Monday, May 03, 2010

BOHICA: "Pro-Growth" Tax Increases Coming Soon

It will be interesting to see what's regarded as a "pro-growth" tax increase, no?

Leading Democrats on the commission tried during the first week of meetings to finesse their way toward a discussion of what they consider inevitable — by arguing that any tax hikes would be “pro-growth.”

“If we can put forward some practical proposals that control the rate of spending in the future and that raise revenues in a pro-growth way, I think we’ll get a hearing in the Congress,” said Alice Rivlin, a former White House budget director for President Jimmy Carter, who is one of 18 commission members. …

Commission co-chair Erskine Bowles made clear last week that any recommendations he puts forth or supports by the Dec. 1 due date will include higher taxes. The three working groups that he set up to meet weekly over the next several months are focused on mandatory spending, discretionary spending and revenue reform.

Any solution is “going to involve revenue, and we have to face up to that,” he said.

Maybe it will 'involve revenue,' but let's start with the SPENDING, STUPID!! Go on. Defy all historical precedent. Cut the spending!

HT: HotAir


Dominick O Maolain said...

Well, actually it does make sense to raise CERTAIN taxes. Like Corporate Windfall Profits.

There is plenty of evidence that the corporate sector has been pawning off its share of the burden of running this nation on the individual taxpayer.

And quite apart from the obvious costs imposed on innocent working Joe's by unilateral corporate clusterdonks like BP's oil leak, there are some serious CONSERVATIVE thinktanks whose reports highlight the chokehold that megacorps have on innovation and job creation.

That report was Ewing Marion Kauffman--hardly a bunch of Tofu smoking beardo's.

If the Republicans hope to have another President in the White House within 40 years, they're gonna have to get ahead of the Dem's on these issues. They can't keep playing that same old "magic of the markets" baloney any more. With 10 percent+ of the population out of work, that dog just will not hunt.

Dad29 said...


Corporate taxes, if paid, are paid by the people who buy 'corporate' products. So it kinda depends on how you look at it, no?

Then there's the double-tax: once on the profits and once on the dividends PAID from those profits.

And you haven't defined "windfall."

I'm open to a discussion, but let's define the terms.

You think spending is just fine where it is? You forgot to mention that...

Dominick O Maolain said...

No, it doesn't just depend on how you look at it, actually. There are some facts which are objectively true and provable, and utterly independent of our personal preferences or hopes.

The profits from those reduced tax sales go disproportionately to a very few people who already have more cash than any decent Christian would know how to spend.

In 2007, Edward N. Wolff's study showed that the wealthiest 1% of the population owned 38.3% of the stock. The next wealthiest 19% could only scrape together 52.8% of the stock between them. That means that the bottom 80%--including, more than likely both me and you--got a lousy 8.9%.
[Table 5a]

And if you look at that table, the clear trend at least since 2001 has been for the top 1% to INCREASE its share at the expense of everybody else. Check it out yourself.

No, I haven't forgotten about 'double taxation'. If you look at the marginal tax bracket link I showed you earlier, you would see that the richest segment of the population whittled down BOTH their corporate AND their individual rates from 70% down to 35%.

I could go on and on, but not here, but I won't. That's why I have my own blog at

But there is one enormous thing you may have forgotten about, Dad. Think about this: In 1965 we were the strongest nation on earth, the undisputed leader of the Free World. And corp's had to pay their share just like anybody else. But since then they've dragged their feet and fed us all a line of 'magic of the markets' baloney telling us how they would trickle all the wealth down to us. But where are the jobs now that the market has gone past 11,000 again?

One parting statistic for you to chew on while you decide whether the average Joe is getting a fair break from the corps: In 1970 the average S&P 500 CEO was paid 30 times the median production employee. In 2000 the average CEO was paid 90 (NINETY) times the median employee.

Again, check it out for yourself:

Dad29 said...

Gee, another post from you, and once again, you missed the "spending" question.

And you're telling me that 'life is unfair.' Frankly, you didn't have to provide cites for that.

You also seem to confuse 'corporations' with 'the wealthy.'

Nice rhetoric, but as you say, some things are facts--one of which is that 'the wealthy' are not 'corporations.'

Dominick O Maolain said...

You don't really think the best solution is open the gates at all the state prisons or to kick Grandma out on the street do you?

By far the largest increases in expenditures are: 1.) Grants to state & local governments (1.0% 1965, 3.2% 2009); 2.) Government social benefits (3.8% 1965, 11.0% 2009)

Recipts actually went DOWN from 17.4% GDP to 16.0% GDP.

[Table 14.2]

Because corps have weasled their way out of paying for the services they use, states have had to rely on the federal government during this recession to pay for prisons and schools. "Tax Holidays" they call them--but I'm not partying.

And those social programs? How did they come to be so important? Well, I'm sure I don't have to remind you that we are an aging nation. In 2008 there were about 40 million Americans aged 65 or older, compared to 18 million in 1965. That's a roughly 1/3 increase.
[Table 10]

In 1965 spending on Social Security was about $16 billion v. $552 billion in 2009 (i.e., 2.2% GDP '65 vs. 3.8% GDP 2009--during a recession, I might add). I'm sure you send back your check every month, right?

Well a lot of of people can't afford to. Because the corps weasled their way out of contributing to Joe Average's retirement --no more defined benefit plans.
[Table 13-1]

But, fair play, there have been some new programs since '65. Do you want to throw aware your Medicare? Those programs were about $261 BILLION (about 2% of GDP). You want to get rid of that program, right? Not like you ever use it, right?
[Table 13-1]

So getting back to basic fairness, after the greasebags on Wall Street crashed the under-regulated financial system in for their own selfish gain, your solution is to de-fund the SEC? Give over policing of it to them entirely? And on top of it to force Grandma to trust her entire life savings to Goldman Sachs? C'mon, Dad, really now.

Dad29 said...

Thanks, John One-Note.

Dominick O Maolain said...

Hey, the only reason I posted a comment was because I admired your commitment. You really seemed to be passionate about getting your country back together. That's not an unimportant thing.

But clearly we're being led off the track. When you look at the numbers, and really LOOK at them, it's clear that the story is NOT "Dismantle the only force standing between my kids and a savage corporate kleptocracy". The story should be, "Hey, we're a NATION. United We Stand. Government of the People by the People and for the People."

When did that become such a despised idea?