MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
It's already being dubbed his "Robin Hood" tax plan, and will obviously never get through a Republican controlled Congress. But that may not be the real goal.
Comments
This is happening because they have to start talking about the deep slid of quality of life in this country. They stopped counting the long term unemployed. I would like to see a study on how many underemployed there is now. We are a long way from recovery.
GOP is only interested in making the African American President look bad for history. They failed of coarse and he will be honored for it and someday have his own holiday. Nothing that they have come up with has worked to help the voters.
I don't know how much he will talk about labor issues and income issues but the tax on capital is a welcome change. People want government to put their families first not Wall Street. Actually it has been Bernie Sanders, Elisabeth Warren, Bob Reich, Paul Krugman and Sherrod Brown that has framed the next election. They are pulling the train left.
by trkingmomoe on Mon, 01/19/2015 - 2:22am
I appreciate your optimism barefooted, but it's hard for me to think of a cheaper and more aggravating political move by the Obama Administration than this one. He knows it cannot pass now, but political courage would have had a proposal to raise capital gains taxes (to the level under Reagan btw) presented at an earlier point in his tenure. I get and fully embrace and support the president's executive actions on Cuba and with respect to immigration. But this shot across the bow with a tax proposal that requires legislative action? Seems cheesy and a tease to lots of folks at this point, and certainly as political as anything we've seen by the president's predecessors. Not impressed.
by Bruce Levine on Mon, 01/19/2015 - 7:24am
At best, I'd say I'm cautiously optimistic. Not that the majority of his proposals will become more than political rhetoric, but that the ideas might further stimulate the populist rumblings in the Democratic party. Besides, if he only proposed things that might make it through the legislature, it would be a very short speech.
During Obama's administration, the capital gains long-term rate has risen from 15% to 23.8% (3.8% of which to help fund the ACA). Since he wants an increase to 28%, needless to say he'll mention Reagan.
I get what you're saying, Bruce, and I agree with much of it. Pretty speeches full of empty promises are par for the course, and a healthy dose of cynicism is required. But if there's even the slightest chance that his proposals might galvanize Democrats - both politicians and voters - then I'm all for it. Pissing off Republicans is just a bonus.
by barefooted on Mon, 01/19/2015 - 4:21pm
I doubt much of this "package", including the community college plan, will ever come to fruition in the next two years, and like Bruce has suggested, it's hard not to be underwhelmed by the capital gains tax proposal coming so late in the game. But one has to start somewhere. And I agree that the package is prologue for the 2016 election, and good for that.
I think reversing the "step-up" tax provisions for estates, the community college assistance, and the tax on banks' leverage will have a cutting edge with a broad swath of voters and are the least susceptible to the class warfare arguments from Republicans.
by Oxy Mora on Mon, 01/19/2015 - 10:48am
I'm almost never in favor of tax cuts. Even if they're meant to address inequality. That's one reason I didn't like the stimulus package. It was heavily weighted toward tax cuts. Taxes were higher under Clinton and I don't remember a populist rebellion against the "high" taxes then. I don't think we should be giving people more money to buy more crap. We should be spending that money to rebuild our failing infrastructure or to incentivise needed changes. Tax incentives for people to put solar panels on their houses or to build roads, bridges, high speed rail, high speed internet etc. I support all of those things and more. Tax cuts to put more money in people's pockets that gets sent over seas to buy imported trash is not the path to improve our economy or our quality of life.
by ocean-kat on Mon, 01/19/2015 - 4:50pm
Tax incentives and credits are essentially tax cuts. The question is not whether they should happen, but rather which portion of the population receives them.
There's little argument, I think, that tax revenue should be directed towards all the things you list and more. However, I don't see how putting a few more dollars in the pockets of low and middle income families would adversely affect that. And as for spending those additional dollars on "crap", I direct you to trkingmomoe's excellent blog.
by barefooted on Mon, 01/19/2015 - 6:25pm
They are the same only in the sense that they both reduce government revenue. But I think they are fundamentally different. With incentives, credits, and infrastructure rebuilding we as a country have bought something for that money spent stimulating the economy. Far better to put money in people's pockets by paying them to repair roads and pipes. The work has to be done sometime. We've been putting it off for too long.
When we talk tax cuts we're playing on the republican's turf. We need to talk about rebuilding America and putting people back to work. Tax incentives for solar is a win/win for several problems. It puts people back to work, lowering the unemployment rate and pushing up wages for all Americans, helps to deal with climate change, lessens our dependence on unstable or repressive oil rich regimes, and lessens our trade deficit.
We need to be smarter about how we spend our tax dollars. Tax cuts are a poor way to use those limited funds.
by ocean-kat on Mon, 01/19/2015 - 8:36pm