Why wait to repeal tax cuts for the rich? NY Times:

[amborin]

<snip>

"With few exceptions, high-income taxpayers earn substantially more during their lifetimes than they spend, generally bequeathing the surplus to heirs or charities. If these taxpayers faced slightly higher rates, they would have ample resources to maintain their current lifestyles, so most would keep spending as before. The only consequence would be that, years from now, they would leave smaller bequests.

The added revenue from eliminating the Bush tax cuts would pay for larger temporary tax cuts for low- and middle-income families than the permanent ones now planned. And because these families spend most or all of their post-tax income, the immediate effect would be an increase in total spending roughly equal to the additional revenue from repealing the cuts."

<snip>

<http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/07/business/07view.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=why%20wait%20to%20repeal&st=cse>

[BrklynLiberal]

1. Sounds good to me.

[pitohui]

2. i agree, nothing positive comes from huge inheritances

all you do by allowing these huge inheritances is allow rich kids to either 1) get a hella head start on every one else, so there is no fair playing field or 2) kill themselves w. drugs

there really isn't anything positive that comes from a HUGE ginormous inheritance

the bright positive kids will do as much w. $10 million as w. 12 million, it won't affect them at all

the addicts, the less money they get for no effort, the less chance of killing themselves with it frankly

[Jackpine Radical]

3. I'm persuaded.

But then I never dd get why he would want to hold off on repealing the tax cuts for the rich. That just doesn't seem like a reasonable thing to do, it answers no problems while making the financing of some worthwhile things more difficult. The only reason I could come up with was to try to secure the cooperation (co-optation?) of the wealthy. But he might as well kick them in the nuts now as later.

[BeFree]

4. Besides

.... the rich are the only ones who can afford a raise. It is time the rich sacrifice for the good of the country. If we can ask a young person to give up their whole life in sacrifice for the country, the rich can damn sure sacrifice a few bucks for the good of the country.

[aquart]

5. Only an op ed.

[anonymous171]

6. That also explains why cutting high-income taxes doesn't help the economy

Sure they have more money, but there is no way they can spend it all.

[robinlynne]

18. It HURTS the economy.

[sam sarrha]

7. why they cut taxes to the Rich, ..wealth is an indication of gods favor, its a sin to tax the Rich,

http://doggo.tripod.com/doggchrisdomin.html

"snip...Leo Strauss was born in 1899 and died in 1973. ... He is most famous for resuscitating Machiavelli and introducing his principles as the guiding philosophy of the neo-conservative movement. ... More than any other man, Strauss breathed upon conservatism, inspiring it to rise from its atrophied condition and its natural dislike of change and to embrace an unbounded new political ideology that rides on the back of a revolutionary steed, hailing even radical change; hence the name Neo-Conservatives.

Significantly, Dominionism is a form of Social Darwinism.<48> It inherently includes the religious belief that wealth-power is a sign of God’s election. That is, out of the masses of people and the multitude of nations, wealth, in and of itself, is thought to indicate God’s approval on men and nations whereas poverty and sickness reflect God’s disapproval.

(It was not until I read this article that I realized that this is a fundamental tenet of Dominionists.

Worldly wealth and power are signs of God's favor -- to attempt to limit or decrease one's wealth and power is to disrespect God.

On the contrary, God's elect on Earth are called upon to increase their wealth and power.

It is not sufficient for a man to be a millionaire, or for a country to have sovereignty within its borders -- a man must strive to increase his wealth as much as possible, and a Dominionist government's behavior toward its neighbors must be "invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity".

Furthermore, any attempt to decrease a person's or a country's wealth and power -- to take from the rich to give to the poor, to reduce military spending and power -- is a direct attack on God.)

If “Secular Humanists are the greatest threat to Christianity the world has ever known,” as theologian Francis Schaeffer claimed, then who are the Humanists? According to Dominionists, humanists are the folks who allow or encourage licentious behavior in America. They are the undisciplined revelers.

Put all the enemies of the Dominionists together, boil them down to liquid and bake them into the one single most highly derided and contaminated individual known to man, and you will have before you an image of the quintessential “liberal” -- one of those folks who wants to give liberally to the poor and needy -- who desires the welfare and happiness of all Americans -- who insists on safety regulations for your protection and who desires the preservation of your values -- those damnable people are the folks that must be reduced to powerlessness -- or worse: extinction...snip"

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

8. Ain't Calvinism grand?

Hell of a way to run a nation, however.

[FormerDittoHead]

9. People have got to check out that page and check out the bit about SLAVERY...

thanks for the link. truly enlightening and frightening...

[unblock]

10. i'm tired of polemic arguments about tax policy. both sides are right, just not at the same time.

sometimes it's right to cut taxes, other times it's right to raise them. it's simply not just a matter of "tax hikes won't hurt the rich". sometimes raising taxes on the rich would be disastrous. this isn't one of them, but the blanket argument makes it seem simply less rooted in a cogent analysis of the present economic circumstance than a polemic argument against low taxes for the rich.

the real question is, are we in a time when we need to give the masses an incentive to spend, (demand-push) or give employers and entrepreneurs an incentive to invest (supply-pull).

right now, while consumers had been overconsuming and have correctly pulled back, they've done so too much for the economy to be healthy. we need demand-push, so the government need to spend and get money into the hands of consumers. that means big spending and/or grants & credits to the masses. massive government projects, extending unemployment benefits, tax credits to the lower income & middle class, etc.

NOTE that this isn't always a brilliant idea -- when high inflation is the biggest concern, this is a bad idea. but that's not the present circumstance.

meanwhile, investors aren't investing, and aren't basing their decision on tax policy. that's the key. neither a 15% nor a 28% nor a 33% nor a 39% nor a 50% rate is going to make a damn bit of difference in investors' decisions these days. BECAUSE YOU CAN ONLY TAX A PROFIT and right now, investors are vastly more concerned about losing or not losing money than they are with taxes on profits. hence, a tax hike on the rich would now slow investment down any more than it already has.

NOTE again that this isn't always a brilliant idea -- but it's fine in the current economic environment.

[robinlynne]

12. I disagree. The current economic crisis is the DIRECT result of concentration of wealth

in the hands of very few. Those tax cuts, along with the same wealth continually bestowed on corporations are the REASON for so many homelesss people and unemployed people. trickle down does nOT work. It is a lie. It assumes that there is "good will" and a lack of greed among the wealthiest and the big corporations. The opposite is true, they will take more and more as long as it continues unchecked (worse than unhekced, promoted by the tax cuts et al.). Those tax cuts create the poverty we see growing every day in this country.

[unblock]

13. where's the part where we disagree?

tax policy has been ill-judged since 1981. and the entire debate on both sides has been polemic, with hardly anyone acknowledging that a good tax policy shifts with the times.

the government should pay its bills (i.e., tax more) when the economy is strong and most (especially the rich) can afford it, and ease up when the economy needs it and lower tax rates will benefit. as i said, the economy will NOT benefit from lower taxes on the rich at this time. obama's tax platform in the campaign was spot on in terms of direction (i would say its only failing was it didn't go far enough).

[robinlynne]

15. It is not about at this time. The tax cuts were wrong from day one. They concentrated wealth.

They actually created (in large part) this crisis.

[unblock]

20. agreed.

but, e.g., jfk's tax cuts worked quite well. long time ago, i know, but we haven't had sane tax policy for a loooonng time.

[robinlynne]

21. In agreement then. long live agreement.

[EOTE]

19. A disastrous time to increase taxes on the rich?

And just when would this time be? I'm guessing it would be when the rich are already being taxed at 95%+. Until then, ANY time is a good time to increase the taxes on the rich. We need to return to a 90% top tax rate. Until we do that, we're not going to be the country we could be.

[robinlynne]

11. Thank-you! oh my. common sense. the obvious.

[dysfunctional press]

14. how about a one-time "wealth tax" to help balance the "system" and the economy...?

10% tax on all wealth over $10million.

[robinlynne]

16. hell yes!

[robinlynne]

17. or we could just have enron, I mean exxon, pay the real taxes they should be paying.

That might be enough to end homelessness or hunger in the whole country.