RSS

Tag Archives: Tax Cuts

But I Only Have $400,000 Per Year to Live On?

Who has two thumbs and is whining about only having $400,000 to spend for his very own? It’s Republican Tea Party (GOTP) Congressman John Fleming.

While appearing on MSNBC to try to explain why he opposes President Obama’s tax increase on those earning more than $1 million per year, Fleming became defensive to the point of stupidity when host Chris Jansing commented on the fact Fleming has an income of more than $6 million annually.

“The amount that I have to reinvest in my business and feed my family is more like $600,000 of that $6.3 million,” Fleming explained. “So by the time I feed my family I have, maybe, $400,000 left over to invest in new locations, upgrade my locations, buy more equipment.”

So, let me see if I understand this correctly congressman; you spend $200,000 per year feeding your family? How many kids do you have? Are you a polygamist? What the deuce are you feeding your family gold plated hot dogs?

According to the Wall Street Journal, Fleming owns a string of Subway sandwich shops and UPS store franchises through which he earned about $6.3 million last year.

Jansing tried to point out to the congressman that he was sounding more than a little petulant, “You do understand, congressman, that the average person out there who’s making maybe 40, 50, $60,000 out there, when they hear you only have $400,000 left over, it’s not exactly a sympathetic position,” she said. “You understand that?”

“Class warfare’s never created a job,” Fleming responded. “And that’s people that will not get jobs. This is all about creating jobs, Chris, this is not about attacking people who make certain incomes. You know in this country, most people feel that being successful in their business is a virtue, not a vice, and once we begin to identify it as a vice, this country is going down.”

Yes, of course congressman, it’s all class warfare – so, how is it class warfare when the President suggests the wealthy pay more taxes, but it’s not class warfare when you – clearly part of the wealthy class – want to slash programs that benefit the poorest among us, and when you want to allow tax cuts benefitting the middle class to expire?

Well let me point something out to you dip stick, we’ve had the Bush Tax cuts for more than a decade and we’ve seen almost zero job creation from all of you good old American “job creators”; you’re chance is up, you and your country club set of business owners now has to foot the bill for the Bush/Cheney ear of adventurism. If you approve/support two wars and you didn’t pay for them, well, the bill is now due; congratulations.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on September 21, 2011 in Taxes

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

More tax cuts for job creators?

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on September 7, 2011 in Taxes

 

Tags: , ,

Agreement reached?

The Associated Press (AP) is reporting there’s been some sort of agreement met between the Democratic Party and the Republican Tea Party (GOTP) ending the perilous stalemate over raising the debt ceiling that could have ultimately ended in our nation defaulting on its debts for the first time in its history. President Barack Obama and congressional leaders announced the so-called historic agreement Sunday night.

Allegedly the proposed agreement would slice at least $2.4 trillion from federal spending over a decade, a steep price for many Democrats, too little for many Republicans.

Of course it is only a proposed agreement because the jack wagons of the Tea Party have yet to see it and comment on it, much less it hasn’t been voted on by the GOTP controlled House, so, it may be all for nothing.

The deal, with scant time remaining before Tuesday’s deadline for paying government bills, “will allow us to avoid default and end the crisis that Washington imposed on the rest of America,” President Obama said.

Default, the President said, “would have had a devastating effect on our economy.”

Of course Humpty Dumpty (Speaker John Boehner) was all gloom and doom even in reaching an agreement, “It isn’t the greatest deal in the world, but it shows how much we’ve changed the terms of the debate in this town,” he said on a conference call, according to GOP officials. He added the agreement was “all spending cuts. The White House bid to raise taxes has been shut down.”

So, there are no tax increases? That’s OK, those are coming when the Bush Tax Cuts expire, and since the President will be re-elected and the GOTP will probably lose its control of the House because of this nonsense, those cuts are going to become history. Then the wealthiest 2% will once again pay at least part of its share.

It appears the proposed debt increase will carry the country through to 2013; but the Tea Party Cujo’s in the House only want it to carry out for a few months. The President has said he would veto anything less than raising the debt ceiling enough to carry the country through the 2012 elections.

We’ll see if Boehner has the leadership credits to get it passed through the House; if not, then he’s through, though that’s pretty much assured now as the Tea Party smells blood in the water and is going to attack. Frankenstein’s monster has come home. Of course it could very well be that Boehner has found a way to ally moderate Republicans and Democrats to incapacitate the Tea Party freshman; if that’s the case, then the Tea Party’s 15 minutes of fame in the Congress may have passed.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on July 31, 2011 in Debt Ceiling

 

Tags: , , , , ,

Did Reagan Really Cut Taxes?

ronald-reagan

During today’s bloviations, Rush, while supposedly giving a eulogy for Jack Kemp, attempted yet again to sell the country on the righteousness of the supply-side genius that was Ronald Reagan. He tried to promote the idea that Reagan’s cuts brought about untold economic prosperity, and literally drove the country out of the recession that had helped propel him into office. According to Rush, Reagan’s tax cuts were revolutionary, and helped create the longest sustained economic growth in American history.

Rush, of course couldn’t just praise Reagan, he had to take the opportunity to attack President Obama, “My friends, read his books. Barack Obama’s primary objective is undoing Ronald Reagan’s tax cuts. Now why would that be? That’s all he’s doing, returning the nation’s wealth to its so-called rightful owners. He operates on the belief that every achiever in this country is a thief, that every achiever has stolen or has something that’s genuinely not his or hers — that they’ve come by it unfairly.” But wait, that’s not all, rush continued, “We’re just not going to allow it to happen. But I — there’s no question that he’s defining prosperity down. I mean, his objective is to undo the Reagan tax cuts. Now if his objective is to undo the Reagan tax cuts, I guess those are really big tent moderate ideas, huh? We know Obama is a left-wing radical. He takes a look at anything right-wing and he wants to destroy it.”

And in so defining President Obama, Rush defines himself with his own words: “We know Rush is a right-wing radical. He takes a look at anything left-wing and he wants to destroy it.”

Now for a little truth about Ronald Reagan’s “revolutionary” tax cuts; first, yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus, and yes Ronald Reagan did cut taxes. Sort of. However, these wonderful, growth expanding, economic exploding tax cuts never fully took effect. You see, they were scaled back in 1982 by a tax increase that averaged $37.5 billion over its first four years.

Second, part of the Reagan tax cut myth is that everyone never had it so good as they did under Reagan. However, the economy actually grew slightly faster under President Clinton, and, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, the after-tax income of a typical family – adjusted for inflation – rose more than twice as much from 1992 to 2000 as it did from 1980 to 1988.

While President Reagan managed to ram his huge 1981 tax cut through a Democrat controlled Congress, he had to follow it with two large tax increases. Fact of the matter is, no peacetime president has raised taxes so much on so many people. Yes, you heard that right, NO PEACETIME PRESIDENT HAS RAISED TAXES SO MUCH ON SO MANY PEOPLE!

The first two Reagan tax increases came in 1982. That year, he signed into law the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act which raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year, and the Highway Revenue Act of 1982 which raised the gasoline tax by another $3.3 billion. These increases, coming only a year after his “monumental” tax cut were needed because the budget projections used to justify the 1981 tax cut were wildly over optimistic. Over all, the 1982 tax increases undid about a third of the 1981 cut; and truth be told, as a share of the Gross Domestic Product, the increase was substantially larger than Mr. Clinton’s 1993 tax increase. According to the United States Treasury Department, TEFRA alone raised taxes by almost 1 percent of the G.D.P., making it the largest peacetime tax increase in American history. Listen carefully ditto-heads, because I want you to remember, Ronald Reagan oversaw the “LARGEST PEACETIME TAX INCREASE IN AMERICAN HISTORY”.

President Reagan’s next tax increase was known as the Social Security Reform Act of 1983. Its key provision was an increase in the payroll tax that pays for Social Security and Medicare hospital insurance. For many middle- and low-income families, this tax increase more than undid any gains from Reagan’s income tax cuts of 1981. This is a tax increase that lives on, because it initiated automatic increases in the taxable wage base. Thanks to President Reagan, those with moderately high earnings see their payroll taxes rise every single year. Once again ditto-heads, thanks to who? Come on, you can say it, thanks to Ronald Reagan.

According to 1980 Congressional Budget Office estimates, middle-income families with children paid 8.2 percent of their income in income taxes, and 9.5 percent in payroll taxes. By 1988 the income tax share was down to 6.6 percent — but the payroll tax share was up to 11.8 percent. The increase in the payroll tax share outweighed, or canceled out, any benefit from lowering of the income tax share paid.

But wait! We’re not done! The following year, Reagan signed another big tax increase in the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984. This raised taxes by $18 billion per year or 0.4 percent of G.D.P. A similar sized tax increase today would be about $44 billion

OK, now wait just a darned minute! Reagan passed the historic Tax Reform Act of 1986, achieving in startling clarity his supply side goal of lowering individual income tax rates

Well, not quite. The “historic Tax Reform Act of 1986 in reality imposed the largest corporate tax increase in history. OK ditto-heads, repeat after me, “THE LARGEST CORPORATE TAX INCREASE IN HISTORY”.

With the simple stroke of his pen, Reagan raised corporate taxes by $120 billion over five years and closed corporate tax loopholes worth about $300 billion over that same period.

So, what does it all mean?

It means tax cuts during a recession do not work. They didn’t work for Ronald Reagan in 1981, and they certainly didn’t work for George W. Bush in 2001. Tax cuts during a recession coupled with increased federal spending really do not work. Reagan cut taxes and increased federal spending in order to fight, and win, the cold war. George W. Bush cut taxes and increased federal spending to fight the war on terror, and to fund his invasion and occupation of Iraq.

So, what are the differences between Reagan and Bush? Reagan understood his tax cuts were hurting the economy, and did a 180 turn and increased taxes – in spite of what Rush, Hannity, et al claim – while George W. Bush plowed straight ahead off the cliff.

Did Ronald Reagan cut taxes? Yes he did. But then he raised them. Two things to remember about the Gipper and his tax cuts:

First, Ronald Reagan oversaw the largest peacetime tax increase in American history.

Second, Ronald Reagan imposed the largest corporate tax increase in history.

Once again, Rush proves that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on May 5, 2009 in Economics

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,