RCP
Video: “You know what? It won’t kill the country if we raise taxes a little bit on millionaires”
The leadership in the Republican party and the leadership in the conservative movement have to pull back. Let people float new ideas, let’s have a serious debate. Don’t scream and yell when one person says, ‘You know what? It won’t kill the country if we raise taxes a little bit on millionaires.’ It really won’t, I don’t think.
I don’t really understand why Republicans don’t take Obama’s offer to freeze taxes for everyone below $250,000 — make it $500,000, make it a million. Really? The Republican Party is going to fall on its sword to defend a bunch of millionaires, half of whom voted Democratic and half of whom live in Hollywood and are hostile to Republican principles.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Some pretty good ideas here but you guys are pikers.
Income tax is peanuts and besides the big people don’t even have earned income. Theirs is all investment income. Let’s get real and have a WEALTH TAX. Let’s see all these loudmouths butts pucker up when they have to give up 10% of their wealth. Every year.
mrsmwp on November 11, 2012 at 3:48 PM
mrsmwp on November 11, 2012 at 3:50 PM
Sure, raise taxes on “the rich” and let everyone see that it doesn’t even put a notch in the deficit and guess what happens next? If you think politicians suddenly wise up and see the error of their big spending ways, you haven’t been paying attention. What comes next is taxes on the not so rich, then taxes on the middle class and so on, once raising taxes has begun it won’t stop, but hey, in the meantime R’s might win a couple more million votes and put them in charge of the Titanic.
clearbluesky on November 11, 2012 at 3:52 PM
LOL. What?
txhsmom on November 11, 2012 at 3:53 PM
It’s time for some Jujitsu. Let the Bush tax cuts expire completely. Let Obama own that tax hike.
applebutter on November 11, 2012 at 3:55 PM
If they are serious (sometimes I crack my self up) congress critters should forfeit all their pay and benefits and self-impose a 85% tax rate and turn over any real estate over two houses to the IRS and pay for their own health care.
All this talk is meaningless. Unless the states stand up, it’s over.
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/
davidk on November 11, 2012 at 3:59 PM
Hmmm… That’s a lot of money and it’s just sitting there for the taking.
Fallon on November 11, 2012 at 3:59 PM
Violates the takings clause of the US Constitution…
JohnGalt23 on November 11, 2012 at 4:03 PM
2006 report said; “From Surplus to Deficit Legislation Enacted Over the Last Six Years Has Raised the Debt by $2.3 Trillion” 2006 report: http://www.cbpp.org/files/12-13-06bud.pdf
On Aug. 23, 2007 the national debt officially reached $8.98 trillion. That level represents an increase of $3.25 trillion (57 percent) since Jan. 20, 2001.
By October 2008, due to increases in spending, the national debt had risen to $11.3 trillion, an increase of over 100% from 2000 when the debt was only $5.6 trillion.http://web.archive.org/web/20070628035709/http://www.cbo.gov/budget/historical.pdf and http://www.sbscpagroup.com/blog/debt-nation-post-two/
Deficit and debt increases 2001–2009. Gross debt has increased over $500 billion each year since FY2003. Most debt was accumulated as a result of what became known as the “Bush tax cuts”. By the end of Bush’s presidency, unemployment climbed to 7.2%.
Reported budget deficit data is from: http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf and http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts0908.pdf
Bush handed Obama a deficit of $1.5 trillion a year so no matter what happened the deficit was going to increase by at least 1 trillion a year under Obama.
GDP growth, business investment, and a host of other economic indicators were all stronger during the 1990s, after taxes were raised on the rich, than during the supply-side eras of Presidents George W. Bush and Reagan. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/news/2012/08/01/11987/infographic-seven-graphs-that-show-supply-side-doesnt-work/
The analysis, conducted by the Congressional Research Service, compared tax policy with GDP patterns over the last 65 years. The report’s findings undermine a central tenet of Republican party orthodoxy on taxes.
I am re-posting the report here, in its original form, so that it receives the unfiltered exposure it deserves as a nonpartisan analysis. Click here to read the study: http://www.dpcc.senate.gov/files/documents/CRSTaxesandtheEconomy%20Top%20Rates.pdf
JustTheFacts on November 11, 2012 at 4:08 PM
2006 report said; “From Surplus to Deficit Legislation Enacted Over the Last Six Years Has Raised the Debt by $2.3 Trillion” 2006 report: http://www.cbpp.org/files/12-13-06bud.pdf
On Aug. 23, 2007 the national debt officially reached $8.98 trillion. That level represents an increase of $3.25 trillion (57 percent) since Jan. 20, 2001.
By October 2008, due to increases in spending, the national debt had risen to $11.3 trillion, an increase of over 100% from 2000 when the debt was only $5.6 trillion.http://web.archive.org/web/20070628035709/http://www.cbo.gov/budget/historical.pdf and http://www.sbscpagroup.com/blog/debt-nation-post-two/
JustTheFacts on November 11, 2012 at 4:10 PM
Deficit and debt increases 2001–2009. Gross debt has increased over $500 billion each year since FY2003. Most debt was accumulated as a result of what became known as the “Bush tax cuts”. By the end of Bush’s presidency, unemployment climbed to 7.2%.
Reported budget deficit data is from: http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf and http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts0908.pdf
Bush handed Obama a deficit of $1.5 trillion a year so no matter what happened the deficit was going to increase by at least 1 trillion a year under Obama.
The analysis, conducted by the Congressional Research Service, compared tax policy with GDP patterns over the last 65 years. The report’s findings undermine a central tenet of Republican party orthodoxy on taxes.
I am re-posting the report here, in its original form, so that it receives the unfiltered exposure it deserves as a nonpartisan analysis. Click here to read the study: http://www.dpcc.senate.gov/files/documents/CRSTaxesandtheEconomy%20Top%20Rates.pdf
JustTheFacts on November 11, 2012 at 4:10 PM
OT-my self-employed friend called his health insurance co. to figure out what was going to happen with his insurance. Turns out the ins industry can’t figure out which insurance policies are Obamacare compliant. Get this, for now, the govt is letting all insurance policies “pass” so long as everyone pays the $2800 ObamaTax. It actually works out to be cheaper for my friend that way, so he’s happy for now. And my health insurance just went up 50%! Can we call Obama a liar yet?
txhsmom on November 11, 2012 at 4:11 PM
How about a Hollywood tax on actors, actresses, and musicians worth more than a million?
MechanicalBill on November 11, 2012 at 4:11 PM
Sorry, didn’t see page 1. Idea already floated.
MechanicalBill on November 11, 2012 at 4:14 PM
You framed that rather oddly. It is actually possible but probably uncommon to be a cash-poor millionaire earning less than 200k.
No. Some people are millionaires on paper. Take some guy with multiple homes. He may be a millionaire. He could have also suffered 50% drop in equity putting him in the red on those same properties.
One need not earn 200k annually to be in that boat.
Billionaires all earn more than 200k. Period. Millionaires, not necessarily so.
The people mocking your comment are probably zilchonaires.
Capitalist Hog on November 11, 2012 at 4:16 PM
Guess which finger I’m holding up. Wealth tax? Piss off.
Capitalist Hog on November 11, 2012 at 4:17 PM
How about a tax on stupid pretenders for the R/Cs?
Schadenfreude on November 11, 2012 at 4:21 PM
Thank you for explaining that to this zilchonaire. The way ET put it was kinda funny.
txhsmom on November 11, 2012 at 4:27 PM
davidk on November 11, 2012 at 4:29 PM
That’s just another way of saying, “Let’s steal someone’s money.”
davidk on November 11, 2012 at 4:32 PM
Axelrod: President Has Mandate To Raise Taxes
on Breitbart TV 15
Sen. Murray: Revenue Must Be ‘Fairly Distributed’
on Breitbart TV 21
Sen. Menendez: Obama Has ‘Clear Mandate’ To Raise Taxes
on Breitbart TV 3
Sen. Corker: ‘Wealthy Republicans’ Willing To Pay More Taxes
on Breitbart TV 8
davidk on November 11, 2012 at 4:34 PM
No way, let them have everything they want so no serious person could say Republicans were obstructionists. We should let the pass everything. Bring on the collapse, I’m prepared.
rndmusrnm on November 11, 2012 at 4:34 PM
Nonsense, the SCOTUS will approve it under the Commerce Clause. Just throw another paper airplane through Roberts’ window, problem solved.
fossten on November 11, 2012 at 4:37 PM
Let it burn. Raise the rates, but maybe negotiate the cutoff at half a mil and above. Then Obama and the Dems get their precious tax hikes, the economy tanks anyway, and the GOP can’t be portrayed as obstructionists or protectors of “the rich”(at least convincingly).
Doughboy on November 11, 2012 at 4:46 PM
Which is why the R’s should put the tax increase bill up for a vote and then walk away. They don’t have to vote for it or against it. Elections have consequences.
txhsmom on November 11, 2012 at 4:50 PM
the Kristol business is purposefully aimed at Schmuer, the big talking leftist that protects his privileged class in nyc…Chuck has already come out against that because…well, the white capitalists that pay him are agin it…i mean, they are hoarding their wealth
but the slimy left are way too slick. here’s what will happen. barry needs the Rs as protection now. so he needs to finesse them into jumping first.
in his dreams, he’d like John B to make the first move. barry is a slick extortioner…he won’t say exactly what he wants…he wants you to say..ok, how about 1T…then he can say it was the R parties idea.
this is tough negotiation with a bad actor.
the truth is that barry’s Trillon dollar A Year would require a massive tax increase of 60 percent or thereabouts. Somehow that never got mentioned in the campaign…too busy with orca i guess
but, anyway this is just small time chump change.
the taxing way FORWARD is to uncap the SS taxes (yummy) and then raise the top rates to 45 percent above 200K….oh, and limit the mortgae deduction to 400K…one house only…and of course limit the state/local tax deduction
you want to see schumer turn into a frothing right wing loon…that’s the ticket. lets MOVE
r keller on November 11, 2012 at 4:55 PM
Indeed, constitutional considerations no longer apply. Which is exactly what a believer in “positive federal rights” like Obama wants.
Difficultas_Est_Imperium on November 11, 2012 at 5:01 PM
But neither side wants to let all the rates expire. So if they do and we inevitably go into a deep recession(or depression), the GOP will get a lot of the blame. The idea is to win a political victory, and the only way to do that is to just give the Dems exactly what they’ve been demanding for years. A return to the Clinton rates for the top 2% of income earners.
Will some in the conservative base be PO’d? Yes. But that’s where Boehner can play this wisely. He only needs a handful of Republicans(between 20-25) to actually vote for the tax hikes in order for the bill to pass. So allow the ones in the safest districts to vote yea while sparing the rest. The House Dems will comprise the rest of the votes.
Then sit back, watch the economy tank(especially with Obamacare and Dodd-Frank piling on the pain), and reap the political windfall. Then come 2015 and beyond, we can start to dig ourselves out of this mess.
Doughboy on November 11, 2012 at 5:03 PM
Raising taxes on millionaires won’t help the country either. It wouldn’t raise enough money to noticeably move the dial on the debt and if Santa Obamuh didn’t spend it on goodies for his low-life bottom-feeding hoodies then he’d just let the loud-mouth Mooch spend it on more lavish W
retchedHiveparties or extravagant vacations. Da’ gubmint don’ need no mo’ money ta’ squander.stukinIL4now on November 11, 2012 at 5:06 PM
You know what, it will not kill the country if we raise taxes on the lower income people in this nation ALOT, like an infinite amount. From nothing to even negative taxes to say, I dunno, a minimum tax bill equal to 10% of their income, period, no deductions or refunds to get them lower than 10%.
astonerii on November 11, 2012 at 5:09 PM
The only way this type of thing could work is if you can differentiate between small businesses and single individuals like actors, movie stars, etc. etc.
As others have been saying I’m sick of carrying water for the super rich who just donate it to the Left.
WisCon on November 11, 2012 at 5:11 PM
That was our plan last time.
WisCon on November 11, 2012 at 5:13 PM
Ok, does Boehner need any Republicans to vote Yea – can they just vote present (Obama style) to reach quorum?
There are basically 2 schools of thought here: let them break it and own it and make them avoid sequestration at a steep price.
I’d almost prefer to throw our nutsacks on the table and tell them we demand a full repeal of Obamacare in exchange for top Bush tax rates expiring or sequestration WILL happen. If they say no, tell them you will be sending congress home for Christmas early by a certain date and then do it.
The Count on November 11, 2012 at 5:14 PM
Well, it was intended as somewhat sarc and somewhat LIB (let it burn, let’s burn this MFer down.) But if it makes you feel better, we could just implement on those with a net worth of $10mil or more.
mrsmwp on November 11, 2012 at 5:22 PM
Uhhh…. What Constitution???
But seriously, the income tax probably violated the takings clause but they found a way around that now didn’t they. Let’s just get an amendment going to tax the crap out of those worth $10mil or more. Or $5mil if we want to make sure and snag all the actors and athletes.
So sad for the family farm holders but Buffet has already effed them with lobbying for inheritance taxes so he can come in and act the vulture.
Brave new world.
mrsmwp on November 11, 2012 at 5:25 PM
True, but it failed for 2 unfortunately unavoidable realities:
1) Enough of the electorate still blames Bush for the state of the economy. That won’t be the case after 4 more years(not with independent voters anyway).
2) The full brunt of the negative impact of Obama’s policies hadn’t been felt yet. Only now with Obamacare certain to be implemented fully in just over a year are companies announcing layoffs and cutbacks. Slowly but surely we’re seeing more and more coal plants firing workers or shutting down altogether. We could go down the list with Dodd-Frank, the looming tax hikes, you name it.
This stragetery WILL work in 2014 and 2016 because Obama and the Dems cannot blame Bush after being in charge themselves for two terms. They can’t point to the Bush tax cuts as the culprits if those have been repealed. And they’ll have an even harder time claiming they should be left in charge to fix the economy when their own policies will be the obvious source of our perpetual malaise.
Doughboy on November 11, 2012 at 5:39 PM
GDP growth, business investment, and a host of other economic indicators were all stronger during the 1990s, after taxes were raised on the rich, than during the supply-side eras of Presidents George W. Bush and Reagan.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/news/2012/08/01/11987/infographic-seven-graphs-that-show-supply-side-doesnt-work/
So what’s wrong with returning to the Clinton policies by increasing taxes on the rich that gave this county a surplus back in the 90’s? Remember the 90,s when the Heritage Foundation came up with the Mandate crap back when Clinton tried to do single payer health care, (Obama used the Heritage Foundation’s plan)?
When the Bush administration took over from President Bill Clinton in 2001, America enjoyed a $236 billion budget surplus — with a projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion. Because the county was making more money than it could spend Bush argued that unspent government funds should be returned to taxpayers, saying “the surplus is not the government’s money. The surplus is the people’s money.”
Bush argued that a tax cut for the wealthy would stimulate the economy and create jobs. Bush believed that when government helps companies, through corporate welfare they will produce more and thereby hire more people and raise salaries. The people, in turn, will have more money to spend in the economy. This theory was called trickledown economics believing that if the rich got richer some of their money would trickle down to the middle class.
The Bush plan handed President Obama a national debt of $11.3 trillion that was rapidly growing because of the $1.5 trillion deficit — and projected shortfalls of $8 trillion for the next decade with a country in a recession despite Bush’s Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), which allowed the government to spend up to $700 billion to shore up troubled assets for wall street that did nothing for the massive unemployment that had tripled during the Bush administration: http://web.archive.org/web/20070628035709/http://www.cbo.gov/budget/historical.pdf and http://www.sbscpagroup.com/blog/debt-nation-post-two/
JustTheFacts on November 11, 2012 at 5:42 PM
No, you don’t think. Therein lies the problem. Serious debate? how can anyone take you seriously when you refuse to see the destruction your moronic ideas caused in California and New York and Europe?
You socialist pigs won’t stop at millionaires and everyone knows it.
dogsoldier on November 11, 2012 at 5:46 PM
Hey tax them all at a 100%, twenty watt. We did the math on that and guess what? not even a speed bump on Oblama’s debt, m’kay?
dogsoldier on November 11, 2012 at 5:48 PM
You’re viewing these Clinton tax hikes within a vacuum. The economy was in recovery when Clinton came into office and jacked up taxes. He also passed a capital gains tax cut in the late 90′s, had the internet boom which is a once in a generation technological revolution, and worked with Newt and the GOP Congress to balance the budget. Plus India and China’s economies weren’t as competitive as they are now.
Juxatapose that economic picture with today’s. The economy is in stagnation and on the verge of another recession. We’ve got job-killing laws and regulations in place. An anti-fossil fuel energy policy. Annual trillion-plus dollar deficits. Our national debt is over 3 times what it was when Clinton left office. Unemployment is double where it was back then. And the rest of the world’s economies are catching up to us.
So this notion that the Dems seem to have that simply raising taxes on wealthy Americans will fix all our economic problems is ludicrous. I’m morbidly curious to hear what other plans they have to deal with all these problems once the GOP does cave(at least somewhat) on higher taxes. I’m expecting to hear a lot of buck-passing and crickets chirping.
Doughboy on November 11, 2012 at 5:51 PM
Let them have whatever they want…we all know it’s going to crash and burn anyway, light the fuse, hand it to Harry Reid and walk away…let them own it….
The only way the sheeple will ever stop blaming us and see the truth is if we let them break it…
Tim Zank on November 11, 2012 at 6:08 PM
Why don’t you go ask Obama and the Dems what’s wrong with returning to the Clinton tax policy? They want to maintain 80% of the Bush tax cuts. If you’re crediting those tax rates for giving us a surplus how can you then say you want to leave 80% of the revenue out there?
Mark1971 on November 11, 2012 at 6:22 PM
Don’t be bringing common sense into the equation now..
Tim Zank on November 11, 2012 at 6:27 PM
Doughboy on November 11, 2012 at 5:51 PM
Increasing Taxes on the rich is not expected to fix everything but it will help.
For those that say it wont help very much, what is the explanation for most of Bush’s debt accumulated as a result of what became known as the “Bush tax cuts”.
The Deficit and debt increases 2001–2009. Gross debt has increased over $500 billion each year since FY2003. Most debt was accumulated as a result of what became known as the “Bush tax cuts”. Reported budget deficit data is from: http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf and http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts0908.pdf
So tax cuts can hurt by tacking a surplus and turning it into a deficit but a tax increase wont do the opposite at all?
The analysis, conducted by the Congressional Research Service, compared tax policy with GDP patterns over the last 65 years prove that trickle down economics actually hurt the economy and that raising the taxes on the wealthy do not hurt the economy.
JustTheFacts on November 11, 2012 at 6:38 PM
@Mark1971 on November 11, 2012 at 6:22 PM
A one percent of GDP tax cut for the bottom 90% results in 2.7 percentage points of GDP growth over a two-year period. The corresponding estimate for the top 10% is 0.13 percentage points and is insignificant statistically. http://blogs.reuters.com/taxbreak/2012/09/12/which-tax-cuts-stimulate-the-economy/
JustTheFacts on November 11, 2012 at 6:40 PM
Just because it won’t kill it doesn’t mean it wont harm it.
Count to 10 on November 11, 2012 at 6:42 PM
Considering that more jobs were created under the Clinton administration and its higher taxes on the rich than were created following the Bush tax cuts. Upton admitted that “I don’t know specifically the answer to that question,” nonsensically pointing to Friday’s jobs report instead of trying to argue the premise of Hunt’s question:http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-02/congress-will-agree-on-payroll-tax-cut-extension-upton-says.html
HUNT: Why under those pre-Bush tax cut tax rates did the economy do so well in the ‘90s? And why under the Bush tax rates, less for the wealthy, to do so poorly in this decade?
UPTON: Well, a couple things. One, spending went up, Al, the wars. I mean, that’s trillions of dollars. And also there was no change in the entitlements. And we also know -
HUNT: But that shouldn’t hurt the economy. That shouldn’t hurt economic growth.
UPTON: Yeah, but that impacts the debt and the deficit.
HUNT: But I’m asking, why did the economy grow a lot? Why were more jobs created in the previous decade under higher taxes than in this decade under lower taxes?
UPTON: I don’t know specifically the answer to that question. I can – I can maybe merit a guess. But, I mean, in large part is because our job – we lost jobs. I mean, look at the jobs report that came out this last week, three-hundred- some-thousand people actually stopped looking for jobs.
JustTheFacts on November 11, 2012 at 6:43 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2