Monday, August 23, 2010

The Kroog Versus The Bush Tax Cuts

Paul Krugman reminds us that Members of Congress complaining about budget deficits don't seem to mind extending the Bush tax cuts...to themselves.
So what’s the choice now? The Obama administration wants to preserve those parts of the original tax cuts that mainly benefit the middle class — which is an expensive proposition in its own right — but to let those provisions benefiting only people with very high incomes expire on schedule. Republicans, with support from some conservative Democrats, want to keep the whole thing.

And there’s a real chance that Republicans will get what they want. That’s a demonstration, if anyone needed one, that our political culture has become not just dysfunctional but deeply corrupt.

What’s at stake here? According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, making all of the Bush tax cuts permanent, as opposed to following the Obama proposal, would cost the federal government $680 billion in revenue over the next 10 years. For the sake of comparison, it took months of hard negotiations to get Congressional approval for a mere $26 billion in desperately needed aid to state and local governments.

And where would this $680 billion go? Nearly all of it would go to the richest 1 percent of Americans, people with incomes of more than $500,000 a year. But that’s the least of it: the policy center’s estimates say that the majority of the tax cuts would go to the richest one-tenth of 1 percent. Take a group of 1,000 randomly selected Americans, and pick the one with the highest income; he’s going to get the majority of that group’s tax break. And the average tax break for those lucky few — the poorest members of the group have annual incomes of more than $2 million, and the average member makes more than $7 million a year — would be $3 million over the course of the next decade
Last I checked over 40% of Congress qualifies for millionaire status and dozens have yearly incomes in the $500,000 plus range, so yes, Obama's basically telling Congress to raise taxes on many of its own members.  Sen. John Kerry is by far the wealthiest member of Congress, he'd take a major tax hit but he's willing to pay it.  Republicans in that range, not so much.

In other words, the majority of the tax breaks aren't going to go to "small business owners and family farms" like Republicans complain about, but corporate heirs and financial mega-players who make millions and stand to save millions if the Bush tax cuts are extended to them.  Some two-thirds of a trillion dollars will be given away and nearly all of it to the richest one-tenth of Americans.

Fiscally responsible Republicans are perfectly fine with that.  They want the money to come from social cuts from the poor and middle class Americans instead.

That's how they roll.

6 comments:

In Ur Blog Eatin Waffles (Accept no fail imitations) said...

Sen. John Kerry is by far the wealthiest member of Congress, he'd take a major tax hit but he's willing to pay it.

So are there any other Dems who are willing? I bet there are just as many willing as there are unwilling.

But that's how they roll.

Hypocrite

bjkeefe said...

Good related post: Robert Reich on Mitt Romney's flim-flammery, in which Willard proposes to cut taxes an balance the budget all in one swell foop.

(Which I pass along mostly just because of the confluence of open tabs.)

Zandar said...

Sure Waffles, which is why the Dems are for this and the Republicans are against it for the most part.

In Ur Blog Eatin Waffles (Accept no fail imitations) said...

Clearly one side has a monopoly on corruption right?

You are the blindest of partisan fools, or the most naive.

SteveARSE said...

way to not answer the question, moron. you are just too funny. you calling someone blind is like a skunk calling someone smelly. even if the skunk is right, his own stink pretty much negates the point.

when the republicans take control in 2011, you'll still be here like a goddamned energizer bunny of inanity, blaming most of what goes wrong on teh liberals. oh, you'll take the occasional token swipe at republicans, but most of your scorn will be reserved for the democrats. why? because you are a partisan fool, my friend*.


*extreme irony.

In Ur Blog Eatin Waffles (Accept no fail imitations) said...

Um t-man

Sure Waffles, which is why the Dems are for this and the Republicans are against it for the most part.

Isn't a question. Next time pay a little more attention before going into South Park-esque retard rage.

you calling someone blind is like a skunk calling someone smelly. even if the skunk is right

See right there proves how illogical you are, "even if they are right" you ignore it. You're stuck in your ideological ways regardless of reality.

when the republicans take control in 2011
So you've already thrown in the towel? You seemed like someone who is a quitter. See also "Open Mouth, Insert Foot"

Also when have you ever heard me say "GOP > Dems in every way". Rebutting Z does not equate to "Hes a right wing extremist" like you seem to think. If you would pay attention there are a number of things Z and I agree on like Gun control, abortion, Gay Marriage, the Ground Zero Mosque, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, etc. But no I'm the worst of partisan fools.

Tool.

Go ahead, go through all the comments I've left and find where I've said "The GOP HAS ALL THE ANSWERS". When you can't or refuse to then we'll again know you're talking out of your ass.

Fail Harder

Related Posts with Thumbnails