New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Hypocrisy Test

Arkady

President
For years, a large majority of major politicians and commentators on the right (and in the self-proclaimed center) pretended to be deeply concerned about deficits, when that gave them an excuse to demand increasingly austere government budgets. Republicans forced government shutdowns over the issue, and op-ed writers pushed for reduction of social security benefits and savage cuts to the social safety net. Well, now we get to see if this was a genuine (albeit newly developed) principle, or simply a fig leaf for an anti-government agenda. Jeb Bush has debuted a tax plan that would cause gigantic increases in deficits, in order to further increase the wealth of the ruling class. Will the supposed deficit hawks speak out against it? Or will it be a flashback to the Bush and Reagan years, when deficits were treated as not mattering?

Bush's plan calls for reducing marginal tax rates. He has set this up to do nothing to provide tax relief to poorer workers, who are actually struggling to pay. The 10% bracket remains 10%. But for the rich, it'll be a monumental windfall: the 39.6% bracket goes down to 28%. Let's say you're Jeb Bush, and you brought in $7.4 million last year. This change would mean about $850,000 more in take-home pay. But, of course, you don't get something for nothing. That $850,000 has to come from somewhere else: higher payments from the less fortunate (either that amount today, or a whole lot more through the magic of debt with compound interest in the future), or else further cuts to spending. Keep in mind US spending is already the third-lowest of any developed nation on a per/GDP basis (behind only Mexico and Chile, which barely even qualify as developed nations).

That's not the only aristocracy-favoring change Bush embedded in his plan. When you come from old, old money like the Bush's, your real constituency are people with family compounds and second yachts. So, instead of the mortgage interest rate deduction being limited to the first $1 Million of debt, as currently, the tax value is capped at 2% of AGI, so that rich people's write offs can be higher than the write-offs of the middle class, even for a given amount of debt. If you earn $50,000, the maximum tax value of the mortgage interest deduction will be just $1,000 for you, but if, like Jeb!, you earned $7.4 million, go ahead and write off up to $148,000. Jeb! also eliminates the phase-outs for personal exemptions and itemized deductions, and eliminates personal AMT. These changes have absolutely no value for the majority of Americans, but they're a very big deal for the rich.

Jeb! also slashes the top corporate tax rate by 15 points. Keep in mind that US corporations already pay a below-average effective tax rate by the standards of the developed world generally, and they pay vastly less of the overall tax burden in this country than they did in our economic golden age. Corporate AMT is also eliminated, which not only makes it easier for well-represented corporations to dodge taxes entirely, but also increases the incentive for economically inefficient behavior corporations engage in merely to lower tax liability (with AMT, such tax-dodging measure reach a point of diminishing returns and companies stop bothering, but without AMT, there's no limit to how low you can go).

Jeb! also makes sure that rich folks who don't actually work for a living get a bonus in take home pay, relative to those who do something productive with their lives. If you're some snot-nosed trust-fund brat living off a portfolio, you get to pay just 20% on your capital gains, dividends, and interest. If you hire a professional, like a doctor, lawyer, or accountant, they could be paying up to 28% on their earnings, for the "sin" of having actually done something to deserve the money, but you get to coast by with just a 20% cut taken.

Jeb! also screws over small-time savers. The change to a 20% rate on interest may be a windfall to the rich, who previously paid at ordinary income rates, which were higher for them. But for the poor, it represents a tax hike. If you're some small-time saver just trying to build up a little cushion in a savings account, previously your interest might be taxed at just your 10% ordinary rate. Now, that'll be doubled, to help to finance that windfall for the rich.

Probably the most indefensible change, though, would be eliminating the estate tax. Already, even most multi-million-dollar estates are tax free: only if the net value of the estate is over $5.43 million is even a dime of it taxed. But, if you're sitting around waiting for Pappy to die so you can get your hands on part of the Bush family fortune, that cap probably seems much too low, so Jeb! want to get rid of estate taxes entirely. As a result, someone who earns many millions of dollars through his own genius and hard work will be heavily taxed, while someone who "earns" the exact same amount for sitting on his ass and having his name show up in the right will pays NOTHING. As with the reduction of investment tax rates, the principle here is clear: actual productive labor needs to be punished -- the less someone does to deserve his money, the more of that money he should get in take-home pay. The "little people" who actually make their way through hard work, are the ones who should support the country, not the children of the aristocracy. For someone like Bush, who was born into multi-generational wealth, that probably makes perfect sense.

It takes real effort to make Donald Trump look like he's not the dumbest, most vicious guy in a field of candidates. But Jeb! has done it.
 
Last edited:
You seem to be assuming Jeb Bush is "on the right". I'd say that's your first mistake.

But, I always enjoy your green-with-envy rants about the wealthy...
 
This is just more of your Marxist style class warfare under a new rubric. His plan actually limits itemized deductions (except charitable) to 2% of taxable income. It actually brings in MORE revenue because of the reduced access to deductions (mortgage interest being the biggest) and does completely away with the deduction for state & local income taxes (that one costs the Feds $1.1 trillion). That's really why you don't like his plan, right? Because it puts pressure on state and local governments to put the brakes on spending? Am I right?
 
JEB's plan is to align US corporate tax rates with those of Europe, to incent more US corporations to remain here instead of seeking a tax break overseas. This makes perfect sense.

interest and dividends aren't subject to the bizarre sorts of exclusions, exemptions, tax credits, and other incentives which apply to earned income. Which is why the capital gains tax rate isn't halfway to the moon like earned income taxes are, before those deductions.

you clearly don't pay attention to economics or taxes. this is pretty basic stuff, ark.
 
One of the most brilliant presidents of our time has already determined that there is no debt crisis.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/03/president-obama-there-is-no-debt-crisis/

So if someone that brilliant isn't concerned, why should anyone else?
You seem to be confused about the difference between debt and deficits. Even if there is not presently a debt crisis, we're certainly close, and could easily go over with the kinds of much-larger deficits Jeb! is looking to bring about. The numbers aren't hard to figure out. Debt is currently 103.6% of GDP, and projected to fall every year as far out as the CBO can project. The current level is high, but we've been higher and have come back from it. It was 118.9% back in 1946. So, there's no need to panic. As in '46, we're now set on a path where we fully expect to pull back from the brink, as long as we don't do anything stupid. But doing something stupid is just what Bush plans.

He plans a tax cut along the lines of what his brother pushed through, and we saw what that did. Debt, which had fallen from 64.9% of GDP in the mid '90s all the way to 54.6% in 2001, surged back up with Dubya's tax cutting. By the time Obama's tax increases finally kicked in, for 2013, debt was already 100.8% of GDP. That's a 46.2-point increase in debt during that period of the Bush-level taxes. We may not be in a debt crisis today with debt at 103.6% of GDP and falling, but how about if it's 150% and rising? That would be a crisis.
 
You seem to be assuming Jeb Bush is "on the right". I'd say that's your first mistake.
.
He's widely regarded as being on the right. If you have some eccentric, personal definition of "on the right," have fun with that, but the semantics don't interest me.
 
This is just more of your Marxist style class warfare under a new rubric. His plan actually limits itemized deductions (except charitable) to 2% of taxable income. It actually brings in MORE revenue because of the reduced access to deductions (mortgage interest being the biggest) and does completely away with the deduction for state & local income taxes (that one costs the Feds $1.1 trillion). That's really why you don't like his plan, right? Because it puts pressure on state and local governments to put the brakes on spending? Am I right?
Which analysis do you rely on when you say it brings in more revenue? The Tax Foundation says it brings in less, and they're a right-wing foundation and are giving him the benefit of the fairy-tale assumption that it'll stimulate the economy.

As for eliminating the state tax deduction, I think that's a good thing. We should be handling more government at the federal level, where we get economies of scale, rather than inefficiently reinventing the wheel and creating redundant bureaucracies in 50+ states and territories. Shifting that money from the states to the federal government is great. The problem is that even with the shift, this plan causes a huge reduction of revenues, overall, as well as a relative redistribution of burden away from those who have been doing very well (the top 1%) and towards those who have already been struggling (the working class).
 
JEB's plan is to align US corporate tax rates with those of Europe, to incent more US corporations to remain here instead of seeking a tax break overseas. This makes perfect sense.

interest and dividends aren't subject to the bizarre sorts of exclusions, exemptions, tax credits, and other incentives which apply to earned income. Which is why the capital gains tax rate isn't halfway to the moon like earned income taxes are, before those deductions.

you clearly don't pay attention to economics or taxes. this is pretty basic stuff, ark.

I think Arkady is blinded by his insane, raging jealousy of rich people. That aside, I think there's another thing he is overlooking- economic growth. Under Barack Obama, it's been tepid at best. This is the worse recovery in over 60 years. In fact, using liberal economist Paul Krugman's benchmark of a minimum of 300,000 jobs per month, we're not even in a recovery. We're not even close. But I digress. With corporations no longer hiding from the Obama cartel and decent, in line with history economic growth in the 4% range, we're not looking at the deficits that Arkady is getting hysterical crying about.
 
You seem to be confused about the difference between debt and deficits. Even if there is not presently a debt crisis, we're certainly close, and could easily go over with the kinds of much-larger deficits Jeb! is looking to bring about. The numbers aren't hard to figure out. Debt is currently 103.6% of GDP, and projected to fall every year as far out as the CBO can project. The current level is high, but we've been higher and have come back from it. It was 118.9% back in 1946. So, there's no need to panic. As in '46, we're now set on a path where we fully expect to pull back from the brink, as long as we don't do anything stupid. But doing something stupid is just what Bush plans.

He plans a tax cut along the lines of what his brother pushed through, and we saw what that did. Debt, which had fallen from 64.9% of GDP in the mid '90s all the way to 54.6% in 2001, surged back up with Dubya's tax cutting. By the time Obama's tax increases finally kicked in, for 2013, debt was already 100.8% of GDP. That's a 46.2-point increase in debt during that period of the Bush-level taxes. We may not be in a debt crisis today with debt at 103.6% of GDP and falling, but how about if it's 150% and rising? That would be a crisis.

What GDP rate is the CBO using for that projection? Because the deficits they project are about to go postal:

Screen Shot 2015-09-10 at 3.21.38 PM.png
What happens to that % of GDP "projection" if Obama's new entitlements and economic policies have put us into a permanent Euro-socialist style no growth economy?
 
You seem to be confused about the difference between debt and deficits. Even if there is not presently a debt crisis, we're certainly close, and could easily go over with the kinds of much-larger deficits Jeb! is looking to bring about. The numbers aren't hard to figure out. Debt is currently 103.6% of GDP, and projected to fall every year as far out as the CBO can project. The current level is high, but we've been higher and have come back from it. It was 118.9% back in 1946. So, there's no need to panic. As in '46, we're now set on a path where we fully expect to pull back from the brink, as long as we don't do anything stupid. But doing something stupid is just what Bush plans.

He plans a tax cut along the lines of what his brother pushed through, and we saw what that did. Debt, which had fallen from 64.9% of GDP in the mid '90s all the way to 54.6% in 2001, surged back up with Dubya's tax cutting. By the time Obama's tax increases finally kicked in, for 2013, debt was already 100.8% of GDP. That's a 46.2-point increase in debt during that period of the Bush-level taxes. We may not be in a debt crisis today with debt at 103.6% of GDP and falling, but how about if it's 150% and rising? That would be a crisis.

No, I'm not confused at all. Deficits create debt. It appears that's news to you, so I'm glad to assist. And as I've already stated, one of the most brilliant presidents in our time says there's no debt crisis, so what are you worried about?

But hey, just for fun, I'm going to summarize your argument: the debt Obama has accumulated is no big deal. We can keep up the debt and deficits as Obama pleases. But in January 2017 it's going to become a dire issue that needs to be dealt with by continuing the Obama cartel's war on business. Any idea that balances tax cuts with closing loopholes will be met with hysterical rants from big government liberals such as yourself.

You don't realize how transparent you are, do you?
 
Which analysis do you rely on when you say it brings in more revenue? The Tax Foundation says it brings in less, and they're a right-wing foundation and are giving him the benefit of the fairy-tale assumption that it'll stimulate the economy.

As for eliminating the state tax deduction, I think that's a good thing. We should be handling more government at the federal level, where we get economies of scale, rather than inefficiently reinventing the wheel and creating redundant bureaucracies in 50+ states and territories. Shifting that money from the states to the federal government is great. The problem is that even with the shift, this plan causes a huge reduction of revenues, overall, as well as a relative redistribution of burden away from those who have been doing very well (the top 1%) and towards those who have already been struggling (the working class).

Anybody seen any "central planners" around these here parts? That's what I thought.

I was using the WSJ post Op Ed Op Ed. $1.1 trillion more per year offsets a lot of marginal rate reductions.
 
JEB's plan is to align US corporate tax rates with those of Europe, to incent more US corporations to remain here instead of seeking a tax break overseas. This makes perfect sense.

His plan would lower effective corporate tax rates which are already below normal. I'd be OK with reducing the top marginal corporate rates if it was coupled with a higher, tighter coroprate AMT, to bring effective rates up. That would align US corporate taxes more with Europe. But he eliminates corporate AMT. You clearly don't pay attention to economics or taxes, but, amusingly, you think you do.

interest and dividends aren't subject to the bizarre sorts of exclusions, exemptions, tax credits, and other incentives which apply to earned income.

Even with all those exclusion, exemptions, tax credits, etc., the wealthy still pay far more on earned income than on investment income. This is a little dated, but it'll show you:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=456

As you can see, the average federal tax rate paid on earned income by the top 1% was 29.0% in 2011. So, moving to a 20% investment tax would be a gigantic tax cut for them, relative to treating it as ordinary income. And that understates things, since the investment income is on top of other income, so you should really be looking at the marginal rates. In addition, as you can see, the lower quintiles currently pay less than 20%, so they'd experience this as a tax hike. Were you honestly ignorant of these facts? If so, you should make some effort to pay attention to economics and taxes. It's pretty basic stuff.
 
Last edited:
No, I'm not confused at all. Deficits create debt. It appears that's news to you, so I'm glad to assist.

If that's how it appeared to you, based on something where I clearly spelled out the difference to you, then you REALLY need to work on your reading comprehension. This is deeply embarrassing for you.

And as I've already stated, one of the most brilliant presidents in our time says there's no debt crisis, so what are you worried about?

I'll dumb things down to your level (if that's even possible). You're standing near the edge of a cliff. You are not currently falling. Does the fact you're not currently falling mean it doesn't matter if you break into a sprint in the direction of the edge of the cliff?

Obama is right. We are not currently in a debt crisis. We are not, in metaphorical terms, hanging off the edge of that cliff, while the dirt erodes out from under our fingertips. We are standing a few feet from the edge of the cliff, starting to move slowly away from it. That's not a crisis. But Bush has proposed something that would move us rapidly towards the cliff's edge.

Do you understand now?

We can keep up the debt and deficits as Obama pleases

Deficits have fallen dramatically under Obama -- it's been some of the most rapid deficit reduction in American history. Try to learn something about the topic before posting about it.

Anyway, I'd be happy with a program that balanced a reduction in nominal rates with a closure of loopholes (provided that it doesn't redistribute tax burden to the less fortunate). But that's not what we're talking about here. It's not a balanced plan. It's not revenue neutral. Not only does it shift the burden to the poor and working class, it reduces revenues.
 
Anybody seen any "central planners" around these here parts? That's what I thought.

I was using the WSJ post Op Ed Op Ed. $1.1 trillion more per year offsets a lot of marginal rate reductions.
Any propaganda coming out of Rupert Murdoch's sordid tabloid empire isn't going to convince me on its own. I'd need to see the numbers. But I'm betting even they don't claim it'll boost revenues.
 
What GDP rate is the CBO using for that projection? Because the deficits they project are about to go postal:

View attachment 28079
What happens to that % of GDP "projection" if Obama's new entitlements and economic policies have put us into a permanent Euro-socialist style no growth economy?
I don't know what GDP projection they use. But they have a history of being overly conservative in their projections.
 
His plan would lower effective corporate tax rates which are already below normal. I'd be OK with reducing the top marginal corporate rates if it was coupled with a higher, tighter coroprate AMT, to bring effective rates up. That would align US corporate taxes more with Europe. But he eliminates corporate AMT. You clearly don't pay attention to economics or taxes, but, amusingly, you think you do.

Well, perhaps to YOU having the highest corporate tax rate in the world is "normal".

http://taxfoundation.org/blog/us-has-highest-corporate-income-tax-rate-oecd

To normal people, that's not "normal. And a normal person isn't concerned with aligning our tax policy with that of Europe, given the economic growth in the Eurozone has barely made it above 1%- most of the time it's less than that.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/euro-area/gdp-growth

You clearly think you pay attention to economics and taxes and think 1% economic growth is something to emulate. Perhaps you've accepted the Obama cartel's new "normal". Actual normal people have not.

I'll dumb things down to your level (if that's even possible). You're standing near the edge of a cliff. You are not currently falling. Does the fact you're not currently falling mean it doesn't matter if you break into a sprint in the direction of the edge of the cliff?

Obama is right. We are not currently in a debt crisis. We are not, in metaphorical terms, hanging off the edge of that cliff, while the dirt erodes out from under our fingertips. We are standing a few feet from the edge of the cliff, starting to move slowly away from it. That's not a crisis. But Bush has proposed something that would move us rapidly towards the cliff's edge.

Do you understand now?

Yes, we've been over this. Obama's record debt accumulation is awesome! In January of 2016, it's a crisis dammit! Of course, coming from you, the person who wants to emulate the tax policy of Europe and thinks the highest tax rate in the world is LOWER than normal.... is a light bulb beginning to come on yet? I sure hope so.

Deficits have fallen dramatically under Obama -- it's been some of the most rapid deficit reduction in American history. Try to learn something about the topic before posting about it.

Anyway, I'd be happy with a program that balanced a reduction in nominal rates with a closure of loopholes (provided that it doesn't redistribute tax burden to the less fortunate). But that's not what we're talking about here. It's not a balanced plan. It's not revenue neutral. Not only does it shift the burden to the poor and working class, it reduces revenues.

Ah yes, so now you decide you don't want to talk about debt. As I have already instructed you, debts lead to deficits. And obviously Obama amassing more debt than Bush and faster makes debt an uncomfortable topic for you. Oh and by the way, the poor need to start paying up. We have too many losers sitting and watching a smaller and smaller proportion of people pull the load while demanding more. This of course is common knowledge to anyone who pays attention to taxes and economics. If you need remedial help in this area, let me know.
 
Anybody seen any "central planners" around these here parts? That's what I thought.

I was using the WSJ post Op Ed Op Ed. $1.1 trillion more per year offsets a lot of marginal rate reductions.

Perhaps Arkady will need to do some "data recalibration" to get himself out of this hole he insists on digging for himself.
 
I think Arkady is blinded by his insane, raging jealousy of rich people. That aside, I think there's another thing he is overlooking- economic growth. Under Barack Obama, it's been tepid at best. This is the worse recovery in over 60 years. In fact, using liberal economist Paul Krugman's benchmark of a minimum of 300,000 jobs per month, we're not even in a recovery. We're not even close. But I digress. With corporations no longer hiding from the Obama cartel and decent, in line with history economic growth in the 4% range, we're not looking at the deficits that Arkady is getting hysterical crying about.

in arkady's universe "economic growth" is evil, because it just leads to more "corporate drones" and "climate change"

he aspires to a world where everyone works for the government - but never drives to work. the telecommunte from their Yurts, and send emails all day advising how to tweak various government giveaways.
 
Back
Top