« Uh Oh | Main | Not a Fun Post to Write »

August 08, 2008

Comments

John McCain is going to force you to fnck puppies and eat the entrails recently aborted fetuses (and in some cases, non-recently aborted fetuses).

Is it fair to say there's literally no new taxes being proposed on anyone under $250K? (Putting cap'n'trade aside). In particular, what about capital gains?

I'm fighting off family email forwards, so i want to make sure my ammo is accurate.

Besides that... taxes on "your life savings"? He's accusing Obama of promoting a wealth tax? It's getting hard to parse out all the separate lies.

publius: there is an increase on capital gains tax, but its effect is swamped by the cuts in other taxes. (Note that it does not affect retirement accounts etc.) See here for specifics on total tax bills.

bryan: I wonder whether he's talking about the estate tax? But there, Obama wants to cut it, though not by as much as McCain.

(Cute little kittens whose owners died and left a whole lot of money in trust for them - enough money that they make over $250,000/year, that is.)

Personally, I have no problem with taxing kittens who are heirs to a crazy old lady's home and/or fortune. Buy them a gold-plated milk pan and they'll be fine. However, I strongly oppose taxation of puppies who happen to be heirs. Our puppies deserve only the best, and confiscatory tax rates discourage them from romping about.

Also, you mentioned Social Security, but where are the awesome stick figure illustrations Hilzoy? WHERE?!

McCain is a liar, no doubt. but because that apparently isn't a liability for him, he will continue to lie for the next 12 weeks, at least.

This is actually an improvement. In July the number he used was $32,000. But that was taxable income. The earnings for that would be about $41,500 – so he even rounded up to get $42,000. Baby steps. ;)

When McCain says that Obama promises more tax cuts on "your family".

Did you mean “more tax increases”?

In terms of lying – non-binding resolutions aside - McCain picked that number because Obama does actually promise to let the Bush tax cuts expire right? $32,550 (taxable income) is where the current 25% rate kicks in, which will be 28% when the cuts expire.

Which I think just brings us back to the old argument: Does letting a tax cut expire = a tax increase? If you believe Yes, then it’s not exactly a lie. Which is not to dispute your original point that "John McCain Is A Liar"...

Was there any legitimate reason for making the original Bush tax cuts expire? I can understand how it was vitally important for budgetary reasons to legislate that these gaping fiscal wounds would close in short order, but besides that, was there any principled reason or is this yet another example of Republican perfidy?

Republican perfidy of course.

Was there any legitimate reason for making the original Bush tax cuts expire?...was there any principled reason or is this yet another example of Republican perfidy?

Sure, the campaign donations would have to start flowing again to make sure taxes stayed low, plus the added complexity keeps tax lawyers productively employed and handsomely compensated.

OCSteve: yes. Will correct immediately. Thanks. ;)

Also: measured against a baseline that assumes the present tax cuts are made permanent and the AMT continues to be patched, Obama's proposals still lower taxes on the bottom 90% of taxpayers (= income below $169,480.) For people with incomes between that level and $237,040, taxes go up by an average of $481. So saying "more taxes for your family" is still not true for 90% of taxpayers.

Forgot to say: my source for the figures I just gave is the TPC report linked in the post, table 3.

If we had an electorate that can actually do arithmetic, we would invite people to compare their tax savings under Bush to the increase in their share of the national debt under Bush. The point to drive home is that for almost everybody in America, the 'Bush tax cuts' have been a credit-card advance, not a gift.

Somebody with more web skills than I possess ought to put up a simple calculator to let people figure this out for themselves. Crudely speaking, a family of four has seen its share of the national debt increase by about $60K since 2000; even throwing in its recent 'rebate' it has not saved remotely that much in taxes.

We're talking about the classic Ozzie-and-Harriett-style family, of course. The Hilton family certainly did much better.

-- TP

Republican perfidy of course

By which I mean, it was easier to pass by calling it temporary and having it expire. But I have no doubt that the intent was that Congress would then have to keep extending it or make it permanent, or be seen as raising taxes if they let it expire. Pretty much right where we are now. ;)

Abut Republican perfidy: whether you want to call it perfidy or not, it was definitely Republican. They wanted to make the amount of the tax cuts seem less, to make them more acceptable to (supposed) deficit hawks. My favorite part was the one year in which the estate tax vanished, only to be reinstated the next year in full -- which iirc Krugman called the 'throw mama from the train' year.

(serves me right for not previewing...)

My favorite part was the one year in which the estate tax vanished, only to be reinstated the next year in full

That's still scheduled to happen, BTW. My parents aren't visiting that year. ;-)

But if these tax cuts increased tax revenues, why would they have to play this shell game?

That's a rhetorical question.

If I remember right, under Senate budget rules passing the Bush tax cuts as permanent in 2001 would have required a supermajority; they passed them for the longest period they could get with 51-59 votes.

I get at least 10 emails a week from my mother in law & two very close friends (who should know better) that:

A. Obama is a secret Muslim out to destroy America
B. Obama will raise my taxes (I make way under $250k/year) so I will have to eat cat food for the rest of my life.
C. Obama's wife has had a sex change operation.

I could go on, but that last one really p!sses me off. Obama is not my ideal candidate, but McCain is the nightmare. It is a very frustrating time for middle of the roaders like me.

Well, sure the kitten is cute in that picture. But you of all people should know that the kitten is just a sniper rifle and a windowsill away from being The Voice Of Moderation.

hogan: so far as I know, budget bills are the only Senate bills that can not be filibustered, so no supermajority required.

SisterZip: Given that she's had two children, the details on that sex change operation must be fascinating.

But if these tax cuts increased tax revenues, why would they have to play this shell game?

That's a rhetorical question.

Ever notice how Republicans argue BOTH sides of the 'Laffer Curve'?

"Tax cuts restrain the growth of government"
AND
"Tax cuts increase government revenue."

-- TP


warren: Nothing to do with the filibuster. It's the Byrd Rule, which allows a senator to raise a point of order for any provision in a budget reconciliation that will increase outlays or decrease revenues beyond the time horizon specified (the standard now is ten years). The point of order requires 60 votes to override.

More here.


Warren: they had a surrogate. Don't know where they have her hidden, but nonetheless....

McCain's also either lying or uninformed about Hamdan, too.

suhprize!

Was there any legitimate reason for making the original Bush tax cuts expire?

I seem to vaguely recall that the "rationale" for the initial round of (sunsetted) tax-cuts at the beginning of the Bush Administration was that the giveback to "the public" was necessary to deal with the hardships of the 2000-2001 recession/downturn - and of course, via the magic of modern Republican economics, the government's revenues were supposed to soar back up into surplus territory in a few years, anyway. The limited timeframe was, as hilzoy has noted, a sop to the "deficit hawks": whose concerns, I believe, were meant to be rendered irrelevant by the economic miracles the Bush tax cuts were intended to effect.

was there any principled reason or is this yet another example of Republican perfidy?

When it comes to GOP fiscal policy, is there really much, if any, difference?

I asked my cats how they felt about having their taxes increased:

Monster said she resented being called a kitten, and she hates all the candidates. That's not a surprise, since she hates everyone.

Ringling was afraid that it would mean that she would get kicked out of the house; she has issues from being a stray. I assured her that I wasn't planning to push her out the door. After that, she didn't care.

Dirk said he planned to vote for whoever promised to lift his diet and let him eat as much as he wanted. Let the pandering begin.

Eddie had no idea what I was talking about.

I seem to vaguely recall that the "rationale" for the initial round of (sunsetted) tax-cuts at the beginning of the Bush Administration was that the giveback to "the public" was necessary to deal with the hardships of the 2000-2001 recession/downturn

From what I recall, the initial rationale was actually that the surplus was too big, and that there was a risk of paying down the national debt too quickly. Greenspan made that argument.

Heady days.

If you make more money than it costs to support a Peace Corps Volunteer for a year Obama will tax you. He will also tax the GDP/GNP of America to take care of the poor people over there.

Give me a break. The money was never enough and the support level pay is fair.

That cute little kitten left his buddies to die in 'Nam and is unfit for command! Tax away!

I just got an email from John McCain with another lie:

"Senator Obama has an interesting solution to high gas prices: make sure your tires are inflated. It is clear Senator Obama has no plan to address the energy challenges we face as a nation or how to reduce our dependence on foreign oil."

You can say you don't like the plan, but it's pretty hard to say it doesn't exist.

Now I'm spoiled. As far as I'm concerned, it's not a proper attack ad unless they also hand out tire gauges.

McCain is the classic Republican, If you like how Bush has fucked up America, then you'll love McCain.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad