Tax INCREASE on $200K - $500K "small business" earners if Bush Tax Cuts EXPIRED: $700.

[Amerigo Vespucci]

November 14, 2010 10:00 AM
Who Will Stand Up To The Superrich?
By Nicole Belle

http://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/who-will-stand-superrich

Frank Rich writes in the New York Times exactly what the Republicans are fighting so hard that they're willing to take the country down for:

On last Sunday’s “60 Minutes,” Obama was already wobbling toward another “compromise” in which he does most of the compromising. It’s a measure of how far he’s off his game now that a leader who once had the audacity to speak at length on the red-hot subject of race doesn’t even make the most forceful case for his own long-held position on an issue where most Americans still agree with him. (Only 40 percent of those in the Nov. 2 exit poll approved of an extension of all Bush tax cuts.) The president’s argument against extending the cuts for the wealthiest has now been reduced to the dry accounting of what the cost would add to the federal deficit. As he put it to CBS’s Steve Kroft, “the question is — can we afford to borrow $700 billion?”

Ah yes, the almighty extension of the Bush tax cut for the very wealthiest Americans. We hear non-stop how ridiculous, how critical, how essential it is to not "raise taxes" (by allowing the tax cut to expire, as scheduled) on the job providers is.

The G.O.P.’s arguments for extending the Bush tax cuts to this crowd, usually wrapped in laughably hypocritical whining about “class warfare,” are easily batted down. The most constant refrain is that small-business owners who file in this bracket would be hit so hard they could no longer hire new employees. But the Tax Policy Center found in 2008, when checking out similar campaign claims by “Joe the Plumber,” that only 2 percent of all Americans reporting small-business income, regardless of tax bracket, would see tax increases if Obama fulfilled his pledge to let the Bush tax cuts lapse for the top earners. The economist Dean Baker calculated that the yearly tax increase at the lower end of that bracket, for those with earnings between $200,000 and $500,000, would amount to $700 — which “isn’t enough to hire anyone.”

That's it--$700! And for that, it's worth sandbagging the country and adding billions to the deficit.

But will a single Democratic politician put it in such stark terms? Of course not.

[dkf]

1. This whole argument makes me very doubtful we will ever get rid of the chunk of the bush tax cuts

That went to the middle class and which make up the bulk of the cost.

We won't ever be able to balance the budget until we turn into Greece or Ireland.

[geckosfeet]

2. Those kind of austerity programs amount to huge taxes on everyone - but the rich

[dkf]

3. Pay now or pay later.

If we want more equity in income distribution we need to tackle trade and labor policies. Using taxes to imprecisely correct these problems isn't fair either.

[geckosfeet]

4. And what 'precisely', is the correct solution? Taxing people without money?

Or taxing people with money?

[dkf]

5. Correcting the root of the problem before the income gets realized.

[geckosfeet]

6. Presuming that one even has a job that generates income? What is the root?

Income inequity? Lack of jobs? Jobs going offshore? The education system? Age, sex, religious discrimination?

I don't get it.

Assuming a 100% employment utopia correcting the root of the problem, and a creating a reasonable range of income from top to bottom, how is it equitable to tax someone who earns minimum wage at the same or higher rate than someone who makes $250k+?

How is it equitable to impose austerity measures that impact lower wage earners much more severely than anyone else?

Whatever the 'root' is, if correcting it could remove some of the inequity, I could go along with that.

[dkf]

7. Where to begin? It boggles my mind how lax enforcement has been and the inequities in the system.

Well what I would do is start with the most evident inequities...the ability of hedged managers to use capital gains rates instead of reporting income would be one. Instead of targeting Exhorbitant bonuses i would look at the areas where the income was created to see if there were problems in the generation of income. For instance i would look at the entire process of packaging and selling mortgage backed securities. That would go to the SEC. Then I would look at the mass exploitation of workers including illegal wages and working conditions starting with the most profitable company to make sure those were not ill gotten.

I would move swiftly on Elizabeth Warren's commission and look into unfair banking practices like sorting transactions so that the biggest payment comes first triggering numerous defaults along the way.

You know I feel like I could go on and on for ages in every area.

[geckosfeet]

8. I agree. You are talking about business regulation in the peoples interest.

Unfortunately the regulators have been bought and paid for several times over.

Here's to hoping Warren can make a dent.