Taxes

Democrats Are the Real Tax Ideologues

Why Democrats are so scared of tax reform

|

Some of us are old enough to remember when Washington, embroiled in a debt ceiling negotiation crisis, was on the brink of default.

Way back in 2011, newly empowered congressional Republicans (then commonly referred to as "nihilists") attempted to negotiate a dollar-for-dollar deal on the debt. Those who used the good faith and credit of the nation as a cudgel for political gain—or even to try reduced spending—were, we were told, absolutely bonkers.

Barack Obama, Tim Geithner, Nancy Pelosi and a number of other economic patriots concurred with this assessment. And Sen. Charles E. Schumer of New York, the Senate's third-ranking Democrat, head of the Senate Finance Committee, accused Republicans of playing "slash-and-burn" politics, of "purposefully" undermining economic recovery while holding the American people hostage.

Today we speed toward another consequential showdown (of the fiscal cliff variety), and unless the two parties reach an agreement before year's end, the tax bill of 90 percent of Americans will spike. All sides seem to agree that the outcome could hold terrible economic consequences.

So guess what. This week, Sen. Charles E. Schumer of New York—yes, the Senate's third-ranking Democrat and the head of the Senate Finance Committee—held a news conference to pre-emptively oppose any bipartisan deficit reduction deal that would raise revenue by closing deductions, the kind of deal that was floated by the president's own Simpson-Bowles commission.

He wants to raise taxes, period.

The White House also reacted favorably to this impending hostage situation, claiming that Schumer "is making the important point here that the wealthiest must pay their fair share in any balanced approach to reducing our deficit." Obama has made clear numerous times, in fact, that he wouldn't agree to an extension of existing tax rates. Hey, what's more important, averting fiscal collapse or a chance to throw some populist chum to the electorate?

Tax reform "just doesn't fit the times," Schumer explained, because, among other things, "a much larger, more dangerous deficit" faces us now than the most recent time we reformed the tax code. Does anyone really believe that higher taxes will be used to alleviate the deficit problem? A new Public Notice poll finds that the majority of men (61 percent), women (53 percent) and independents (60 percent) believe that the president would use any new revenue to increase spending rather than to cut deficits. Their outlook is bolstered by history.

The Wall Street Journal's Stephen Moore (also an economist) recently noted that the United States is already more dependent on the wealthy than most socialized economies of Europe are, getting "45 percent of its total taxes from the top 10 percent of tax filers, whereas the international average in industrialized nations is 32 percent." Is it worth jeopardizing a wobbly recession over a battle you've already essentially won?

And no, an extension of an existing decadelong tax rate is not a "tax cut for the wealthiest Americans." There is no law of nature or constitutional amendment that dictates that rates must go up every time a temporary tax rate sunsets. And seeing as Washington doesn't have first dibs on your bank account, failing to find new tax revenue that, to this point, only exists as an aspiration of Democratic lawmakers does not "cost" Americans a penny.

So next time you hear about those rigid ideologues, those tax cutter types and their devastating obstructionist tendencies, remember that for many leaders of the present-day Democratic Party, even today's rates are unacceptable.

NEXT: Netanyahu Sets January Election Date

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. RON WOOD!

      1. WOOD! The science is settled…

        1. Consensus isn’t science!

        2. And he’s even wearing the same outfit in the picture I posted, sans the hat. I post evidence, you guys post assertions. Who’s doing real science now?

    1. It does look like ol Woody.

    2. I actually know who this scary looking bitch is. Rosa DeLauro is a Connecticut rep for the 3rd district. Luckily she’s not my rep but mine is equally democratic and douche-baggy (is that a word?)

  2. I wish Reason would stop using that picture. Gaahhh, that’s a lot of ugly in one shot.

    1. Got something against Skeletor?

      1. Here It is sucking the lifeforce from some poor man.
        http://www.flickr.com/photos/r…..hotostream

        1. He looks really thrilled to have that… thing’s hand on his shoulder.

  3. look it’s superficial, I know, but my god are those three ugly people in the picture.

    1. oops. I see JHC (not my god) has it covered.

  4. “Hey, what’s more important, averting fiscal collapse or a chance to throw some populist chum to the electorate?”

    Well, your typical Obama voter is this, can you blame him?:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..re=related

  5. Is that IT’S A FAKE!!! guy?

    1. Acvtually, I do believe it’s the “It musta been a CRACKHEAD who got hold to the WRONG STUFF!” lady.

  6. Look if you want to close the debt and deficit there is only one way to do it and that is to get people to actually pay some taxes. Look at austerity everywhere, it’s never worked. You have to make it so the rich are actually paying into society.

    Isn’t this what Romney was bitching about? People taking from society without paying in?

    Let’s raise taxes and get them to pay for once.

    1. Because there is no way, in any reality, that spending could be FUCKING CUT!

      1. Spending has been cut. Obama has cut spending more than any modern President.

        1. Your ridiculous comment is nowhere near powerful enough to draw me into whatever alternate reality you inhabit.

          1. By “modern” president, he means every president who has ever been president within the last 3.5 years.

          2. Sparky, did you break your trolldar?

          3. First result: http://articles.marketwatch.co…..ken-sailor

            Obama has cut spending more than any President since Eisenhower.

          4. Obama has cut spending more than any President since Eisenhower, the spam filter won’t let me provide the link but just look it up.

            Obama hasn’t raised spending at all, he’s reduced it more than any President since Eisenhower.

            1. Please cease and desist all nonsense.

            2. all those spending reductions explain how the debt has risen by more than 5T.

              1. Here is how Obama has cut spending;

                1. Get a $Trillion + stimulus passed.

                2. Count that stimulus as the baseline for the your next imaginary budget Congress never considers.

                3. Cut a little bit of that stimulus in future years and $500 billion out of Medicare (which will be spent on Obamacare).

                Viola! You are now the biggest miser in history!

            3. Well sure, Obama probably wanted to spend 10 trillion, so 6 trillion in cuts! Hooray!

            4. Re: Rational Stinker,

              Obama has cut spending more than any President since Eisenhower,

              Actually, that’s false, stinker.

            5. You’re still a psychopath, Mary Stack of Fort Worth, Texas. Take your fucking meds and your bath salts.

              1. They make lithium bath salts?

            6. Obama has cut spending more than any modern President.

              Um, no–

              Actually, more spending is taking place now than it was at the beginning–$3.52 trillion to $3.8 trillion. I’m not sure what school you went to, but the one I attended taught me that 3.8 is greater than 3.5

              What he DID do was set the atrociously high post-TARP, post-stimulus amount from FY 2009 as the baseline, hence our trillion-plus dollar deficits.

            7. Drink!

    2. Fist of Etiquette. In the Conservatory with the Candlestick!

    3. How much should the rich pay?
      And define rich.

      That should send you scurrying elsewhere.

      1. They should pay what it takes to provide for a basic standard of living for most people.

        1. the people are not owed “a basic standard of living” by the rest of us.

          1. Right, maybe those people ought to try working hard enough to provide for a basic standard of living for themselves.

            [Ir]rational thinker has dodged the request to “define rich” so I’m sure it’s absolutely pointles to ask it to define “a basic standard of living”.

            1. Minimum wage is $7.25 an hour. Working 50 hours a week at a minimum wage job does not provide enough disposable income to have a basic standard of living without government handouts.

              Things I consider necessary for a basic standard of living:

              ? A place to live.
              ? Healthy food.
              ? A phone line or inexpensive cell phone.
              ? Adequate health care.
              ? A motorized vehicle.
              ? Clean drinking water, electricity, etc.
              ? Extra money in the bank in case of emergency.

              Now you’re going to sperg out about how THOSE AREN’T NECESSARY FOR SURVIVAL. No, they’re not, but we live in America, the wealthiest nation in the world. Every American willing to work should be able to afford the things I listed (and your stupid anecdotes about how I USED TO MAKE MINIMUM WAGE AND I HAD ENOUGH FOR OPEN HEART SURGERY are bullshit, you know it and I know it). I’ve worked at a shitty minimum wage job. My health insurance sucked. I would have had to go on food stamps if I wasn’t living with my parents at the time. Now I make enough to live on my own, but, no, I’m not going to defend the status quo.

              In fact, conservatism (or, in your case, libertarianism) should be about relentlessly fighting the status quo. We should be fighting policies that encourage the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few at the expense of the many (inflation, crony capitalism, favorable treatment for special interest groups, regulations keeping competition from thriving, etc.).

        2. If the rich are expected to provide a basic standard of living for most people, what should most people be expected to provide for the rich?

          1. You’re insane.

            This is why libertarianism is always proven to be nothing but shilling for the rich if you dig for half a second. This moron is actually advocating for the poor to serve the rich.

            1. I don’t care what the others say you are an A-grade troll. Well done son.

              1. Please, he’s like a D, D+ tops.

            2. Your the advocating that group A should serve group B. What I’m advocating is a quid pro quo. Either everyone has an obligation to provide for the greater good of society, or no one does.

            3. Anyone else find it rather sad when someone never develops the mental capacity for actual communication?

          2. Not putting their heads on pitchforks in a proletariat revolution?

            I’m amazed that glibertarians think you can let wealth just concentrate and accumulate towards ever smaller groups of people and somehow, society will not implode on itself.

            1. Once again, we see what progressives really think about the lower classes they supposedly champion. Not to mention, progressives don’t want to do shit about things that actually increase inequality, like the Fed, licensing laws and other regulations that suppress competition from small startups, bailouts, corporate welfare (as long as it goes to the right type of rich people), etc

        3. i.e. everything they have because even if the wealthy paid everything they have it wouldn’t cover federal outlays.

        4. Impossible. There simply are not enough rich and they do not have anywhere near enough income.

          The you could apply a 100% tax on all income above $200,000 a year regardless of source, effectively putting a cap on income and even assuming no changes in behavior by those rich people (like stopping work once they hit $200K in income or moving to another country)and no secondary effects of the policy (like them firing all their maids and nannies and taking fewer vacations etc.) you would only gather about an additional $1.3 Trillion in tax income.

          That is not even enough to close the current budget deficit forget add the new spending of providing a guaranteed minimum standard of living for everyone.

          Your pipe dream is literally physically impossible.

        5. So everything.

        6. In a way I agree but taking from some and giving to others is not the way to go. In my opinion, we there should be a minimum wage law passed for an actual living wage ($15/hour maybe?). This would raise the tax base and create an incentive for people to get off welfare and unemployment and get a fucking job!
          Just my opinion – we all know that opinions are like assholes – everyone has one

          1. Why stop at $15/hour? If we are going to mandate paying people based on what makes them happy rather than what they are worth, why not $150/hour? That would make everyone in the country rich, and we could take all their stuff and buy more government goodies with it!

            1. Comparing raising the meager wages of the poor slightly to paying them $150/hour is the laziest of libertarian thinking. While I don’t agree with Hneckone about the minimum wage hike, you’re stupid and intellectually lazy nonetheless.

      2. the rich are not the problem. Any table you want to look at shows the top 1-5% paying more than half of all income taxes. It’s the rest of the folks who need to start paddling. Of course, we could cut spending.

        1. Oh yeah, here’s more of libertarinisms insanity, take from the poor, give to the rich.

          1. STUPID BITCH!

            /Dennis Moore

    4. Austerity = cutting a little from an artificial baseline while simultaneously raising taxes by a ratio not equal to 1.

      Yes, how does this not work?

    5. I’d give this a barely passing grade, but considering how many people were netted in, apparently this was better trolling than I initially thought.

      1. Sorry, it just pisses me off that some people actually believe this bullshit.

        1. True true. Those people either do not understand math, economics, or both, or are partisan lackwits, or all of the above.

      2. I really can’t tell a fake lefty from a real one.

        So is this a fake lefty just pulling our leg, or a paid obamabot spouting lefty talking points, or what?

        1. Well, let’s just say you never see Lucy Steigerwald and RT post in the same thread…

        2. For your consideration, Poe’s Law.

          1. Hahaha, most excellent. And I sincerely mean that.

    6. Look at austerity everywhere, it’s never worked.

      Which doesn’t work, austerity or raising taxes? All of the countries that have implemented austerity measures also increased taxes at the same time.

      1. And cut resources, which harms the economy. It’s proven that this doesn’t work.

        1. Exactly. When the government increases taxes, they cut the resources of the very people who grow the economy.

        2. what has proven to not work is central planning. Every time it has been tried. Oh, it leveled things all right; leveled them downward which, come to think of it, is exactly what Obama has done with median incomes.

        3. Re: Rational Stinker,

          And cut resources, which harms the economy. It’s proven that this doesn’t work.

          You know, this is what happens when amateurs that received all of their education from the Amerikan Pulbic Skool Seistem try to argue about such complicated issues like economics. Or the price of milk.

          Government does NOT have resources, it creates none, it produces none. Government TAKES, that’s all it can do. Only people – us, productive humans – create or produce resources for us ir for others. When the government TAKES, it WASTES, because government risks NOTHING. WE, the productive folk, RISK every day, which means WE, the productive folk, make RATIONAL decisions. Government CAN’T – because IT’S NOT THEIR FUCKING MONEY, YOU MORON.

          1. But government employees spend their paychecks! Economy!

            See, I can do it too!

          2. This is hilarious, you’re defending crony capitalism instead of a democratic process that distributes resources on a fair basis.

            Newsflash, you’re not the productive, you probably take more than you give back.

            Teachers. Police. Firefighters. Those are people doing things, protecting you, educating you. And what are you doing for them?

            Oh, that’s right, you want to throw them and their children out on the street.

            Grow up.

            1. A- A little too obvious in the 3rd paragraph. You have great potential.

              1. I was voting for the 4th paragraph – ya gotta admit the “police, teachers and firefighters GOD BLESS THEIR SAINTED SOULS” always comes out. ALWAYS.

            2. Re: Rationing Stinker,

              This is hilarious, you’re defending crony capitalism instead of a democratic process that distributes resources on a fair basis.

              Neither of those.

              Newsflash, you’re not the productive, you probably take more than you give back.

              “Give back”? To whom? I don’t “give back” anything. Either I trade or it is stolen from me by government, but I have nothing to give back.

              Teachers. Police. Firefighters.

              Moochers.

              Those are people doing things, protecting you, educating you.

              First of all, I don’t need no stinkin’ police. Try getting into my house, and I will introduce you to my two good friends: Smith, and Wesson. No police required.

              As for educating me: I feel sorry for you for thinking that teachers educate you. Education is a personal choice. Teachers can’t do no more than tutor you, but not educate you – only YOU can educate yourself, you have to be willing.

              And I guess you haven’t.

              Oh, that’s right, you want to throw them and their children out on the street.

              Grow up.

              That would be my advice to you. You keep making all these ridiculous accusations and appeals to emotion like a little schoolgirl, it looks pathetic.

              1. I don’t “give back” anything.

                I know you don’t.

                Libertarians are nothing if not selfish moochers.

                I got mine, go fuck yourself. Oh, you’re sick? Die in the street. You don’t deserve any kind of help.

                And how dare any of your fellow man try to stop and help you, THAT’S MINE!!!!

                1. Re: Rationing Stinker,

                  I know you don’t.

                  You missed the point – I don’t take anything, ergo I don’t “give back”. I only trade or have it taken from me by government.

                  Libertarians are nothing if not selfish moochers.

                  Yeah, and up is down. Slavery is freedom. I’ve heard all that before in Animal Farm.

                  Oh, you’re sick? Die in the street. You don’t deserve any kind of help.

                  I go to the doctor and pay him. I don’t get any kind of help because I don’t need it.

                  1. You take constantly. You have everyone education by the schools, you have the infrastructure to live, you have police to shoot people who take your property, on and one.

                    The simple fact is you don’t want to pay when the bill comes. You want to dine and dash.

                    And I wasn’t talking about you, you’ve already looted to pay a doctor. I’m talking about the sick who have been stolen from who need help.

                    You don’t want them to get help, you want them to suffer and die because “they didn’t contribute enough” to your disgusting barbaric worldview.

                    1. Re: Rationing Stinker,

                      You take constantly.

                      That is an accusation better supported in the field of honor, sir! You shall hear from my solicitors.

                      I’m talking about the sick who have been stolen from who need help.

                      Ahh, I get it! You subscribe to the Marxian Exploitation Theory of Profit!

                      Why didn’t you say so before? Oh, you snookums! You could’ve saved us a lot of time!

            3. democratic process that distributes resources on a fair basis.

              Property rights should not be subject to any democratic process. Thinking back to my public school education, the democratic process led to defined brown people from the African continent as a resource that could be bought or sold as property.

            4. Teachers. Police. Firefighters. Those are people doing things, protecting you, educating you. And what are you doing for them?

              We pay them.

      2. Which countries have actually implemented “austerity”?

        1. You know, the ones that still suck.

    7. RT, you forgot the “/sarcasm”.

    8. Re: Rationing Stinker,

      Look if you want to close the debt and deficit there is only one way to do it

      Yes, only one way: Cut spending.

      and that is to get people to actually pay some taxes.

      You mean those that ain’t paying any right now, right? Not the rich dudes that are paying like, what? 80% of all taxes?

      Look at austerity everywhere, it’s never worked.

      Except where it has: See Canada, New Zealand, the US after 1921, the US after 1946, etc, etc. Faux austerity, British style, does not work because it is NOT austerity, it is just more spending with higher taxes.

      You have to make it so the rich are actually paying into society.

      Another numskull that equates “society” with “Da State”

    9. What austerity? When has that ever been tried?

    10. after reading an article which sites that the richest 10% of taxpayers in this country pay the highest % of the tax burden of any OECD nation, you are actually going to make the argument that the rich aren’t paying in?

  7. From here on, any person that in any way intimates that a tax cut needs to be paid for should have their heart ripped out through their ass with a rusty spoon.

    1. Agreed. And the same for anyone that says “tax cuts” for one person means a tax hike for someone else.

      1. But his cut was larger!

    2. But the government owns everything in America! So any money taken it’s rightful owners needs to be paid with money from some of the other serfs.

  8. Some of us are old enough to remember when Washington, embroiled in a debt ceiling negotiation crisis, was on the brink of default.

    Those were the days, my friend!

  9. I like that Harsanyi refrained from using the phrase “let the Bush tax cuts expire” nonsense. When rates have been in place for more than a decade and have been extended by the current President, they are simply the current tax rates. An increase in them is an increase, not an expiration of a cut.

    1. Re: The Craig,

      Well, he does explain the very same here:

      ‘And no, an extension of an existing decadelong tax rate is not a “tax cut for the wealthiest Americans.” There is no law of nature or constitutional amendment that dictates that rates must go up every time a temporary tax rate sunsets.”

      1. Yeah, I was just giving a longwinded “YES!”

      2. Lefties believe that taxes must constantly go up. They actually think the argument “…the rate on that tax hasn’t been raised in x years” is a logical argument.

    2. Let the 16th Amendment expire. The rates can just go back to whatever they were before that.

    3. Well, they were passed with an explicit sunset date…so I kind of think it’s fair to say let them expire.

      Thing is, the spending keeps going up. I’d rather have it all taxed right now, rather then partially taxed and partially through a debased currency and other underhanded methods.

      What should happen is every dollar of government spending has to be paid for in cash, and no withholding. Everyone writes a check on April 15th for their share of their beloved government, and then the election is the day after.

      1. they were passed with an explicit sunset date…so I kind of think it’s fair to say let them expire.

        Yup, there was an expiration date. Obama proved that sunset dates don’t matter when he signed the the extension of the current rates into law.

        1. True.

          I’ve had Obots argue simultaneously that Obama has cut taxes and that we should raise taxes. Referring to his extension of the Bush tax cuts, while saying we should end them. Doublethink is double good!

          1. Not just double good, doubleplus good.

  10. So guess what. This week, Sen. Charles E. Schumer of New York — yes, the Senate’s third-ranking Democrat and the head of the Senate Finance Committee — held a news conference to pre-emptively oppose any bipartisan deficit reduction deal that would raise revenue by closing deductions, the kind of deal that was floated by the president’s own Simpson-Bowles commission.

    Hey! His rich New York enablers need those deductions! Cut the guy some slack!

  11. I say let’s see this fiscal cliff! It’s the only thing that will force these congressional morons to face reality. The repugnants and the dimwits need a wake up. The Repugs would then want tax cuts and new military spending while the dimwits would want more spending and status quo. Losers both! The only sensible thing post fiscal cliff would be less taxes AND less spending.

    1. I forget where I read it but evidently there are Democrats that think they should let the cliff hit, then offer a deal to extend tax cuts for the middle and below. Then they can pitch to the Republicans that you’re not raising taxes because the cliff was hit (for the purposes of meeting the no tax hike pledge).

      Now I remember – The Economist. That used to be a good mag. Now it thinks morons are clever.

      1. The fiscal cliff is mostly a series of tax increases and relatively small spending cuts, mostly in defense I believe. The tax increases will lead to a slow down of the economy so isn’t the logical thing at that point tax cuts?

  12. As a member of the $250k plus club, I kind of like the fiscal cliff. I’ve pretty much resigned myself to my taxes going up next year. I’ll be much happier if everyone’s goes up too so that revenue will actually meaningfully increase (and spending won’t increase quite so much) and cut the deficit.

    1. Given that the cliff will ensure that we enter into a recession, I have a feeling you will get higher taxes and a bigger deficit.

      1. When did you become a Keynesian?

    2. I don’t understand this thinking.

      Why would raising revenue cut the deficit?

      When has there been a time before that the government was so flush with cash that it decided not to spend it?

      Deficits get cut in an environment when people don’t have enough revenue. That is our only hope. If we go over a fiscal cliff, that may be our best hope of cutting the deficit…

      If we don’t want to go over the fiscal cliff, then that’s a good reason to cut the deficit now. It’s not a good reason to raise taxes.

      Raising taxes won’t cut spending. I’d understand if we were worried about interest rates, but since we’re the prettiest horse in the glue factor right now, interest on our debt is low.

      Raising taxes won’t cut spending.

      1. *EDIT*

        Raising taxes won’t cut spending. I’d understand if we were worried about interest rates, but since we’re the prettiest horse in the glue factor[y] right now, interest on our debt is low.

        1. I believe you are right Ken. The fiscal cliff is mostly tax increases with little spending cuts. Growth will stall which should lead to more tax cuts to spur growth. Spending cuts will only happen if Mitt wins and makes some kind of trade with the dems otherwise it’s biz as usual.

          1. i think it’s a likely “and” in reference to “some kind of trade with the dems.” I bet that trade will mean that no substantial cuts will be made, however.

      2. During the Clinton era 1990s- combo of higher rates and the internet boom caused tax receipts to go up and closed the deficit.

        My preference of course is not to raise taxes, but given that mine are certainly going up, I’d like everyone else’s to go up as well so that it’s actually meaningful.

        1. The Republicans under Gingrich actually slashed the budget deeply–compared to what we’re doing now. They never actually achieved a balanced budget, but a balanced budget came so close to being in sight, that they actually started talking about how they were going to spend the surplus.

          It was amazing how much they slashed back then. They were closing military bases; it was trying to slash entitlements that finally got them in trouble–you may remember Clinton letting much of the government shut down rather than submit to all of Gingrich’s cuts.

          Regardless, I don’t think we should count on someone more or less inventing the internet again, the boom that caused, and more revenue coming from something like–to the point that we should raise taxes rather than slash spending?

          Maybe there is another internet out there waiting to be invented, but I say we just slash spending now, and if the next internet suddenly materializes in the meantime, we can revisit the question then.

          1. I’d like spending to get cut too. But my comment is directed at the realistic range of outcomes, not my fantasyland. Realistically, come January, the likely outcomes are:
            1) we go off fiscal cliff
            2) obama and dems win and raise taxes on $250k and up, do away with much of the spending cuts, except maybe a little bit on defense
            3) romney and reps win and extend current taxes, and do away with much of spending cuts
            4) they come to a compromise to kick the can down the road by deferring spending cuts, and maybe increasing taxes on high earners.

            1. “But my comment is directed at the realistic range of outcomes, not my fantasyland.”

              The idea that raising taxes on people who make more than 250k is about to somehow entice the government to cut our spending seems fantasyland to me.

              Raising taxes doesn’t cut the budget, and the problem is our spending. It’s the same problem the Europeans are having. Their governments were spending too much money, and it doesn’t matter how high they raise taxes–nothing solves the problem of bloated budgets like cutting them.

          2. There very well could be another internet right around the corner but it is probably still about 10 – 15 years away from being a major growth sector in the economy.

            That would be private space “colonization” (for lack of a better word). I’m not talking about huge colonies of people moving into space, more like the industrialization of it. Everything from Solar Power Satelites to orbiting factories and then all the industries that would grow out of supporting them or utilizing them.

            1. I appreciate how something like that might be a big profit center ripe for government tax exploitation, but I still think we should focus on budget cutting until something like that actually materializes.

              In fact, keeping corporate and investment taxes low will probably help stuff like that along–so let’s focus on cutting the budget.

        2. To be fair, Clinton got lucky. The rise of the Internet coupled with excessive consumerism and debt-building of the average American fueled an economic boom…and the subsequent collapse in 2007.

  13. Crazy leftists can’t seem to wrap their head around the fact that the same amount of tax revenue can flow to the gubmint by reducing tax rates and deductions. If there are no deductions, then everyone is paying taxes on a larger share of their income.

    Of course we all know the real reason that the big government crowd doesn’t want to eliminate deductions. Their power over individuals, and the ability to get them to do the gubmints bidding would take a massive hit.

    1. I think you are putting too much emphasis on the idea that tax deductions are a power thing. The real benefit of tax deductions to a congressman is his ability to wring campaign donations out of interest groups in exchange for supporting this or that deduction. If there were a low flat rate, the value of the deductions should be much less, which would lessen the value of the deduction and make it more difficult to extract cash and other support from the lobbyist.

      1. I think that there is a real benefit to keeping as much of our economy out of the hands of the government as possible.

        I also think that at certain points in the political cycle, across the board tax cuts are unpopular–especially with someone like Obama in office…

        Because taxation is so heavily on the high earners, you can’t slash taxes across the board without it being disproportionately advantageous to high earners. So if we’re in a situation where we need less taxation, what do we do?

        We take what the political market will give us. And if all it will give us is targeted tax exemptions that don’t favor high earners so disproportionately, then we take what we can get.

        I’d rather slash taxes across the board myself, but if that isn’t one of the options, I’m not gonna let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

    2. the elected ones get it but that means telling people the truth and the cannot do that.

    3. In short, how are they supposed to sell electric cars without tax credits? Huh? Huh??!!

  14. Alan Simpson on CNBC just said that the stock market is whistling past the graveyard. He said they think that no Congress could be so stupid that it would let this happen, and then he said they’re wrong about that.

  15. Congratulations on fitting so much libertarian tax bullshit into so succinct an article.

    “Taxes can never go up, ever, for any reason” is the rigid ideological position, period.

    1. They are too high now shithook.

      1. But they’re the lowest they’ve been in most people’s living memory. So that would seem to be a matter of opinion.

        1. It is my money so my opinion is the only one that counts. Yours is just the whining rationalization of a thief.

          This is your crowd T o n y. Be proud.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..re=related

        2. Re: Tony,

          But they’re the lowest they’ve been in most people’s living memory.

          That’s a BIG lie.

        3. But they’re the lowest they’ve been in most people’s living memory.

          Nope.

          http://www.oftwominds.com/blog…..e7-12.html

          And even taking your question-begging into account, we currently have the highest spending levels that government has ever achieved. Something’s going to give eventually–and since our dysfunctional bureaucratic system is at “bloat” stage right now, effectively neutering any efforts that might be made by the government to “create jobs” on a scale necessary to get the LFP rate back to 1990s levels, I’ll put my increasingly devalued dollars on spending getting cut–involuntarily, if needs be.

          That which is unsustainable will go away.

    2. They are always too high unless they’re zero. Utilitarian libertarianism is all fine and dandy, but tax collectors should be raped and lit on fire.

    3. Re: Tony,

      “Taxes can never go up, ever, for any reason” is the rigid ideological position, period.

      But Chukie Schummer’s ‘Ils ne passeront pas! is not, right?

      God, are you intellectually bankrupt today. You’re losing your mojo, Tony.

      1. He had mojo? I have seen no evidence of that.

    4. “Taxes can never go down, ever, for any reason,” isn’t any more flexible.

    5. What the fuck would you know about paying taxes? About as much as you know about the law, I’d say, parasite.

      (This presumes his name is not simply intended to rhyme with phony, and he is not the brightest troll in the shed. If that is the case, bravo; otherwise, see above.)

  16. Wow. Some of the troll comments here are just….wow. Unfortunately many believe this stuff. With so many people so far out of touch with reality we are bound to go over this cliff sooner or later. I am going to hunker down in my house in the woods and try to ride it out.

  17. Alt-Text ‘Raven hair and ruby lips
    sparks fly from her finger tips’

  18. Look if you want to close the debt and deficit there is only one way to do it and that is to get people to actually pay some taxes.

    Wrong.

    1. So you’d rather throw workers into the streets than have Mitt Romney actually pay taxes?

      1. I want workers thrown out on the street regardless! Their bodies can be made into diamonds which can be carved and polished into monocles!

      2. Re: Rationing Stinker,

        So you’d rather throw workers into the streets than have Mitt Romney actually pay taxes?

        You’re quite clumsy when it comes to composing loaded questions, R.

        Taxation does not give jobs to workers. Only production gives jobs, and for that it is required to have investment in capital goods. Taxation destroys capital, it does not create it.

        1. Mitt Romney didn’t pay taxes and how many jobs did that give workers?

          Oh wait, he actually stripped jobs from them and sent them overseas.

          1. Re: Rationing Stinker,

            Mitt Romney didn’t pay taxes and how many jobs did that give workers?

            I didn’t eat my icecream and how many jobs did that give to workers?

            Your mommy didn’t give me my daily blowjob tday and how many jobs did that give to workers?

            I can go on and on with smilar non-sequiturs.

            Again, you’re clumsy.

      3. *applauds, holds up ’10’ card*

    2. Do you want to go back to the Clinton era when the Federal government was only spending around two trillion dollars and as a result masses of people were dying in the streets, Mr. Brooks?

      1. Clinton sure was a bastard, letting all those people die. Just like one of those rotten…. Democrats?

  19. Did anybody else think the photo attached to this story was of the Stones at first glance?

  20. Sen. Charles E. Schumer of New York — yes, the Senate’s third-ranking Democrat and the head of the Senate Finance Committee — held a news conference to pre-emptively oppose any bipartisan deficit reduction deal that would raise revenue by closing deductions

    What a surprise. Why would Chuckie or any other Congresscritter voluntarily relinquish their grip on one of their most powerful levers of control over the masses?

  21. So you’d rather throw workers into the streets than have Mitt Romney actually pay taxes?

    Incoherent moron is incoherent.

  22. Mitt Romney didn’t pay taxes

    [citation needed]

    1. He intentionally manipulated his taxes to pay as little as possible until last year when he did the opposite to pay more to hide the fact he effectively paid nothing before he had to actually show the truth about his tax crimes.

      1. “….intentionally manipulated his taxes to pay as little as possible ……his tax crimes. ”

        You are the worst troll ever. Come back when you turn 12.

        1. Yeah, that one blew a lot of good troll work up to that point. I haz a sad.

        2. Man.

          “Rational thinker” is a loose term with this guy.

          Jesus no fucking kidding. Because Romney is RATIONAL. On what planet do people live to want to have bureaucrats take more of their money?

          It’s ILLOGICAL.

          I own a business. I have to damn well WATCH my money by looking to save money as far as the law will permit. There’s ZERO evidence – ZERO – Romney broke the law.

          MEANWHILE, the party you support ACTUALLY DOES HAVE TAX CHEATS starting with Geithner.

          The government fucking steals everything and lines their own god damn pockets.

          Wake up clown.

      2. Re: Rationing Stinker,

        He intentionally manipulated his taxes to pay as little as possible

        Ohhh, that bad man – imagine that, using the tax code to not pay more than what he’s legally obligated to pay.

        What has the world come to? Oh, god!

        1. It proves the fact that people like Romney are stealing from the working class by manipulating the entire system instead of actually contributing to society.

          And you and he want to just loot more and more rather than make changes where everyone gets to have a viable existence.

          1. Re: Rationing Stinker,

            It proves the fact that people like Romney are stealing from the working class by manipulating the entire system instead of actually contributing to society.

            Yes, yes, I already know all of that. People like Romney obtained their money by exploiting the workers – the Marxian Exploitation Theory of Profit. So government taxes them to “give back” what was taken.

            You know that Marx’s theory was totally debunked, don’t you? I mean, you do realize that you’re arguing based on something akin to phlogiston and the 4 elements?

            1. How was Marx debunked?

              Everything he argued has come true.

              1. A good come back attempt, but you still have to go back to Troll HQ for retraining.

                They might have to tattoo “the value of a thing is what that thing will bring, NOT the amount of time spent in ‘labor'” on your knuckles. And that will hurt.

              2. Re: Rationing Stinker,

                How was Marx debunked?

                He forgot to factor in time preference. Bohm-Bawerk showed that he was full of shit. Very elegantly, I might add.

                Everything he argued has come true.

                The only prediction he was making (because the rest was a weird conjuntion of theory of history and economics) was way off.

              3. Seriously, I have to ask you the same questions I asked Tony.

                How old are you and what job do you have?

                I’m serious. We have to start there to make sense of your Erik-like madness.

        2. Ohhh, that bad man – imagine that, using the tax code to not pay more than what he’s legally obligated to pay.

          From what I read, he didn’t even get the full tax deduction from his charitable donations. So he still payed more taxes than he needed to.

      3. Funny, I do exactly the same thing (admittedly on a smaller scale that Gov. Romney) every year.

  23. I look forward to Chuck Schumer killing the bill that would close the “loopholes” for Big Oil that the lefties are always whinging on about.

  24. Well, the first mistake was to respond to RT. Acknowledgement equals reinforcement.

    The second mistake was continuing to respond to it when it started using weasel words and phrases, like “[the rich] should pay what it takes to provide for a basic standard of living for most people.” So, ARV had it right when he asked it to define those, but that doesn’t work if you continue to reply to it once the challenge has been issued. Attention is what it craves. So if you have to reply to it, don’t let it get away with stuff like this because you’re only feeding it. Every minute you spend responding to trolls is a minute you could have spent defining libertarianism and advancing the cause.

    We got rid of WI this way.

    Plus, it’s Thursday.

    1. Someone crushes the simplistic worldview of libertarians. Is accused of being a troll, the mob swarms to say “DON’T RESPOND” lest any others of the cult expose the vapid logic of their debunked ideology.

      1. Re: Rationing Stinker,

        Someone crushes the simplistic worldview of libertarians. Is accused of being a troll,

        Oh, you narcissist. You really think that your collection of non-sequiturs, misconceptions and appeals to emotion is comparable to “crushing” your opposition?

        1. You really think that your collection of non-sequiturs, misconceptions and appeals to emotion is comparable to “crushing” your opposition?

          It works at all the other websites.

          1. Well, I did figure out that RT is arguing from the Exploitation Theory of Profit, as if Bohm-Bawerk had never existed and all.

            I’m having a blast!

      2. Well done Mary you’ve crushed us. Now go crush Red State or something. Glorious crusade and all.

        1. I suggest Ace of Spades HQ.

      3. The only person with a simplistic worldview is you.

        It’s pathetic. Vapid. Naive. Silly.

    2. There was no White Idiot…only Mary Stack of Dallas, Texas!

    3. We got rid of WI this way.

      Actually, WI was not fully rooted out until registration. Once Mary and whoever else was doing it couldn’t handle-hop, that shtick was dropped finally.

      Ignoring them helps, though. It’s the only way to hurt attention whores.

  25. It proves the fact that people like Romney are stealing from the working class by manipulating the entire system instead of actually contributing to society.

    Of course it does.

  26. Yep, I bet they are laughing all the way to the bank!

    http://www.PrivacyGet.tk

  27. It’s teh Econominiminy, stoopit!

  28. The only prediction of Marx that I recall is the eventual dissolution of the state once people realized that how great Communism works. One must only glance at totalitarianism in Cuba, China or North Korea to see how horseshit of a guess that turned out to be.

    Take it easy on RT, he’s clearly not out of puberty … or particularly bright

  29. Kind of funny how an uneducated fanatic chooses a diametrically opposed descriptive moniker like, Rational Thinker. In my own weakness I’d like to get all “Ministry of Love” on his type

  30. We focus on searching the bestEnglish tutor,Madarin tutor, Putonghua tutor, French tutor, German tutor, Spanish tutor, Italian tutor, Japanese tutor, Korean tutor and other language tutors.

    We will continue to offer our quality private tutor agency service . to our clients and our nativeteachers in the days ahead. And we are deeply grateful of your support and words of mouth all along.

  31. There is no law of nature or constitutional amendment that dictates that rates must go up every time a temporary tax rate sunsets.

    Well the English language would make a strong case for saying that anything that is “temporary” must end. How about we just stop pretending that they were ever really meant to be temporary?

    1. Bush probably did intend for them to be temporary.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.