GOP fiscal cliff plan echoes failed budget talks

WASHINGTON (AP) - Republicans are proposing a "fiscal cliff" plan that revives ideas from failed budget talks with President Barack Obama last year, calling for raising the eligibility age for Medicare, lowering cost-of-living hikes for Social Security benefits and bringing in $800 billion in higher tax revenue.
The counter to a White House plan last week relies more on politically sensitive spending cuts and would raise half the $1.6 trillion in revenue proposed by Obama over the coming decade.
The 10-year, $2.2 trillion proposal from House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, resembles a framework similar to what Boehner supported last year, but Obama is pressing for additional tax increases and appears to be balking at spending cuts discussed in those talks and since.
Administration officials from Obama on down say it'll take money from raising tax rates on the rich - instead of GOP proposals to simply curb their deductions - to win Obama's approval of any plan to avoid the "fiscal cliff."
It has been nearly a week since Obama and Boehner talked directly about the looming cliff, though their staffs have been in contact. Boehner attended a congressional holiday party at the White House Monday night, but avoided the photo line where members get their picture taken with the president and have a few minutes to talk.
Obama met with a bipartisan group of governors, who sought assurances that any cuts in spending as part of an agreement on the fiscal cliff wouldn't shift the burden onto states. The governors said they wanted flexibility from the federal government on certain mandated programs like Medicaid to allow them to do more with less.
"We asked for flexibility on how the federal money is passed down to the states and the cuts that are passed down, that we could have some flexibility to do what's in the best interest of our states," said Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin, a Republican.
The governors said they were not endorsing any particular proposal but said they wanted to share their ideas on ways that states could play a role in helping reduce the deficit. The governors were meeting later in the day with congressional leaders and said they planned to work with Vice President Joe Biden in the coming weeks.
The governors said that states need certainty as they craft their budget proposals but Obama expressed to them an interest in reaching an agreement with congressional Republicans.
The Republican proposal Monday, while intended to break a stalemate in place since the administration last week angered Republicans with a $1.6 trillion plan that largely exempted Medicare and Social Security from budget cuts, sparked a predictable round of partisanship.
"To protect the middle class while reducing the deficit, simple math dictates that tax rates must rise on the top 2 percent of taxpayers next year," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said in a statement. "The sooner Republicans grasp that reality, the sooner we can avoid the fiscal cliff."
The fiscal cliff is a combination of expiring Bush-era tax cuts and automatic, across-the-board spending cuts due to take effect in January. The cliff is a result of prior failures of Congress and Obama to make a budget deal.
The GOP proposal itself revives a host of ideas from failed talks with Obama in the summer of 2011. Then, Obama was willing to discuss politically risky ideas such as raising the eligibility age for Medicare, implementing a new inflation adjustment for Social Security cost-of-living adjustments and requiring wealthier Medicare recipients to pay more for their benefits.
Boehner called that a "credible plan" and said he hoped the administration would "respond in a timely and responsible way." The offer came after the administration urged Republicans to detail proposals to cut popular benefit programs like Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid.
But Obama and his Democratic allies are less willing to look to these benefit programs for cuts after his re-election last month and believe Obama possesses far more leverage now than he did in secret budget talks with Boehner last year.
Monday's Republican plan contains few specifics and anticipates that myriad details would have to be filled in next year in legislation overhauling the tax code and curbing the growth of benefit programs.
Though the GOP plan proposes to raise $800 billion in higher tax revenue over the same 10 years, it would keep the Bush-era tax cuts - including those for wealthier earners targeted by Obama - in place for now.
GOP aides said their plan was based on one presented by Erskine Bowles, co-chairman of a deficit commission Obama appointed earlier in his term, in testimony to a special deficit "supercommittee" last year.
"The new revenue in the Bowles plan would not be achieved through higher tax rates, which we continue to oppose and will not agree to in order to protect small businesses and our economy," Boehner and fellow Republicans said in a letter to Obama. "Instead, new revenue would be generated through pro-growth tax reform that closes special-interest loopholes and deductions while lowering rates."
By GOP math, the plan would produce more than $2 trillion in budget savings over the coming decade: $800 billion in higher taxes; $600 billion in savings from costly health care programs like Medicare; $300 billion from other proposals such as forcing federal workers to contribute more toward their pensions; and $300 billion in additional savings from the Pentagon budget and domestic programs funded by Congress each year.
Boehner signaled in discussions with Obama in 2011 that he was willing to accept up to $800 billion in higher tax revenues, but his aides maintained that much of that money would have come from so-called dynamic scoring - a conservative approach in which economic growth would have accounted for much of the revenue. Now, Boehner is willing to accept the estimates of official scorekeepers like the Congressional Budget Office, whose models reject dynamic scoring.
Using the administration's math, GOP aides said, the plan represents $4.6 trillion in 10-year savings. That estimate accounts for earlier cuts enacted during last year's showdown over lifting the government's borrowing cap and also factors in war savings and lower interest payments on the $16.4 trillion national debt.
Last week, the White House delivered to Capitol Hill its opening proposal: $1.6 trillion in higher taxes over a decade, a possible extension of the temporary Social Security payroll tax cut and heightened presidential power to raise the national debt limit without the approval of Congress.
In exchange, the president would back $600 billion in spending cuts, including $350 billion from Medicare and other health programs. But he also wants $200 billion in new spending for jobless benefits, public works projects and aid for struggling homeowners. His proposal for raising the ceiling on government borrowing would make it virtually impossible for Congress to block him going forward.
One of the few things the White House and Capitol Hill Republicans can agree on is a framework that would make a "down payment" on the deficit and extend all or most of the expiring Bush-era tax cuts but leave most of the legislative grunt work until next year.
Other participants in the Tuesday meeting between Obama and the governors included Republicans Gary Herbert of Utah and Scott Walker of Wisconsin and Democrats Mike Beebe of Arkansas and Mark Dayton of Minnesota.
_
Associated Press writers Julie Pace and Ken Thomas contributed to this report.
The counter to a White House plan last week relies more on politically sensitive spending cuts and would raise half the $1.6 trillion in revenue proposed by Obama over the coming decade.
The 10-year, $2.2 trillion proposal from House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, resembles a framework similar to what Boehner supported last year, but Obama is pressing for additional tax increases and appears to be balking at spending cuts discussed in those talks and since.
Administration officials from Obama on down say it'll take money from raising tax rates on the rich - instead of GOP proposals to simply curb their deductions - to win Obama's approval of any plan to avoid the "fiscal cliff."
It has been nearly a week since Obama and Boehner talked directly about the looming cliff, though their staffs have been in contact. Boehner attended a congressional holiday party at the White House Monday night, but avoided the photo line where members get their picture taken with the president and have a few minutes to talk.
Obama met with a bipartisan group of governors, who sought assurances that any cuts in spending as part of an agreement on the fiscal cliff wouldn't shift the burden onto states. The governors said they wanted flexibility from the federal government on certain mandated programs like Medicaid to allow them to do more with less.
"We asked for flexibility on how the federal money is passed down to the states and the cuts that are passed down, that we could have some flexibility to do what's in the best interest of our states," said Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin, a Republican.
The governors said they were not endorsing any particular proposal but said they wanted to share their ideas on ways that states could play a role in helping reduce the deficit. The governors were meeting later in the day with congressional leaders and said they planned to work with Vice President Joe Biden in the coming weeks.
The governors said that states need certainty as they craft their budget proposals but Obama expressed to them an interest in reaching an agreement with congressional Republicans.
The Republican proposal Monday, while intended to break a stalemate in place since the administration last week angered Republicans with a $1.6 trillion plan that largely exempted Medicare and Social Security from budget cuts, sparked a predictable round of partisanship.
"To protect the middle class while reducing the deficit, simple math dictates that tax rates must rise on the top 2 percent of taxpayers next year," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said in a statement. "The sooner Republicans grasp that reality, the sooner we can avoid the fiscal cliff."
The fiscal cliff is a combination of expiring Bush-era tax cuts and automatic, across-the-board spending cuts due to take effect in January. The cliff is a result of prior failures of Congress and Obama to make a budget deal.
The GOP proposal itself revives a host of ideas from failed talks with Obama in the summer of 2011. Then, Obama was willing to discuss politically risky ideas such as raising the eligibility age for Medicare, implementing a new inflation adjustment for Social Security cost-of-living adjustments and requiring wealthier Medicare recipients to pay more for their benefits.
Boehner called that a "credible plan" and said he hoped the administration would "respond in a timely and responsible way." The offer came after the administration urged Republicans to detail proposals to cut popular benefit programs like Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid.
But Obama and his Democratic allies are less willing to look to these benefit programs for cuts after his re-election last month and believe Obama possesses far more leverage now than he did in secret budget talks with Boehner last year.
Monday's Republican plan contains few specifics and anticipates that myriad details would have to be filled in next year in legislation overhauling the tax code and curbing the growth of benefit programs.
Though the GOP plan proposes to raise $800 billion in higher tax revenue over the same 10 years, it would keep the Bush-era tax cuts - including those for wealthier earners targeted by Obama - in place for now.
GOP aides said their plan was based on one presented by Erskine Bowles, co-chairman of a deficit commission Obama appointed earlier in his term, in testimony to a special deficit "supercommittee" last year.
"The new revenue in the Bowles plan would not be achieved through higher tax rates, which we continue to oppose and will not agree to in order to protect small businesses and our economy," Boehner and fellow Republicans said in a letter to Obama. "Instead, new revenue would be generated through pro-growth tax reform that closes special-interest loopholes and deductions while lowering rates."
By GOP math, the plan would produce more than $2 trillion in budget savings over the coming decade: $800 billion in higher taxes; $600 billion in savings from costly health care programs like Medicare; $300 billion from other proposals such as forcing federal workers to contribute more toward their pensions; and $300 billion in additional savings from the Pentagon budget and domestic programs funded by Congress each year.
Boehner signaled in discussions with Obama in 2011 that he was willing to accept up to $800 billion in higher tax revenues, but his aides maintained that much of that money would have come from so-called dynamic scoring - a conservative approach in which economic growth would have accounted for much of the revenue. Now, Boehner is willing to accept the estimates of official scorekeepers like the Congressional Budget Office, whose models reject dynamic scoring.
Using the administration's math, GOP aides said, the plan represents $4.6 trillion in 10-year savings. That estimate accounts for earlier cuts enacted during last year's showdown over lifting the government's borrowing cap and also factors in war savings and lower interest payments on the $16.4 trillion national debt.
Last week, the White House delivered to Capitol Hill its opening proposal: $1.6 trillion in higher taxes over a decade, a possible extension of the temporary Social Security payroll tax cut and heightened presidential power to raise the national debt limit without the approval of Congress.
In exchange, the president would back $600 billion in spending cuts, including $350 billion from Medicare and other health programs. But he also wants $200 billion in new spending for jobless benefits, public works projects and aid for struggling homeowners. His proposal for raising the ceiling on government borrowing would make it virtually impossible for Congress to block him going forward.
One of the few things the White House and Capitol Hill Republicans can agree on is a framework that would make a "down payment" on the deficit and extend all or most of the expiring Bush-era tax cuts but leave most of the legislative grunt work until next year.
Other participants in the Tuesday meeting between Obama and the governors included Republicans Gary Herbert of Utah and Scott Walker of Wisconsin and Democrats Mike Beebe of Arkansas and Mark Dayton of Minnesota.
_
Associated Press writers Julie Pace and Ken Thomas contributed to this report.
I'm tired of the back and forth bickering and finger pointing. Neither the Dems or the Reps have any real plan to pay down our debt and get this economy back on track. tough choices are going to have to be made if any real progress is to happen. Taxes are going to have to go up on everyone and deep cuts are needed to stop the slide into financial collapse. The tax code needs to be gone over and simplified as well to close the loopholes that permit the rich to hide their money. It's not going to get better by just taxing the rich or cutting services. All of these things and more need to be on the table. It's going to hurt but if we don't fix it now our children and their children will be crushed under the burden of an economy  that will not sustain itself.
The Republicans are eating themselves alive over this. Just today, Republican senators blasted Boehner's plan as a betrayal. And just today we learned that 4 House committee members in the GOP were stripped of their positions due to not being team players.Â
Â
The Republicans can't even agree among themselves what should happen. Their party is not unified and we are all going to suffer because they can't agree among themselves, let alone agree to a compromise deal.Â
Â
Meanwhile, you have some Republicans in both the Senate and House that have publicly supported doing the deal to not raise taxes on 98% of Americans, while Boehner says no.Â
Â
The whole thing is a disaster and more proof that the GOP is having a civil war among themselves.Â
Lets remember what Bush said about his tax cuts.
Â
The $6 trillion in surpluses that are projected to materialize in the next 10 years are only possible, Bush said, "because taxes are too high and government is charging more than it needs."
"The people of America have been overcharged and on their behalf, I am here to ask for a refund," Bush said in one of his loudest applause lines of the night. "Some say my tax plan is too big, others say it's too small. I respectfully disagree. This plan is just right."
Â
Â
Â
Anyone want to take a guess when the surplus was gone and when these refunds should have stopped? Or does the Republican party think two wars Bush never counted as part of the deficit that is now under Obama that has kept us in a perpetual financial negative debt more reason to keep giving everyone tax refunds? What and where is the imaginary Surplus the Bush tax refunds need to keep coming from?
Â
Tax refunds for the Clinton Surplus ended ages ago. Any corporate welfare or tax saving shelters have proven to not trickle down into the economy. Reaganomics is a failure and so are the Republicans who continue to believe in it.
Â
Lets go over the Cliff. These refunds under the reasoning of Bush are lonnnng gone.  Â
Â
 http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=121741&page=1
 @NoKitty666 You missed the mark. It wasn't Bush's tax cuts the hurt it was his spending. Even if he hadn't cut the taxes the tax revenue would not have been that much greater therefore your theory is bs. Bush's spending on the other hand was insane. Medicare, wars, etc all added a huge amount to the debt. Thats what needs to be fixed.Â
How might a tax hike on the wealthiest work out?
Â
We don't have to guess; we have a real world example - see http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323751104578148820012847656.html:
Â
A funny thing often happens on the way to soaking the rich: They don't stick around for the bath. Take Britain, where Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs service reports that the number of taxpayers declaring £1 million a year in income fell by more than 60% in fiscal 2010-2011 from the year before.
Â
That was the year that millionaires became liable for the 50% income-tax rate that Gordon Brown's government introduced in its final days in 2010, up from the previous 40% rate. Lo, the total number of millionaire tax filers plunged to 6,000 in 2010-2011, from 16,000 in 2009-2010.
Â
The new tax was meant to raise about £2.5 billion more revenue. So much for that. In 2009-2010 British millionaires contributed about £13.4 billion to the public coffers, or just under 9% of the total tax liability of all taxpayers that year. At the 50% rate, the shrunken pool yielded £6.5 billion, or about 4.4%
Â
Let's review: a 25% INCREASE in the top rate led to a 51% DECREASE in revenues in ONE year.
Â
How could that be?
Â
What happens when you LOWER the top rate? Big drop in revenue, right?
Â
From 2nd Bush tax cut in 2003:
Â
Federal revenue 2003: $1.782 trillion with top rate 38.5%
Federal revenue 2007: $2.568 trillion with top rate 35%
Â
Let's review: a 10% DECREASE in the top rate led to a 44% INCREASE in revenues in FOUR years.
Â
Of course, if you took high school econ or were capable on idependent thought, you already knew that.
 @hunsinD3haha You are talking about two tax brackets going up 3%. I'm sorry, but your comparison to a 50% income tax is absurd. It's easy to make numbers fit your agenda, but there is no cause and effect to your claims.Â
Â
The really funny part is completely ignoring the roaring 1990s when we had those higher rates and saw the largest growth in the economy just about ever.Â
No, they are not going up 3%. The President proposes returning to a top rate of 39.6% from the current 35% - a 4.6% / 35% = 13% increase.
Â
The boom of the 90's was ramped up considerably by the Clinton - Gingrich reduction of the capital gains tax in 1997 that accelerated a stock market that flooded the Treasury with CG revenue.
Â
In addition, the President proposes changing investment income tax rates to match personal income tax rates. This simply means companies will stop paying dividends.
Â
More facts, which you obviously hate or disregard if not approved by President Obama:
Â
The Bush tax cut chopped the rate to 15% on January 1, 2003 (it had been the same as the income tax rate), on the sound economic reasoning that corporate income is already taxed once at the company level. Dividends reported on tax returns nearly doubled to $196 billion in 2003 from $103 billion in 2002. Dividend income hit $337 billion by 2006, more than three-times the pre-tax cut level.
Â
So, this should be easy for you:
Â
Which is greater - 38.5% of $103 billion or 15% of $337 billion.
Â
Have you noticed that Costco has BORROWED $3.5 billion to award a $3 billion special dividend in 2012? The founder and former CEO, Jim Sinegal, who spoke about the need to soak the rich at the Democratic Convention, will receive $15 million from this payout. Using the 2012 rates, he will net $13 million. Using the 2013 rate (43.4%), including the 3.8% surcharge for the Affordable Care Act, he would have netted $8 million.
Â
Of course, Costco would never award the dividend in a high tax rate environment.
Â
Once again - which is greater: 43.4% of nothing or 15% of $3 billion?
Â
I'll wait patiently for some evidence that higher tax rates lead to a roaring economy.
Â
Last thought. The President knows that the 99% have about 83% of the income. He also knows squeezing the rich won't come close to closing the deficit and that he has no plans to reduce net spending. Where do you think he will come when these tax increases do nothing and he needs a little extra "investment"?
 @NorthwestEconomist  @hunsinD3haha Interesting read, that. Incomplete, but good enough as far as it goes.... So. Sure. It's not consistent because, as they say "all else ISN'T equal." The 50s were unique in that the world was rebuilding from WW II, and we were the sole supplier for much of that. There were not many other places for the money to off-shore TO for an investor. The 60s and 70s saw stagflation and the "bust" of an economic cycle, and the rest of teh world wasn't really ready to accept large amounts of foreign investment. The groundwork for the tech boom and economic boom of the 90s was laid in the 80s, and Bush Sr broken "Read My Lips" caused a downturn that a pragmatic Clinton, balanced by fiscal hawks on the other side of the isle, manage to do well with. Sadly, they ALSO laid the groundwork for future bubbles and busts by trying to do to much with monetary policy, allowing to much leverage and debt, and kept bailing people/institutions/nations out that should have been allowed to fail so that risks were properly judge.
Â
The rich get rich because the keep doing smart things, financially speaking, and the poor keep NOT doing it.
Â
If you look at the proportion of total taxes paid by the wealthy (top 1%), it has gone up more than their income has, now around 37%. Saying they are not paying their fair share is nothing but class envy and division. And, there isn't enough there to balance the budget even if you took ALL of their income above a million dollars, so....
 @hunsinD3haha  @RN1 How do you two explain this and why historically high tax rates on the rich never had a consistent effect of any kind on the economy?
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/news/business/0915taxesandeconomy.pdf
 @RN1 Thank you RN1. It is encouraging to hear from someone who understands how economic incentives work.
Â
Did you see Oracle has joined the growing list of companies who have "accelerated" 2013 dividends into 2012. Larry Ellison will get about $200 million - $170 million after taxes v the $113 million he would have gotten in 2013. Just think - with all these special dividend payouts at a 15% rate, we will lower the FY 2013 deficit!
 @OrcasThunder  @hunsinD3haha Leaving my normal snark aside for a moment, let me explain. A stock is bought by an investor because of either expected growth (an increase in price) or a dividend. A dramatic rise in the tax rate on dividends makes a dividend stock (such as my retired parents hold and rely on almost exclusively) MUCH less attractive, and will push their price down.
Â
As a somewhat simplified example: A stock that has a P/E of 15 might grow at 5% a year, or it might pay out a 5% dividend. If dividends are taxed at an effective rate of (in round numbers) 40% net, then it's really only a 3% dividend. So, most of them will stop paying a dividend, and will do something else with the cash to increase shareholder net ROI via capital growth, because if it grows at 5% and people are only dealing with long-term (holding greater than a a year) tax rate of 20% instead of a rate twice as high, shareholders will profit more, and therefore the stock will be more valuable. NOT stopping the dividend will get CEOs and management fired. Who will this hurt the most? Retiree and folks looking for assured income, institutional investors, retirement account investors, and folks with a fiscally conservative outlook or requirement. Dividends are the best way to assure that the accounting at a company isn't "funny," because you can't fake checks you are sending out regularly, so it will encourage "creative" accounting. Many stock funds will cease to exist. Some companies will de-list in the US, and move things around overseas to avoid this horrendous tax dis-advantage. The change will hit corporate and retiree cash-flow HARD. That may not be the intent of the change, but that WILL be the effect.
For the record, I am not a right-winger or a religious nut. I don't trust either of the major parties, although I probably vote 60-65% Republican based on being a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. I HATE it when someone makes what I consider to be a reasonable comment on fiscal matters, then makes some inane remark about rape, immigrants, or evolution. I was raised Catholic, but I no longer practice any religion.Â
Â
I have been in financial analysis and management since the late 80's and this is a subject I know well. I am not a 1%er, 2%er, or 10%er, maybe just squeezing in as a 20%er.Â
Â
Back to your question.Â
Â
"Huh? Why should companies stop paying dividends just because it might cost the investors a bit more in taxes?"Â
Â
The President has proposed raising the capital gains rate from 15% to 20%. A company can retain its earnings and not pay dividends. If you have ever owned stocks or mutual funds, you know that the share price drops on ex-dividend days. Not paying dividends keeps the stock price up and makes capital gains more likely.Â
Â
Investors - including the company executives and directors - can take capital gains at their leisure and pay a maximum of 20% on the capital gains, versus a maximum of 43.4% (Clinton-era 39.6%, plus PPACA surcharge of 3.8%) were the retained earnings distributed as dividends.
Â
Do you think it is a coincidence that Costco - and a few hundred other companies at last count - are offering "special" dividends before the end of 2012?Â
Â
Tax rates incent behavior - always have, always will.
Â
@OrcasThunder
For the record, I am not a right-winger or a religious nut. I don't trust either of the major parties, although I probably vote 60-65% Republican based on being a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. I HATE it when someone makes what I consider to be a reasonable comment on fiscal matters, then makes some dumba$$ remark about rape, immigrants, or evolution. I was raised Catholic, but I no longer practice any religion.
Â
I have been in financial analysis and management since the late 80's and this is a subject I know well. I am not a 1%er, 2%er, or 10%er, maybe just squeezing in as a 20%er.
Â
Back to your question.
Â
"Huh? Why should companies stop paying dividends just because it might cost the investors a bit more in taxes?"
Â
The President has proposed raising the capital gains rate from 15% to 20%. A company can retain its earnings and not pay dividends. If you have ever owned stocks or mutual funds, you know that the share price drops on ex-dividend days. Not paying dividends keeps the stock price up and makes capital gains more likely.
Â
Investors - including the company executives and directors - can take capital gains at their leisure and pay a maximum of 20% on the capital gains, versus a maximum of 43.4% (Clinton-era 39.6%, plus PPACA surcharge of 3.8%) were the retained earnings distributed as dividends.
Â
Do you think it is a coincidence that Costco - and a few hundred other companies at last count - are offering "special" dividends before the end of 2012?
Â
Tax rates incent behavior - always have, always will.
 @hunsinD3haha "the President proposes changing investment income tax rates to match personal income tax rates. This simply means companies will stop paying dividends."
Huh? Why should companies stop paying dividends just because it might cost the investors a bit more in taxes?
That makes absolutely no sense at all.
Now, I see no problem with the rich paying the regular rate on capital gains, leave the first $100K or so at the current 15%, bump any over that into the regular income.
For one thing, that might keep people like Romney from feeling the need to not claim deductions in order to look like a "normal" taxpayer...
Clinton explains the math better. Watch and learn.
Â
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_pb7lAKw6MÂ
 @NoKitty666 Ah yes. Clinton the master of words. The funniest part with clinton and math is how, when asked about how he had a surplus on leaving office he says "Through math". He is alluding to the fact that he shifted funds around so that it appeared there was a surplus but wasn't. Then when Bush comes into office the obligations that were now underfunded still needed to be paid so he takes the hit on his budget. Yea, clinton explains it better, but only how slick willey can.
 @hunsinD3haha Where are they going to go? Africa? News flash, most of the rest of the world that's safe to live in has higher tax rates than us. And if the rich simply try to shelter their money elsewhere then we'll catch them too, that's why the IRS has been handing out billions in whistle-blower awards to Swiss and Caribbeans who have been ratting them out.
Â
Nice try.Â
 @NorthwestEconomist  @hunsinD3haha Yeah - let them move out of the country, find a nice island they can all live on...we can call it "Fantasy Island"...
One catch, they can't take any of their hired help - they have to do the laundry themselves...
@NorthwestEconomist Obviously your name is a misnomer. Indisputable facts generally carry weight with economists. I notice you didn't dispute the effect of the Bush tax cuts.
Â
The 10,000 Brits who left found a place to go.
Â
We have already seen ample evidence of Americans moving from high-tax to low-tax states (obviously still subject to federal tax), so it is hardly a leap to assume they couldn't move to another country:
Â
Updating some research from Richard Vedder of Ohio University, we found that from 1998 to 2007, more than 1,100 people every day including Sundays and holidays moved from the nine highest income-tax states such as California, New Jersey, New York and Ohio and relocated mostly to the nine tax-haven states with no income tax, including Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire and Texas. We also found that over these same years the no-income tax states created 89% more jobs and had 32% faster personal income growth than their high-tax counterparts.
Â
California, New Jersey, New York, and Illinois are prime examples in our own back yard of the impact of higher tax rates.
Â
I should have stated something earlier that I thought - to an economist - would be obvious:
Â
Lower tax rates drive economic growth and generate HIGHER INCOMES subject to taxation. In 2003, with the 38.5% top rate, aggregate AGI was $6.3 trillion; in 2007, with a 35% top rate, it was $8.8 trillion - see Office of Management and Budget.
Â
I'm not saying we need to reduce the amount of revenue flowing to the Treasury. Quite the opposite. I am merely pointing out how it has historically been proven to increase revenue - see 1963 KENNEDY tax cuts, as well as the 1980's Reagan tax cuts, and the 1997 CLINTON capital gains tax cuts.
 @NorthwestEconomist  @hunsinD3haha Even if that article is correct and taxing the rich doesn't hurt the economy (arguable, but we'll stipulate it to be true right now for the sake of argument), the problem is that there ISN'T enough money THERE to bring the budget into balance if you only target very high income folks, because there simply are not enough of them.
Â
So, to balance the budget you HAVE to increase taxes on the middle class, or you HAVE to cut spending; if you do not, then the ongoing deficit will create a debt that will eat everything. If you have children as I do, that is a fate you really, REALLY, want to avoid. Look at history. EVERY time a nation runs a deficit for an extended time and runs up a debt:GDP ration like we have,it ends badly; sometimes rapidly and violently (Argentina), sometimes a slow strangulation and decline (Japan).
 @NorthwestEconomist  @RN1  @hunsinD3haha Considering how little it would bring in compared to the friggin debt it won't help it much either.
 @RN1  @hunsinD3haha Taxing the rich does not hurt the economy, we have proof in our own history, look at this study by the CRS: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/news/business/0915taxesandeconomy.pdf
 @NorthwestEconomist  @hunsinD3haha Technically, many of them didn't "go" anywhere. They just changed their behavior, and quit working and earning money, or moved assets overseas to avoid its taxation, or did other things to tell the government "up yours." Basically, Britain pushed thing well into the right-side down-slope of the Laffer Curve, pretty much as expected. You can't tax the rich enough to get us out of our problems. It's a spending problem, and you refuse to acknowledge that simple fact. If the US FedGov took EVERYTHING over a million dollars in earning from ALL the high income folks, even if we assume they didn't change their behavior (an absurd assumption, but let's go with it), it would STILL only fund a bit less than three months of spending. But, because they WOULD change their behavior, it would likely be more like three weeks. And, without SS reform, then when the "trust fund" runs out of IOUs, and SS payments get cut by about 25% (in accordance with current law where it'll match revenue), how will senior citizens and retirees feel about Obama's "plan" then?
 @hunsinD3haha  @NorthwestEconomist "Indisputable facts generally carry weight"
I jut love it when right wingers and religious nuts use the words "Indisputable facts"...I keep hearing the "whoka, whoka" of wings flapping.
No, not angels - bats escaping the belfry...
 @hunsinD3haha  @NorthwestEconomist You still didn't say where they'd go? Also, I agree with lakeview who points out this is just 3% and we didn't see flight from the US when these tax rates were in place in the 1990s. Care to comment on established history and use of these rates?
 @NorthwestEconomist  @hunsinD3haha nothing would make me happier than to see these toads move to another country... and take the Republicans with them... Please !!
 @Torqputty  @NorthwestEconomist  @hunsinD3haha "nothing would make me happier than to see these toads move to another country... and take the Republicans with them... Please !!"Â
I'm pretty sure the republicans pretty much think the same of you. If the 'rich" leave then who's going to provide you with a job? The poor? How many poor people give people jobs? Your incredibly short sighted desire would be an end to not only your own livelyhood but the country itself. Do you think people would just sit around smoking weed and signing campfire songs? No they would still need to eat etc but with no jobs that would be pretty hard to pull off.
My view; Congressional Republicans will ultimately loose all integrity and credibility if they choose to hold on to and champion the Bowles plan that has already cost them the 2012 election. There still has been no word from the Republicans regarding how and what individual tax dividends they will choose to allow and which ones will be eliminated. I will say this with almost guaranteed certainty; the pain will be much greater on the middle classes than on the wealthy elites.
Â
I also echo the concerns of the governors. Any cuts to Medicare or Medicaid, or any other social benefit such as unemployment insurance and food programs will need to be addressed by the individual States. There choice will be difficult, since most States are also suffering budget woes on account of the recession.
Â
I think once a congressional member is elected that person forgets the constitutes back home who put him or her in that seat and placates only to lobbyists and other DC insiders. That is made ever so evident by the Congressional Republican's vow to Grover Norquist to never raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans.
Â
Â
 @left-center If we jack the tax rate up to 100% over a million dollars in income, it would still only fund the FedGOv for less than three months. There isn't enough money among the "rich" to afford the level of spending we have. The only way to fund current spending is to push higher taxes way down into the middle class, likely well below median income. If we don't reform SS, then when teh "trust fund" runs out (currently projected for 2017), then SS payments will automatically be cut to match revenue, a cut of about a quarter. If Medicare isn't reformed, many docs will leave the practice, or stop seeing Medicare patients.
Â
It's a spending problem, not a tax problem.
 @RN1  @left-center You explained one of the most fundamental issues at hand. There is only so much money that the rich can provide and its way less than the debt. All these people that think we can tax the rich to solve the problem are smoking crack. Well more accurately they are just falling for the class warfare mantra of the democrats.  Since the rich can only supply a small amount compared to the debt what then? Well, the obvious point is cut spending. But the liberals are 100% focused on keeping spending alive even with the obvious reality of we are way deep in debt without the income to pull out unless we stop spending. How hard can it be to understand this principle?
If nothing is done about this the first part of the budget that gets cut should be Bone Head Boehner' salary to Zero. The rest of the Congress also gets their salaries axed as well. That would get their attention and likely be an incentive to fix things instead of playing politics.
 @Charl317 The Budget isn't balanced. It is the Senate's job to pass a budget, which they have not done in close to four years. Talk to the Dems, specifically Reid.
 @Charl317 Good start but how about we limit their terms and salary?
http://www.change.org/petitions/congressional-reform-act-of-2011-5
The GOP want it to keep failing, so they can blaim the Dems. All this is going to do is thin out the GOP herd.
Love the graphic, by the way. It perfectly captures the evolution-in-reverse programming in their brains and dna
I was just going to post the same thing.
Pathetic. Their "proposal" is simply the same position they've held since GOP became full-fledged, frothing, sputtering loony-tunes the minute Clinton won in 1992. Steal from the elderly, destitute and infirm and hand it over to their wealthy pals. Fund the rest with debt and let the children pay for it. Get votes from idiots by promising a christian theocracy awash with guns and free of minorities. Wash, rinse, repeat.
 @wysoumible No wash, no rinse... just repeat, repeat, repeat. Republicans sound like broken records (shellac - not even vinyl) still trying to get play in the age of iTunes and HD Radio.Â
Â
"cut taxes, cut entitlements, privatize social security - CLICK - cut taxes, cut entitlements, privatize social security - CLICK - cut taxes, cut entitlements, privatize social security - CLICK - cut taxes, cut entitlements, privatize social security - CLICK - ..."
Â
Oh yeah, and "offshore everything - both money and jobs"!Â
Time to stop playing games and get down to some serious compromise. Yeah, that's right Mr Speaker of the House and Mr President.......compromise!
earth to both sides cut spending and cut the bs
'"To protect the middle class while reducing the deficit, simple math dictates that tax rates must rise on the top 2 percent of taxpayers next year," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev"'
So now it's the top 2%. Next it will be the top 5% and before you know it, like the Federal Income Tax, it will be on the middle class. Until the dems come up with a budget that curbs their irresponsible spending habits, this will never end. I agree taxes must be raised, but spending must also be cut. Both sides must find middle ground, that is what the people want.Â
This comment has been deleted
 @the unvarnished truth  @Bianca It wouldn't go a long way at all. Just this year alone, according to the WH web site the government will spend 1.2 trillion more than they take in. The take increases will be the 80 billion and if you add the 320 billion that is 400 billion, or 1/3 of just the money that we are overspending. Without significant cuts this country will never in its wildest dreams fix the mess.
 @NorthwestEconomist  @SeattleJoe  @the unvarnished truth  @Bianca The boomers (all parties, all levels, all fields) were greedy, and promised themselves WAY to much in future pensions and benefits, and didn't reform the system when it could have been done at little immediate cost or pain. The bill is coming due, and it's going to hurt.
 @RN1  @SeattleJoe  @the unvarnished truth  @Bianca Many of those "people" got to where they are by taking advantage of previous infrastructure built by the high tax rates from last generation. But I see, you want everything to stop and you don't want any more working class people to be able to get rich after the baby boomers. Remember to tell your kids that only people prior to Ronald Reagan were allowed to succeed in America, after that, wealth needs to concentrate in just a few people's hands....
 @NorthwestEconomist  @SeattleJoe  @the unvarnished truth  @Bianca I keep hearing this phrase "the government will re-invest"... I don not think it means what you think it means... How about we let people whose lives depending on *successful* ROI rather than buying votes with loans to cronies (Solyndra)?
 @NorthwestEconomist  @the unvarnished truth  @BiancaÂ
Agree Here: "we can re-invest that money from the rich in ways that generate economic activity for everyone"
Disagree Here: "It's time to return to a more active Keynsian approach"
Why not have the people with money invest it in companies etc so the companies have the money to create jobs, as in "generate economic activity"? The poor don't generate jobs but the rich do. Right now the rich are holding onto their money because they fear they are going to be taxed into oblivion. If the government gave them a sense of safety then they would continue to invest, jobs would be created and the economic cycle would be enhanced. The idea that the government needs to take the money and "invest" it is crazy. The government is horrible at this type of thing. Look at all the "green energy" debacles that have taken place in the last couple years.
Â
The solution isn't statist control over the money of the rich its:
A) Living within their means
B) Creating an environment to spur economic growth
 @SeattleJoe  @the unvarnished truth  @Bianca There will be cuts, but also we can re-invest that money from the rich in ways that generate economic activity for everyone, not just the top few. It's time to return to a more active Keynsian approach.Â
 @the unvarnished truth  @Bianca Can someone making 10 million a year afford to lose 90% of their income and still be very comfortable? Yes.
Â
Can someone making 10 thousand a year do the same? No. These are extraordinary times, and the rich need to contribute more.
 @SeattleJoe  @NorthwestEconomist  @the unvarnished truth  @Bianca The problem is that people ALWAYS want to spend more. Like a teenager with a credit card that dad makes the payment on, until it's maxed or dad stops paying, they don't see the problem because they really REALLY NEED that new outfit or the latest game, and lentils and rice is not NEARLY as good as going out to eat at a comfortable restaurant. Until the gravy train derails, they just don't get it. Talk to someone who has gone through it, and THEY understand.
 @NorthwestEconomist  @the unvarnished truth  @Bianca "Watch this and learn some basic economics."
I won't be bothering. After a couple years of econ in college I realized nothing was more boring or insane than econ theory. Its like politics, everyone is sure they are right and when the economy goes some other direction they have a "theory" as to why. Â As for the big "K" I don't get into his theories for a number of reasons but the biggest is in order to stimulate the economy through spending you have to spend in the right areas and as the democrats have very thoroughly shown us over the last 4 years, the government either has no ability or desire (or both) to spend in those areas. When BO and co decide to spend right, instead of worthless "shovel ready" jobs, more government workers, and money pits like "green energy" then we can talk.
 @NorthwestEconomist  @SeattleJoe  @the unvarnished truth  @Bianca Here is a place that I'd agree with you, at least in the big picture. We NEED to seriously reform the Federal Reserve and our banking system, which is all based on debt.
You really need to ask yourself, what is a dollar? It is a FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE. By a dollar's very creation, there is instantly more debt than it's own sum total value. There is never enough money to pay all debts because creating money automatically creates more debt than can ever be repaid.
Â
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/US_National_Debt_Chart_2010.gif
Â
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Inflation.png
Â
Gee, the trends look very similar, I wonder why...
@RN1@SeattleJoe@the unvarnished truth@Bianca
 @NorthwestEconomist  @SeattleJoe  @the unvarnished truth  @Bianca If you think economics is a zero sum game, you have no business being in economics. THat would mean there is no more wealth in the world today than there was a hundred years ago. Absurd. Read Thomas Sowell "Basic Economics," or, if you don't like black men who write, then try http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkXI-MNSb8Q for free.
 @NorthwestEconomist  @the unvarnished truth  @Bianca IT was exactly that thinking that impoverished the USSR, and all communist nations. "Need" has nothing to do with it. If you were told you were a slave for all but 36 days a year, would YOU work as hard as you would for yourself?
 @the unvarnished truth  @SeattleJoe  @Bianca Watch this and learn some basic economics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EewGMBOB4Gg
 @the unvarnished truth  @NorthwestEconomist  @SeattleJoe  @Bianca Do you understand what the Federal Reserve is? Do you understand there is no way to even have money exist in that system without having more debt than can be paid out, and that it leads to constant inflation over time? It's LESS than a zero sum game, it's a negative game with more and more filling below poverty.
 @NorthwestEconomist  @the unvarnished truth  @Bianca There is truth to this. But what I don't understand is how people want to spend even more when we are already hugely in debt. The government is way overspending and taxing the rich will barely do anything to help. The inescapable reality is we have to cut. No one likes it but it must be done. All our government has been doing for the last 30 years is kicking the can down the road. Someone needs to stand up and say "Screw politics I'm going fix the mess.".
 @SeattleJoe  @the unvarnished truth  @Bianca They didn't earn it themselves. The way our system is set up is as a zero sum game, the super rich can only be rich by people being poor. If you don't believe it then go watch Zeitgeist Addendum on youtube, it's free and it explains how there isn't enough money in our system to cover all the debts, and because of how we create money OUT of debt through the Federal Reserve, there never can be because of interest from the moment that money is printed. We are chasing inflation with inflation.
Â
It's a giant game of musical chairs, and the rich have had too many seats for a long time.Â
 @NorthwestEconomist  @the unvarnished truth  @Bianca "These are extraordinary times, and the rich need to contribute more."
Why? They earned it, its their money. What right does the government or anyone else have to take their money just because they have more of it?
 @NorthwestEconomist The rich have had a free ride plus tons of free money and perqs since Feb of 2001. It is time they learned to walk on their own two feet for a change.
 @Bianca It was always the top 2%. Just because the hippies in OWS kept chanting "99%" doesn't change the math on the proposals, it was always targeted at households over 250k per year. My guess is you didn't study much history. Go ask your parents what the top tax rates were under the "Golden Age" of Eisenhower.Â