When George W. Bush first took office almost ten years ago, his presidency had not yet been defined by the fight against terrorism and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which followed after Sept. 11. Bush, at least at first, did not intend to put foreign policy at the center of his administration. Instead, he had an agenda that was, to a great extent , dominated by domestic policy. Bush's economic agenda was framed in many different ways, but was not much more complicated than a desire to make his rich friends richer.
The primary way Bush achieved this goal was through tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. The former cut, which came in June of 2001, was one of the new president's first major accomplishments. The Bush tax cuts were the apex of the one-sided class warfare that has been at the heart of the Republican Party program for the last three decades. Cutting taxes for the richest Americans was another transparent and somewhat shameless attempt to shift the responsibility for paying for the activities of the federal government onto those for whom paying taxes represented a more concrete, rather than symbolic, burden.
These tax cuts are about to expire, meaning, among other things, marginal tax rates would go back up to 39% for the Americans in the highest income brackets. This would be slightly lower than tax rates for the wealthiest were at the end of Ronald Reagan's first term in office and still considerably lower than those paid by the highest earners in many other economically developed democratic countries.
The opposition to allowing these tax cuts to expire is already strong and, not surprisingly, many are asserting that the tax increases, which will occur when the Bush cuts expire, are another brick in President Obama's socialist wall. The notion that increasing the tax rate on the richest Americans by four or five percent means that the socialist floodgates have been opened is clearly nonsensical, as the rates would return to what was normal, or even less than normal, for most of the last half century. Moreover, Americans, particularly the wealthiest Americans, have almost always been taxed less than people at similar income level in other western countries.
Apologists for the Bush tax cuts would argue that this is because Americans rely on government less, and have smaller government than many countries in Europe. Although this is an appealing argument, it is not grounded in any empirical reality. This has been made evident by the debts accumulated during the Bush years when spending and the debt increased. Bush did not bring smaller government. He expanded the government, but refused to pay for it.
The fight over the expiration of these tax cuts, which is beginning to take shape, is something of a window into the state of American politics and the country more broadly. This is an issue that will have an economic impact and will once again be something of an indicator of the competence of the Obama administration. It will also, however, demonstrate whether our country is at all serious about righting the economy and the budget, or whether partisan fighting and a fanatical opposition to paying taxes -- which is increasingly grounded in a reading of world politics and history that can best be described as fantasy -- will carry the day.
If the tax cuts are allowed to expire, it will bring a slight increase in revenue, but far from enough to make a dent in the massive deficits that exist today and began during the Bush years. However, raising the tax rate on the richest Americans to what they were a few decades ago will make it possible to begin to get the deficit under control because it will demonstrate that we are all in this together. Economically bankrupt ideas about supply-side economics notwithstanding, keeping tax cuts for the richest Americans in place will send a clear message that nobody in government is serious about cutting deficits.
Supporters of the Bush tax cuts may make up whatever stories they want about how these tax cuts are good for the economy, but the reality is different. These tax cuts are only good for the richest Americans. Other than the extremists who are overwhelmed by their hatred and fear of Obama and the potential for change he represents, everybody else understands this. If the message from Washington is that the richest Americans, who are among the small proportion of Americans not suffering in this recession, do not need to make any concessions or sacrifices for the good of the country, it will be very difficult to persuade anybody else that they need to make sacrifices. If the Obama administration lets this happen, they will be demonstrating that they are not up to the tasks of either standing up to Republican bullying or serious governance.
Follow Lincoln Mitchell on Twitter: www.twitter.com/LincolnMitchell
Do you not think the wealthiest laugh at the stupidity that people would vote to cut their taxes?
relevant to this topic, appeared here
in HuffPo, earlier this week. Did anyone
against the demise of Bush's tax cuts
read it? It enumerated the hundreds of
thousands of Millionaires living in the
major US cities. Do these same people
grasp the loss of Federal income perpetuated
by these favorable reductions to the tax rolls?
They grouse about the loss to them and don't
give a hoot about the loss to the country. They frame
it as a tax increase when, in reality, it's a return
to a level in earlier years when the economy was soaring,
a time when we were not involved in two unpaid wars.
2009 total income - $351,000
Adjusted gross income - $325,000
From this subtract:
Federal Tax - $90,684 (about $7,000 of this is AMT since I am "rich")
State and local taxes - $15,298
Real estate taxes - $12,870
This leaves $232,000 after taxes. From that deduct:
Mortgage - $54,000
Kids college savings - $5,000
Retirement - $20,000
Charity - $3,000
Health Insurance - $7,200
Summer childcare - $3,000
This leaves about $140,000. From that pay groceries, utilities, car payments, and other month-to-month expenses. Yes, one can lead quite a nice lifestyle from this income. But it is far from the worry-free zone of athlete and celebrity income. Judge for yourself whether me and people who are similarly situated are paying their "fair share." Ask the same question of yourself.
We need to tax income at over 2-3M at 75%.
Please, how anyone can think that taking more money out of an economy anemic for cash could in any way be a positive thing is truly out of their mind.
Just stop and think for a second people, money needs to come over to our side of the line right now not the other way. At this point every single penny that is on our side of the line as opposed to the governments is a positive. If any more cash is destroyed we are looking at going over the cliff.
We need a real tax of 75% on anything earned over 2.5M range.
But then you know that Ben. But right wing fanatics continue to spread their right wing propoganda BS.
http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125997180
Where are all the jobs? Oh, that's right, they went overseas because the profit margin was higher.
Tax cuts won't bring back jobs, they will keep the donor class happy and willing to fatten the PAC accounts.
You want a job? Agree to work for less than the Chinese and the factories will return.
“The operation was a success, but the patient died.”
Conservatives and corporations are having their successes, but the real economy is still on the critical list.
More tax cuts for the rich, and more tax incentives for corporate manufacturing companies to ship jobs overseas.
Then all the private equity firms (like the one Mitt Romney used to run) can buy up MORE American businesses, saddle them with debt, dismantle them, and sell the manufacturing rights to various products to Asian companies.
Then, as stated in the the sound economic theory deemed "Supply Side" (Trickle Down, or as I call it; P!$$ on the working class), all of the capital and "disposable income" will be willingly injected back into the economy, creating jobs and ushering in an era of abundance, just like the 80's and the 20's!
There's no way the richest of the rich (especially trans-national corporations with no allegiance to the United States) will hoard their money, or try to hide it in offshore tax shelters. It's also unlikely that they will use their their immense influence over the political system to bring about a series of deregulatory legislation that will completely dissolve any oversight whilst they gamble with trillions of dollars on the stock market!
It's fool proof!
Why can't people understand that?
50 Wealthiest Members of Congress:
Of the Top 50, 28 are Democrats, 22 Republicans, and 11 are freshmen. Kerry returns as the wealthiest Member of Congress.
Here are the Top 10 in 2008 minimum net worth:
1. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., $167M
2. Rep. Darrel Issa, R-Calif., $164M
3. Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., $112M
4. Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., $85M
5. Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., $72M
6. Rep. Jared Polis, D-Colo., $71M
7. Rep. Vern Buchanan, R-Fla., $49M
8. Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., $48M
9. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., $42M
10. Rep. Harry Teague, D-N.M., $40M
http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2009/09/14/50-richest-members-of-congress/