Add this Page to Facebook!   Submit to Twitter   Submit to Reddit   Submit to Stumble Upon   Pin It!   Fark It!   Tell A Friend  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite Save As Favorite Get Embed HTML Code View Article Stats
8 comments

OpEdNews Op Eds

The Truth About Obama's Tax Proposal (and the Lies the Regressives are Telling About It)

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 2 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

Become a Fan
  (89 fans)

opednews.com


To hear the media report it, President Obama is proposing a tax increase on wealthy Americans. That's misleading at best. He's proposing that everyone receive a continuation of the Bush tax cuts on the first $250,000 of their incomes. Any dollars they earn in excess of $250,000 will be taxed at the old Clinton-era rates.

Get it? Everyone is treated exactly the same. Everyone gets a one-year extension of the Bush tax cut on the first $250,000 of income. No "class warfare."

Yet regressive Republicans want Americans to believe differently. The editorial writers of the Wall Street Journal say the President wants to extend the Bush tax cuts only "for some taxpayers." They urge House Republicans to extend the Bush tax cuts for "everyone" and thereby put Senate Democrats on the spot by "forcing them to choose between extending rates for everyone and accepting Mr. Obama's tax increase."

Pure demagoguery.  

Regressives also want Americans to think the President's proposal would hurt "tens of thousands of job-creating businesses," as the Journal puts it.

More baloney.

A small business owner earning $251,000 would pay the Bush rate on the first $250,000 and the old Clinton rate on just $1,000.

Congress's Joint Tax Committee estimates that in 2013 about 940,000 taxpayers would have enough business income to break through the $250,000 ceiling -- and, again, they'd pay additional taxes only on dollars earned above $250,000.

All told, fewer than 3 percent of small business owners would even reach the $250,000 threshold.

A third lie is Obama's proposal will "increase uncertainly and further retard investment and job creation," as the  Journal puts it.

Don't believe it.

The real reason businesses aren't creating more jobs is American consumers -- whose purchases constitute 70 percent of U.S. economic activity -- don't have the money to buy more, and they can no longer borrow as before. Businesses won't invest and hire without consumers. Even as executive pay keeps rising, the median wage keeps dropping -- largely because businesses keep whacking payrolls. 

The only people who'd have to pay substantially more taxes under Obama's proposal are those earning far in excess of $250,000 -- and they aren't small businesses. They're the fattest of corpulent felines. Their spending will not be affected if their official tax rate rises from the Bush 35 percent to the Bill Clinton 39.6 percent. 

In fact, most of these people's income is unearned -- capital gains and dividends that are now taxed at only 15 percent. If the Bush tax cuts expire on schedule, the capital gains rate would return to the same 20 percent it was under Bill Clinton (the Affordable Care Act would add a 3.8 percent surcharge).

Funny, I don't remember the economy suffering under Bill Clinton's taxes. I was in Clinton's cabinet, so perhaps my memory is self-serving. But I seem to recall that the economy generated 22 million net new jobs during those years, unemployment fell dramatically, almost everyone's income grew, poverty dropped, and the economy soared. In fact, it was the strongest and best economy we've had in anyone's memory.

Next Page  1  |  2

 

http://robertreich.org/

Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley, was Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration. Time Magazine named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the last century. He has written (more...)
 
Add this Page to Facebook!   Submit to Twitter   Submit to Reddit   Submit to Stumble Upon   Pin It!   Fark It!   Tell A Friend
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
8 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

Going by Obama's Record by Laura Stein on Wednesday, Jul 11, 2012 at 3:32:37 AM
...and whisper sweet nothings in our ears? by Laura Stein on Wednesday, Jul 11, 2012 at 3:42:06 AM
OK, but by Don Smith on Wednesday, Jul 11, 2012 at 10:05:36 PM
I love the name "regressives" by Don Smith on Wednesday, Jul 11, 2012 at 9:18:05 AM
I prefer "fascists" for BOTH parties by Laura Stein on Wednesday, Jul 11, 2012 at 2:45:50 PM
Technically, both parties are "inverted fascists" ... by PCM on Wednesday, Jul 11, 2012 at 4:24:58 PM
They're Reptiles... "Cold Blooded" -:) - They deserve ... by David Vicks on Wednesday, Jul 11, 2012 at 4:45:49 PM
The right wing wants to equate both parties by David Vicks on Thursday, Jul 12, 2012 at 12:39:26 AM