SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home What Are Democrats Thinking On Taxes? Seriously, What?

JONATHAN CHAIT NOVEMBER 12, 2010

What Are Democrats Thinking On Taxes? Seriously, What?

BY JONATHAN CHAIT

In the face of yet another spate of signs that Democrats plan to capitulate on taxes, the full insanity of this moment cannot be processed without recalling how we got to this point. In 2001, Republicans decided to pass big top-rate marginal tax cuts. These had little public support, so in order to make them palatable, they included them in a package of middle-class tax cuts and sold the whole thing largely as a Keynesian response to the mild 2001 recession.

When Barack Obama ran for president, he had to decide how to handle the issue. The best policy, Democratic wonks understood, was to cancel out all the tax cuts. Clinton-level tax rates are really what you need to to realistically fund the government, under either party's spending plans. But that would have given Republicans a strong political issue -- Democrats want to raise your taxes! So instead they decided to phase out just the part of the Bush tax cuts on income over $250,000. It's a politically-minded compromise. It stinks, but I would have done the same thing.

Now, the tax cuts are expiring, and Republicans say you have to address the whole package together. You can make it permanent or temporary, but the line in the sand for them is that you can't decouple the tax cut for income over $250,000 from the rest.

The Democrats think this is some kind of dilemma. It's not. It's a get out of jail free card. It's the perfect excuse to let the whole Bush tax cut package expire. You can say, hey, we tried to extend those tax cuts but the Republicans blocked us. It has the virtue of being completely true.

Now, Republicans say they'll block the whole tax package if Democrats hold a vote just for tax cuts on income under $250,000. Do you think they really can really hold that line? To quote a noted statesman, hell no they can't:

U.S. House Republican Leader John Boehner said he would vote for middle-class tax cuts sought by the Democratic Obama administration even if it means eliminating reductions for wealthier Americans.

Boehner would support extending tax cuts for those making less than $250,000 a year “if that’s what we can get done, but I think that’s bad policy,” he said yesterday on CBS’s “Face the Nation” program. “If the only option I have is to vote for some of those tax reductions, I’ll vote for it.”

That quote is from September, but the logic still holds. Boehner was admitting the truth: having to vote against popular middle-class tax cuts because they don't also include unpopular upper-class tax hikes is a horrible position for Republicans. They're deathly afraid of it. That's why they insist on voting on everything together:

GOP sources in particular say keeping tax cuts for the middle class and the wealthier Americans linked may be in their best interest.

They say an idea that had been floating - to "decouple" - is untenable. Under that scenario, middle class tax cuts would be made permanent and tax cuts for wealthy Americans would be extended temporarily.

These GOP sources say that would put them at a political disadvantage in that it would make the discussion all about tax cuts for the wealthy. The sources also say tax cuts for the wealthy would be harder to extend in the future without being linked to middle class tax cuts.

In 2001, Republicans managed to pull this off because they controlled the White House and both houses of Congress. They could frame the whole agenda. They can't do that now. They might block a middle-class tax cut, and then taxes would go up, and people would get upset. Then  President Obama would start making speeches demanding an up-or-down vote on middle-class tax cuts, and flaying Republicans for blocking it because they think that if Donald Trump can't get a tax cut, then nobody can get a tax cut. One of the huge benefits of having the bully pulpit is that you can prevent the opposition from hiding its unpopular positions.

How long would Republicans hold out? I don't know, but the best case scenario would be forever. You can't devise a better issue to fight for Democrats. They're the champions of middle-class tax cuts against a party that cares only about the rich. You want a cure for the perception that Democrats are just for big government? The Republicans are handing that cure to them on a platter. And they won't take it.

Think about it from the Republican point of view. The political aspect of this issue is a zero-sum competition. What do Republicans want? They want Democrats to extend all the tax cuts together. What they don't want is to have to fight for the tax cuts for income over $250,000 separately. They're terrified of it.

I understand that some Democrats are extremely responsive to the richest 2-3% of their constituents, who make more than $250,000 and feel put upon. So fine -- have a separate vote. Nobody's saying you can't vote for tax cuts for your rich friends. The whole thing is that you have to separate the two.

A while ago, I was corresponding with a conservative -- a real conservative, not a liberals' idea of a conservative -- about why the Democrats won't do the obvious thing. He was at a total loss. He attributed it to exhaustion and demoralization keeping them from thinking straight. That's the best explanation I can think of.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 42 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

42 comments

The Democrats won't face off on tax rates for the same reason Chait has responded positively to the deficit commission's recommendations, which would lower the tax rate on the richest Americans to 23% from 39.5%. And why is that, Chait?

- rayward

November 12, 2010 at 5:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Once again, the Republicans have convinced working-class whites to vote against their own economic interests. They have been successful at this for decades. Why should they stop now? I saw a survey where 70% of those who voted for Republicans this past election thought that the estate tax would affect them. Where have these people been? Most adults have dealt with deaths of their parents and 98% of the estates are not subject to the 'death' tax. Do they think that this is a new phenonenom and will affect them now?

- jeffclark4

November 12, 2010 at 5:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This frustrates the hell out of me, too, jeff. And Jonathan, correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall you writing very recently that you thought that all too many congressional Democrats identify with the very top income earners, and that seemed to be your explanation for this phenomenon.

- liberal reformer

November 12, 2010 at 5:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ray, if you could read, then you would know that Jonathan Chait provisionally supports the deficit commission's proposals on taxes because they close loopholes and end the preferential treatment of capital gains. What good are nominal higher marginal tax rates if there are numerous exceptions?

- liberal reformer

November 12, 2010 at 5:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ronald Reagan: lower the rates and broaden the base. And how did that work out? Those ignorant of history are likely to repeat it. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, . . . .

- rayward

November 12, 2010 at 5:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm with Rayward on the need for higher rates, although I think there is a 35% top rate under the Wyden-Gregg Style Reform (there are three proposals to pick from in the draft.) Other countries have 45% top rates, like China and Germany and their economies are functioning fine. A synergy between government and the economy exists that requires government's involvement in education and in stabilization of the economy to keep us on course. Proposing things like private accounts to replace Social Security or refundable health care tax credits to create low tax rates, and then praying over good luck charms that these things work seems reckless.

- Nusholtz

November 12, 2010 at 5:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm with Rayward on the need for higher rates, although I think there is a 35% top rate under the Wyden-Gregg Style Reform (there are three proposals to pick from in the draft.) Other countries have 45% top rates, like China and Germany and their economies are functioning fine. A synergy between government and the economy exists that requires government's involvement in education and in stabilization of the economy to keep us on course. Proposing things like private accounts to replace Social Security or refundable health care tax credits to create low tax rates, and then praying over good luck charms that these things work seems reckless.

- Nusholtz

November 12, 2010 at 5:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

They not only need to separate them, they need to claim them. It amazes me that they choose to frame it as "extending the Bush tax cuts". Let all the tax cuts expire and be replaced by the Obama tax cuts. Give even MORE tax cuts to those making less than $100,000 a year. Raise the personal exemption while that at it (and leave the phase out as is). Pay for it by closing loopholes for the wealthiest Americans. After that, introduce the tax cut for those making over $250,000 and vote on that separately. It amazes me that Rick Santelli can get so many people angry at people who can't pay their mortgages, but there is no one getting upset with people making more than $250,000 a year who can't balance their finances without the tax cut.

- Attrill

November 12, 2010 at 5:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Excellent summary but "exhaustion" and "demoralization"? After two years in power following two consecutive Republican Admins? Hardly plausible.

- IggyPop

November 12, 2010 at 5:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Umm, wouldn't the Obama tax cuts on income under $250k be shared by the wealthy? The problem is most of the Dems are spineless wonks who don't dole out money under the table. All the good political strategists and smart PACs are in the Republican's corner because they want their cut of the cheese when the Klepto-blicans retake the government in 2012.

- GSpinks

November 12, 2010 at 6:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The immediate gratification of winning this next round has an appeal. When the Dems feel like they've been losing the last few, picking low hanging fruit seems obvious. But really, as astute an observer of politics and politicians as Chait is, he can't come up with any (at all?) reason why Obama seemingly takes a dive on something easily winnable? Howabout Galston's take (listed elsewhere on the site) on current politics plays to Obama's strengths in the next two years. Winning the battle for the political center may not have paid dividends in the midterms during the worst recession in recent memory. But it will in the next 2-10 years. Owning the political center = political power in the U.S. Power = things gets done. Obama strategy: 1) He bets when he thinks he's going to win. 2) He prefers long term gains to short. 3) He will sacrifice 1 for 2.

- rufus2fus

November 12, 2010 at 6:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Complete agreement with Chaitt's analysis. As per Brer Rabbit, "Please don't throw me in the briar patch!" If the Dems don't figure this out they are guilty of political malpractice.

- Robert Powell

November 12, 2010 at 6:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Some thoughts from a Republican subscriber: First, with regard to the "wealthy". 1) It has amazed me, as a political matter, that the Ds have confined themselves to the Bush tax rates in making their political arguments. In the old days, there were numerous rates applicable to the prosperous. Why should Bill Gates and Warren Buffett (both of whom support higher taxes on themselves) be put in the same tax bracket as the family orthopedist? 2) Please note that the health reform law imposes taxes that would raise the upper rates beyond the Clinton rates. 3) Isn't it possible that lower income workers are nervous about raising the real tax rates on "small business" owners because they fear those owners will restrict hiring, or, Heaven Forfend, fold their tents and create more layoffs? They may be wrong, but has the fear been credited adequately by liberals? Move your attention from Gates and Buffett to the local car dealer, etc., and ask the question. 4) The '85 bipartisan reform has been "tinkered" to a substantial extent, by both parties. Shouldn't any "bargain" on tax rates be temporary, coupled with a commitment to renewed "reform", based on today's fiscal realities, as distinguished from "85, '92, '01, or '03? By all means, ask something from the Rs, but also ask something of yourselves. Folks, we need to try a little harder to try to understand each other.

- lsernoff

November 12, 2010 at 7:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What is this but an abject rolling over and dying for nothing in return? I really don't see this. Do they think Obama will get credit at FOX news for doing this? Will Glenn Beck stop seeing him as socialist? What is it?

- MikeB.

November 12, 2010 at 7:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Let me try to respond to Isernoff. 1) "Why should Bill Gates and Warren Buffett ... pay the same [marginal] tax rate as the family orthopedist?" One word answer: revenue. You raise next to no revenue from a 75% tax on income above $10 million simply because so few people earn that much. The broader the tax base -- the greater the revenue you raise. 2) "The health care reform law raise rates that go beyond the Clinton upper income rates." Please explain. 3) Conservatives have been pulling that small business canard for years and years. They can say it all they want, but it doesn't make it true. Of course, if you tell a lie enough times, then it becomes a truth. ...

- jimbomoron

November 12, 2010 at 8:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm not going to say these sorts of Wake The Hell Up, Democrats! columns are a bad idea, but they are becoming a chore to read. Let's remember that the last time the party had a clear path to a win, with the ACA half-passed and the president ready to sign it, they dawdled and they mumbled and they whined, but they did eventually pass it. I expect we'll see the same thing happen here, once the lame duck session begins. Both caucuses are still in wind-down mode from the election, so expecting anything other than vacillation and temporizing from the leadership at this point is premature. That said, I guess it doesn't hurt to be generating as much press on the issue during the break as possible, since there's every chance that the barrage of columns urging the Democrats to just pass the frigging Senate bill eventually helped bring the more spineless elements of the party back from their Scott Brown-inspired meltdown. But that doesn't mean I'm going to read them all. ;)

- austinexpat

November 12, 2010 at 8:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Isernoff. number 3). I don't see how top rate income taxes effect employment, since the cost of payroll is completely deductible and actually, when paid, lowers taxes. Payroll taxes might cause less employment, but not income taxes. A businessman will focus only on whether hiring someone will net more income. If tax rates go up, a business man would have less income after taxes if he chooses not to hire someone who would make him more profitable. Of more consequence to the business man would be knowing that demand for his service or product would exist and that's where I think Democratic policies come into play.

- Nusholtz

November 12, 2010 at 8:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

affect

- Nusholtz

November 12, 2010 at 8:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Why won't Democrats do "the obvious thing"? Maybe a substantial portion of them are afraid of the charge that they "raised taxes," right in accordance with the stereotype Republicans want to pin on them. As with the estate tax, much of the public will think it applies to them or just dislike the idea of tax increases on anyone. Yes, it's a wimpy approach, and it's one that would make it impossible to enact any tax increase, no matter how necessary or reasonable. But it's not an inconceivable position for some Democrats to hold. Would it help Democrats if Pelosi brings up a middle-class extension only and it loses?

- dsimon

November 12, 2010 at 9:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What is everyone shocked about? This is exactly the kind of behavior we've seen for years: capitulation before we've even had a vote. That's why the base is constantly demoralized. Democrats are wimps, have been, always will be.

- vips73

November 12, 2010 at 9:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't believe this crap about people permanently thinking that particular taxes apply to them that don't. They may believe it (they certainly think taxes have gone up over the last 20 months when in fact they got a cut). But if the GOP can get people to believe a non-fact, then we can get people to shake off the delusion. It's a matter of how. Focus, and repetition.

- ironyroad

November 12, 2010 at 10:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Off-topic a moment, today I had a horrible thought-premonition: Sarah Palin, Republican candidate for POTUS 2012...and wins! About her being the GOP nominee, I would bet even money. Against Obama/Biden, she could very well win. "President Palin"—think about it. White conservative woman against black liberal man, Obama, intellectual, formal-mannered, and serious-minded; against Palin, plain folks, informal-mannered, and serious meaning. I fervently hope Obama and Democrats can focus maximally on jobs creation, deficit reduction—center right pivot, cleanly lop off the dourly intense left wing in the party. Drive unemployment down as low as possible as fast as possible, and pass a stimulus combination of tax cuts and regulatory relief for small businesses. Back to the tax cuts...

- Tgossard

November 12, 2010 at 11:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jimbomoron: Three points: First, re revenue, if you set the 39% rate at, say, $500,000 or $1,000,000 you will likely indeed lose some revenue. Is there a penny of expenditure, somewhere, anywhere, that you would consider throwing in to make up the difference? Second, the health care reform act imposes taxes that would raise the top rate expenditure above the Clinton top rate. Look it up. Third, if, for the sake of discussion, you think a "lie" has been told, how come so many voters believed it? I know. They're voting against their class interests. Nuzholtz: Unless you are living in paradise, take a ride around your area and look at how many storefronts that were open three years ago but are dark today. Do you think that raising taxes will help get the lights turned back in those businesses? Speaking just for myself, a retiree living on a diminished fixed-income, I'd be delighted to pay a little more tax in return for a comparable cut in expenditures. In my view, both can wait until we see a little more light at the end of the tunnel. My concern is that those who can't bear to pay tax and those who can't bear to cut expenditures will keep working in tandem to keep the tunnel as dark as possible for as long as possible.

- lsernoff

November 12, 2010 at 11:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

BTW Jonathan, Kentucky is wasting no time catching up with Ohio: http://www.aolnews.com/weird-news/article/kentucky-man-harvey-westmoreland-forced-to-eat-his-own-beard/19714198

- ironyroad

November 13, 2010 at 1:13am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Someone who went to Harvard Law School tell me this: Do they teach you there that the way to open a negotiation is to tell the other side what you are ready to give up, in the belief that it will think you're a nice guy and give some things up too?

- Stuart Wilder

November 13, 2010 at 6:45am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

isernoff: Raising top rate taxes won't turn lights back on. The point was that it won't turn them off. The credit markets and consumer demand will turn them back on. The Republican plan, which we have tried without success under Reagan and Bush II (and less so under Bush I and not under Clinton) is that tax cuts for the wealthy will trickle down. If they do at all, it is only a tiny trickle. I am all in favor of balanced budgets, which surprises me that that anyone who seeks balanced budgets would ever vote for Republicans whose mantra is, in the words of Dick Cheney: "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter."

- Nusholtz

November 13, 2010 at 9:20am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Others have said it in different ways, but I think that the West Wing said it best: what Democrats are thinking is "please, please, don't hurt me."

- janus

November 13, 2010 at 9:41am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

- So, "What Are Democrats Thinking On Taxes? Seriously, What?" Do you think it might be the 300+ bills which didn't make it through the Senate and Republicans didn't pay any price in November...they gained. Yes, I found an old GOP map for 2009 - 2010 and it might still be good for them. What if: 1.) House Democrats save middle-class tax cuts, and concede (pick your formula) to extend or not (pick your time frame) for (pick you $ value) higher income earners. [Dollars at stake here? About $800 Billion out of a total of $ 4 Trillion. So Democrats aren't saving much in this gamble and if it fails the four trillion hit might slam the recovery, n'est pas?) OK, Nice job Nancy. Bush tax cuts for the rich loses and the middle-class wins --- And off it goes to the cooling saucer, I know because we've seen this for two year. 2. Your turn Harry: Does the Senate have 60 votes that will allow a Democratic Tax Hike to pass? (There was a problem before November and that was before Republicans knew they'd return in '12 with a stronger hand in the House...But that was two months ago, right?) "Don't worry", Republicans say, "Well return in the new session and cut taxes for everyone. But we can't let the Democrats pass their Tax Hike in a recession." Would they really wait? Only to return to take credit for Cutting Taxes, a job the Democrats refuse? You betcha! Tick, tick, tick 3. If Republicans don't get everything now, if the Senate stalls and won't accept the House Democratic Tax Hike & everyone's taxes go up on 1-1-12? Who gets the blame? [HINT: When taxes go up, who gets the blame?] No matter, the New Crew will fix everything, as soon as they get a chance! Republicans save the day and in the new session pass & renew the Bush Tax Cuts for everyone? Who gets the credit?

- michaelg

November 13, 2010 at 10:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Isernoff, Surely what you mean is that the effective federal taxation of those in the upper brackets goes up under the ACA, not the actual federal income tax rate, yes? Secondly, does not the rise in what those in upper brackets would pay to the federal government go up slowly, as the ACA is phased in, rather than immediately if the Bush cuts expire? It's not quite apples and oranges, but the distinctions seem important.

- timteeter

November 13, 2010 at 11:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Nuzholtz: I think we are a little closer than we may seem to be. Let me take this whack at it. In "normal" times a return to the Clinton tax rates would not affect the lights for even the merely prosperous, much less the truly rich. However, many economists who aren't right wing fanatics think that raising any taxes is a poor idea while the economy remains in the doldrums. If you accept this thought, you find room for a temporary freeze on all current tax rates. Yes, it kicks the can down the road. But it strikes me as something "reasonable people" could agree on without fatally compromising their principles. timteeter: You may be right and I may be and I may be wrong. If the tax increases flowing from the health care reform act don't kick in until a few years down the pike, then all we are talking about presently is a raise of 4+ percent on incomes over $250,000.

- lsernoff

November 13, 2010 at 3:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Isernoff. An argument can be made that raising the top rates will actually motivate the wealthy to engage in more economic activity (on the theory that they earn so much, they work less than they would if they paid higher taxes ) as much as a tax cut for the lower levels of income will motivate those individuals to work more. But that is not the point. The benefit to the current economy of lower top tax rates is deminimus vs. significant benefit from the same money spent by the government to stimulate consumer demand. That is how I would manage the economy as a resource to try to get it back on track sooner than if we did nothing. Without stimulus I would pay down the debt.

- Nusholtz

November 13, 2010 at 8:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ironyroad: "I don't believe this crap about people permanently thinking that particular taxes apply to them that don't." I don't think it's only about people wrongly believing that a tax hike applies to them--though some people may fall into that category. I think it may also be about a more general branding of Democrats as tax-hikers. It may also be about "well, if they raised someone else's taxes, mine may be next." And I think the fact is that the long-term fiscal problem can't be solved just with spending cuts (at least cuts that the public will tolerate) and that raising taxes on the wealth won't be enough either. From what I've read, middle-class taxes will have to go up eventually. It's just that neither party wants to admit it due to the political consequences. Not exactly a profile in leadership from either side of the aisle, but that's the politics we have today.

- dsimon

November 14, 2010 at 12:28am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I agree it's the politics we have. What I have a problem with is that the Republicans appear able to play the keyboard of that politics and we can't. Why not?

- ironyroad

November 14, 2010 at 1:19am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

isernoff writes: "Speaking just for myself, a retiree living on a diminished fixed-income, I'd be delighted to pay a little more tax in return for a comparable cut in expenditures. In my view, both can wait until we see a little more light at the end of the tunnel. My concern is that those who can't bear to pay tax and those who can't bear to cut expenditures will keep working in tandem to keep the tunnel as dark as possible for as long as possible." I take the same position, and same persuasion. I'd pay more IF the the increase was backed by cuts. Find 5% cuts? Great, I'd pay and extra 5%. DSimon writes: " From what I've read, middle-class taxes will have to go up eventually" Yes, absent massive spending cuts, the bottom rate would have to move to 24.3% and the top rate to 85% to simply balance even this year's budget.

- seattleeng

November 14, 2010 at 2:40am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You continue to invent numbers to suit, seattle. Appalling, really. Can't you manage to muster any argument on the basis of reality?

- roidubouloi

November 14, 2010 at 4:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

- rufus2fus wrote:

"Obama strategy: 1) He bets when he thinks he's going to win. 2) He prefers long term gains to short. 3) He will sacrifice 1 for 2.".
That may not be all one needs to know about the guy but it is a good start and will keep opponents and supporters focused on the obvious.

- michaelg

November 14, 2010 at 8:41am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Seattleeng: I don't think that cutting expenditures should be an incentive to pay more taxes. I suggest that the economy is a resource like water is a resource and we need to manage it properly, if you believe, as I do, that government should play that role (expenditures to promote technology and education, stability, minimizing unemployment, etc.). I recommend prioritizing tax collection and prioritizing expenditures to balance the budget (except in emergencies). Tax in a way that does the least economic damage and spend in a way that promotes the most stability and growth. If you accept these premises, then the trade off for higher top tax rates is more growth and stability.

- Nusholtz

November 14, 2010 at 9:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Seriously, could you guys stop using "seriously" and "really" as an interjection? It is starting to get annoying. I counted three "seriouslys" and two "reallys" on your website this week and last. I know you are waiting for the Fox All Stars to stop saying "Look...," but, really, is it necessary to tell the reading audience that you mean what you say?

- JohnEMack

November 14, 2010 at 5:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

- Who let the DOGS (Depatment of Grammir & Syntacks) out and when did they begin counting "seriouslys" and "reallys"? Everyone knows that the only think worse than careless proofreading on The Internet is the compulsion to nit-pick.

- michaelg

November 15, 2010 at 9:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

@Nusholtz Small business owner in the top 1% bracket here. You completely ignore the role *incentive* plays in the actions of the prosperous entrepreneur - the folks you need to start (re)hiring. Raising my taxes doesn't make me say, "Gee, I'll just work more to make up for it." I say, "Hmmm. How can I cut payroll even further and/or raise prices to pass as much of this along as I can?" or "Meh. After taxes, expanding my business isn't worth the time and hassle factor. I'm comfortable enough." It's human nature, pure and simple. "Tax in a way that does the least economic damage" would be giving employers like me a reason to hire and expand. Or, if you prefer, *not* giving me a reason not to. No way am I going to open another location if, at the end of the day, I'll get to keep less than half. Add the Obamacare tax and ever-popular eliminating the wage cap, and the government keeps 60-65%. Talk about a disincentive.

- vox_mater

November 15, 2010 at 9:39am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ironyroad: "I agree it's the politics we have. What I have a problem with is that the Republicans appear able to play the keyboard of that politics and we can't. Why not?" I don't think Republican can either, at least not for the long term, at least if they don't show more leadership than they do now. Short-term Republican messaging is far better than the Democrats, but they can't deliver on promises of lower taxes (or even keeping taxes where they are) and dealing with the long-term deficit. When asked what they'll cut, they refuse any specifics that would really matter because cuts that would really matter would be unpopular. The public likes the concept of lower taxes and fiscal responsibility, but there is no painless process to make it happen. So when the promises turn out to be false ones, the public tide may turn again. The question is whether either side can sell a program where the numbers add up, or whether there will always be a majority for the mirage of the free lunch which is just not sustainable. seattleeng: "absent massive spending cuts, the bottom rate would have to move to 24.3% and the top rate to 85% to simply balance even this year's budget." Ah, who is talking about balancing this year's budget? I was explicitly discussing the long-term fiscal issue. My point was that neither spending cuts nor tax increases alone will solve the long-term budget problem, and that middle-class rates will almost certainly have to go back up. Yet no party seems to be willing to admit it, and the public seems unwilling to vote for anyone who does so (apparently forgetting that the rates during most of the 1990s where hardly onerous). And I haven't heard a proposal that gets us out of this conundrum.

- dsimon

November 15, 2010 at 10:11am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

- Republicans will get more revenue but only after, 1.) They extract as many spending cuts as they can on the Democrats side of the don't touch list and 2.) They re-brand and re-target the incoming funds so they sound like anything but taxes. The only thing worse than having to compromise on a silly ratio-percentage is procrastinating until the bond market comes down on them. When (not if) that happens, all the grandstanding for their base will be for naught.

- michaelg

November 15, 2010 at 12:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close