dagblog - Comments for "Let the Bush Tax Cuts Die: Kwak Makes the Case"

Sorry for the error, LTV, and

we are stardust — Tue, 16 Nov 2010 14:38:57 +0000

Sorry for the error, LTV, and for the correction. I did read a bit at your site, and need to say that much of it is hard for me to grasp. I think there is need for tax reform, but likely no political will for it, though that coud change, especially if Republicans were to take control of Congress and the Presidency. I watched the tag end of a panel recently with Simon Johnson and two others discussing it; not knowing some of the concepts made it some of it hard for me to follow, but clearly there wasn't a lot of agreement for what the changes should be.

In the piece you linked to, some of what you maintained about taxes being linked to land, not structures on the land, is counter-intuitive to me. Also, that corporations being taxed at lower rates driving up revenue might be factually so, but you only discuss things in terms of efficiency, and not fairness, which, rightly or wrongly, would be a key weight in new policy. Anyway, I canb't discuss it very rationally, as I don't even know many of the terms you used.

But I'm glad you posted your links for others to read who may know quite a bit more than I.

This sentence (above) is

LVTfan — Tue, 16 Nov 2010 04:41:30 +0000

In reply to Let the Bush Tax Cuts Die: Kwak Makes the Case

This sentence (above) is incorrect:

Families in the median income quintile ($36,000-57,700) would pay about about $880 more in taxes; Families in the 80^th to 99th percentile would pay an additional $6094, and those in the fifth quintile (uber-wealthy) would pay about $339,473 more.

Here's the correction:

By contrast, tax units from the 80th to 99.9th percentile will gain $6,094 each, and the top 0.1 percent–those with over $2 million in annual income–will gain $339,473 each.

The distinction between the 99th and 99.9th percentile is major, and the difference between fifth quintile and top 0.1% is also major! Also, it might be better to refer to the "middle quintile."

Having said all that, as one who is strongly in favor of progressive taxation, I think we ought to be more selective about what we tax and what we don't. The income tax is a blunt tool, and falls equally heavily on both enterprise and speculation. We'd be better off if we used a more precise tool (which of course is why the powers-that-be like the income tax well enough, thank you).

There is a 2008 study by the OECD comparing income taxes, consumption taxes and property taxes. I commend it to your attention. See http://lvtfan.typepad.com/lvtfans_blog/2010/11/do-tax-structures-affect-aggregate-economic-growth-empirical-evidence-from-a-panel-of-oecd-countries-do-tax-structures-aff.html. We'd be better off with alternatives to the income tax. Too blunt. (You might explore that blog -- http://lvtfan.typepad.com/ -- for a fleshing out of what I think is the superior alternative.

Mr. Kwak states "tax cuts to

emerson — Tue, 16 Nov 2010 04:18:54 +0000

In reply to Let the Bush Tax Cuts Die: Kwak Makes the Case

Mr. Kwak states "tax cuts to expire on December 31, so they could pretend they were smaller than they actually were" Why? What does this mean?

Isn't it the white house who

Oxy Mora — Tue, 16 Nov 2010 01:58:34 +0000

In reply to That tax cut not being known

Isn't it the white house who is supposed to control the news cycles? Instead it is Fox and Limbaugh, with everyone else trying to keep up. Giving a tax cut and not getting credit for it makes W look like a bloody genius for simply putting checks in the mail.

There are people who believe

we are stardust — Tue, 16 Nov 2010 01:42:18 +0000

In reply to Proper use of tax money

There are people who believe that as we go further into debt, military adventures will be neccessarily restricted. I have my doubts, though I wish it were so. Unless there is some major movement in America to truly examine the advisability of our global hegemony, I think the MICC will always find ways to fund it. Look to the present as indicators of the future. I am so glad that your experiences in war, Lulu, have made you so very suspicious of the uses of the military.

Proper use of tax money

A Guy Called LULU — Tue, 16 Nov 2010 01:19:57 +0000

In reply to I'm at the lower edges of the

Proper use of tax money should always be the question regardless of who carries the load. If we were to get those paying over a million to pay every bit of the tax we should still try to spend the money wisely.
The Republicans have succeeded in making too many people feel that taxation is illegitimate in principle and so any tax cut for them is always good. They also get a lot of play out of Norquist's idea of starving the government, but as long as they have a nickel coming in they will happily spend a dime of it on our war machine.

"If it's for billions more for mega-bases and mega-embassies, I don't support the debt. We're not being asked about those enormous piles of treasuries sold to finance the wars, are we?"

I agree completely. I believe that radically reducing our military is the thing to do. If we continue to try to rule the world we will lose.

Good post, Watt. And

we are stardust — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 22:47:51 +0000

In reply to Thanks for posting this

Good post, Watt. And Stockman is still saying it, apparently. Cripes, I think I even read Greenspan is saying it!

Yep; here it is: http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/pete-davis/1857/alan-greenspan-opposes-extending-all-bush-tax-cuts

Not that I think he cares a fig if the Dems pass a Middle-class tax cut afterward, but...

Thanks for posting this

Watt Childress — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 22:39:14 +0000

In reply to Let the Bush Tax Cuts Die: Kwak Makes the Case

Thanks for posting this Stardust, and for cross-posting it at firedoglake.com. Here's a ditty I posted at TPM back in August that touches on the topic. Check out the link to the NPR interview with David Stockman, who recommends letting all the cuts expire.

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/w/a/watt_childress/2010/08/reaganomics--vs--bush-tax-cuts.php

As you say, it depends

Michael Maiello — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 22:14:48 +0000

In reply to I'm at the lower edges of the

As you say, it depends largely on how they spend the money. If they just raise our taxes to distribute payments to bondholders then count me out. But that's really what they want to do. They're certainly not talking about offering better or more generous or even better thought out government services.

I'm at the lower edges of the

we are stardust — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 22:03:30 +0000

In reply to What a great, direct

I'm at the lower edges of the middle class now, but I would let the cuts expire. I would totally support an enormous jobs bill, if it weren't targeted the crap way the last one was, and actually employed millions. The debt to gdp ratio is high, but others have pointed out that Japan and other nations have leveraged at far higher ratios to cure economic woes like this recession/depression, and done fine. Depends what government spends the money on.

If it's for billions more for mega-bases and mega-embassies, I don't support the debt. We're not being asked about those enormous piles of treasuries sold to finance the wars, are we? But the Drudge Retort puts the issue of tax cuts for the upper brackets this way:

"Extending the 2001 and 2003 federal income tax cuts would sharply increase the national debt, even if the extensions were limited to individuals earning below $200,000, according to a new report by the Pew Economic Policy Group.
The current debt-to-gross-domestic-product ratio in the United States is 57 percent, compared to an average of 37 percent over the last 50 years. Making the tax cuts permanent for all taxpayers would cost $3.1 trillion, including interest on the national debt, over 10 years, and cause the national debt-to-GDP ratio to rise to 82 percent."