from polls show them at just 10%.
Good article today about the "Dimon Rule" :
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/forget-buffett--its-time-for-the-dimon-rule-on-taxes/2012/02/15/gIQAcfXXFR_story.html
And...what about that speech by Norquist, that we don't need a President, just one that can sign in the Republican's laws.? He want's a king and puppet like you know who. Since Rove is buying the Senate and Koch buying more loons, his plan is to rule from Congress. Nutso that he is !
Break that down a minute...tax breaks...BUT!....eliminate tax preferences.
WHAT excactly does this mean and provide examples!
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html#table1
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
But don't expect a liberal here to get it.
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!" "That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers", he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20". Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer
Mainstream economics has become so corrupted that all sense has left the political discourse when economics is the topic.
Above all else, there is NO deficit crisis, there is a JOBS crisis, yet no one cares. Deficits are a product of economic activity and cannot be controlled or budgeted for beyond broad estimates. There is no external or intrinsic pressure to have any concern over a deficit. This mania is purely ideological and without any basis in reality.
Both the chattering class and politicians equate federal budgets with household budgets and the thought is, that if I cut public expenditures during a period of flat and falling private sector spending, I will cut the deficit.
This is entirely untrue and is without empirical evidence to support the contention, whereas, there is overwhelming empirical evidence that the opposite is true.
During the next debate, pose the questions --- what would government revenues be with an economy that fully employed all those seeking work?
Do we know of any economy in recession that has full employment?
How did western governments from the end of WW11 to the late 1970's have such robust growth, full employment and no major downturns?
It's clear that all the spending over time has added to the need to shore it up with borrowing in one fashion or another. But just ignore it....that is what you are saying.
from the left>> really?
from washington>>> err what?
I want my money back. I want those that put these overt crooks in power to know what they've done...who they've injured.
I want neighbors like you.
All of these people, they are much brighter than I,
In any fair system, they would flourish and thrive,
But they barely survive,
They eke out a living,
They barely survive.
And many of us don't care to chase the elusive butterfly of endless economic gain.
Pay me well for what my talents achieve and leave me to enjoy life on my terms with my family and my community.