I’m having second thoughts about that graph from last night. As I lay in bed stressing last night, unable to sleep, I realized I was looking at things the wrong way. The graph I need to see is not the average per taxpayer in each bracket, but what would be really useful to know is the percentage of the benefit goes to each bracket. Sure, the average person may only be receiving a benefit of several hundred to a grand, but there are tens of millions of people receiving that and they will spend the money.
I guess I should say- they’ll gladly spend Chinese money. I’m still in favor of taxes in all brackets not only not being cut, but in half the brackets going up.
eemom
damn you John Cole.
That is all.
Carl Nyberg
The Democrats should have passed a three stage plan.
In the first year taxes hold at the pre-Bush rates.
If unemployment doesn’t drop, taxes increase.
And if unemployment doesn’t drop again, taxes increase again.
This kind of system is a pretty big part of how Republicans thought it would be good to “motivate” public schools to perform.
The tax code needs incentives. Right now it’s full of carrots. Now it needs more stick and more cowbell.
ericvsthem
Ezra linked to this yesterday, John. Not sure if this is exactly what you are looking for.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/12/why_liberals_dont_like_the_tax.html
dmsilev
OT: TNR collects a set of terribly-written sex scenes from political authors. Newt Gingrich, for example:
(I’ll take pity on people’s digestions and not quote the Bill O’Reilly-authored scene)
dms
dr. bloor
Your desire to do due diligence with this proposal is admirable, Cole, but at this point you’re talking about trying different shades of lipstick on the pig. You can dress it up anyway you like, but it’s still a pig.
amk
Do you do this ying and yang stuff too often, cole ? Your swinging skills could put Tarzan himself to shame.
gene108
I think rich people have a divine mandate to rule.
If God didn’t want rich people in charge, than money couldn’t buy power.
We should just submit to the oligarchs, since that is what God wants us to do.
Karmakin
What Carl said is actually a really good idea (note that would only be involving taxes on the rich). Less carrot, more stick please.
I strongly believe that modern investment is by and large a serious moral hazard issue. In that the absurd size of the investment bubble results in companies being forced to forgo any consideration of long-term stability and profitability in favor of short-term raze and burn business.
All of this stuff, at least to me is meaningless. I’d gladly trade a vastly reduced rate on wages for the rich in favor of new and higher taxes aimed at the financial sector. Raise the capital gains tax to a rate HIGHER than for normal wages, as well as a financial transaction tax designed to REALLY punish volume traders.
I’d even go as far as to reduce taxes on business profits and dividends. It’s that important to me that shareholders start to demand long term economic stability over all other considerations.
numbskull
@dr. bloor: Agreed. And it’s a pig because, if one’s goal is to create a back-door stimulus, a heck of a lot more of the volume of those big balls needs to be distributed to the smaller balls. The biggest balls shouldn’t even be in any of the plans. Which is the same thing John says in his last paragraph, only with my verbiage, I get to use the word “balls” a lot more.
Tom
The thing that’s somewhat misleading about that graph is that the final grouping is the average of those who make $100,000-plus. So, of course it’s going to be higher when you group in all the millionaires and billionaires out there, you know, because they make more money.
OT: Throw rotten produce at me if you must, but I think Brooks is spot on with this column:
Ocotillo
Ideally,
Tax rates for those above $ 250,000 go up to 42%
Capital gains 15% first $ 100,000, regular income rates after that.
Stock trade tax introduced
Estate tax reverts back to what it was
Payroll tax cap moved up to $ 250,000
Overhaul corporate taxation so those f**kers start paying taxes as well.
Bring the troops home from Afghanistan and you might make a dent in the deficit.
Hugh
@ericvsthem:
That graph had jumped out at me too. It made me even more angry than the graph that induced JC’s previous post. Selfish motherfuckers.
Karmakin
@gene108: The sad thing?
There’s millions upon millions of people out there who believe exactly that. It’s called Neo-Calvinism. It’s that success (and failure) are divinely mandated, and as such if you succeed, it’s because you’re a great holy person and god loves you.
And if you don’t succeed? It’s because you’re a bad person who is unworthy, and as such you should be actively punished for failing. It’s the biggest cultural change in America over the last 30 years, and it’s the reason why the GOP is so nuts.
How much impact is it having? So much that conservative Catholics are starting to espouse these ideas, when more or less they are basically blasphemy in the Catholic belief structure.
mr. whipple
I am one of them. Me want.
General Stuck
LOL. the fate of mankind and Cole’s sanity rests on big colored balloons and their ultimate meaning.
pull the plug on this circus before you get a nervous breakdown.
Ocotillo
Another thing too, when Democratic politicians are giving public speaking, they should ask the audience “Was anyone here born between 1972 and 1980?”
When the aforementioned people raise their hands, he/she needs to inform them they are paying for the Reagan deficits.
All this whining about our children paying for today’s debt, every successive generation pays for the previous generations debt morans.
Comrade Javamanphil
In Utah it’s called Mormonism.
mr. whipple
@General Stuck:
This is Balloon Juice.
The Grand Panjandrum
Ezra put up this breakdown from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Looks like the little guy did OK this time around.
Mithras
I had the same thought. The graph last night creates more heat than light.
The Republic of Stupidity
Apparently you’re willing to tolerate some ‘pain’ and ‘discomfort’ for the good of the country, if that’s what’s necessary, which it probably is.
And therein lies the rub, John… the population has become such a culturally inbred collection of spineless, whiny, belligerent me-firsters that millions and millions of them would vomit at the mere thought of taking one in the wallet for the well-being of the country…
Perhaps if you threw in a complimentary KFC Double Down as part of the bargain…
Omnes Omnibus
@The Republic of Stupidity:
I tried one of those, purely out of curiosity; they are awful.
Lolis
I have no clue what to do or what the House should do. It is a little hysterical in all senses of the word that now the left is screaming about deficits. It just shows deficits only matter when it is spent on something you disagree with politically. That works for both sides. At least I am seeing the similarities between right and left now. I guess we are all from the human race, sometimes I have wondered.
Maude
@General Stuck:
And the tax bill isn’t written yet.
When I heard that, I put down the shovel I was using to dig the bunker.
jwb
@Carl Nyberg: Especially cowbell.
kay
@Lolis:
But it does draw a lot of attention to the fact that conservatives are full of shit on deficits, so I think it’s a good tactic, details aside.
That can’t be said enough. Conservatives ran on deficits. They lied. I think it’s a great idea to keep pointing that out. It’s “sticking”, too, so it’s a successful tactic.
The Republic of Stupidity
@Omnes Omnibus:
And yet, they’re wildly popular w/ teh fans of fast food…
Quite frankly, I got chest pains just HEARING about them for the first time…
Bill E Pilgrim
John’s readers, entangled in the latest paroxysm of anal wrestling-level squabbling, suffers a collective whiplash and demands he stick to dog pictures for the rest of Obama’s term.
mr. whipple
I used to be willing to take one in the wallet for the sake of balanced budgets and lowering the deficit. But no more.
Reagan, that miserable fuck, lowered income taxes and then said ‘well, lookie here, Social Security is going broke’ and raised the most regressive fucking tax I pay. (Being self-employed I pay this 2x)
Clinton put us on a path where this could all be dealt with, and then Greenspan comes in and says it was dangerous to pay it off. Bush runs up a huge deficit and no one gives a shit(until a Democrat becomes President).
Fuck it, just give me my pittance of a cut and go the fuck away. I’ve already taken one for the team.
Omnes Omnibus
@The Republic of Stupidity: They are smaller and greasier than they look on TV.
ETA: I bet that is true of John Boehner as well.
kay
@Lolis:
Too, the liberal position on deficits is more subtle, so it’s not even hypocritical.
Deficits are okay as long as long as they serve the greater good, rather than a privileged portion. Necessary, not luxuries. I think that’s absolutely defensible and coherent. It’s slightly more complicated than “deficits BAD” but not too far off bumper-sticker standard discourse.
That it allows liberals to point out that the GOP position is both incoherent and indefensible is just icing.
Why shouldn’t they hammer that for a while? They’d be crazy to pass it up. It’s sort of caught on! :)
dr. bloor
@Omnes Omnibus:
Boehner is oranger than a double down, too.
Has anyone ever seen a photo of Boehner and a double-down together?
The Republic of Stupidity
@mr. whipple:
That’s the Spirit!
schrodinger's cat
Republican Game Plan
1.Cut taxes for the rich
2.Scream about deficits
3.Gut Social Security and other welfare programs because deficits are high and we need to sacrifice.
Repeat till we are all in some Dickensian nightmare of debtors prisons. GOP doesn’t care about deficits. I don’t understand the logic behind Obama’s compromise.
The Republic of Stupidity
@dr. bloor:
Sounds like either a family portrait, or cannibalism…
The Republic of Stupidity
@Omnes Omnibus:
There are certain, so-called ‘foodstuffs’ out there that just make me blanche…
Deep-fried cheese sticks?
Chicken-fried bacon?
Has anyone ever done a serious study on the correlation of the level and rate of decline in a society as it relates to the sort of crap the population takes a shine to eating?
Like w/ our current obesity/diabetes problems?
The Voice
John,
Discussed this last night on another site; no time to format here. Find live links here:
http://www.bartcopnation.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=2&topic_id=464894&mesg_id=464963&page=
….from The Tax Policy Center, the primary source for your “balloon” graphics.
The $139K+ tax reduction for millionaires is based on the “current law baseline”, i.e. the law as it would be in 2011 if all tax cuts expired as scheduled. Source
No wonder the liberal base hates it.
However, based on “current policy baseline”, i.e. 2010 tax law, the millionaires pull down a $9211.00 cut under the Obama deal. I consider the other $100K as being on Smirk’s tab. Source *Note the column: “share of total tax changes”(the additional Obama cuts). $500K plus get 5+% of the reductions, while $100K and under get 95% of the additional reductions.
No wonder the wingnut base hates it.
Remind the wingnuts of the unemployment compensation extension, they begin foaming and convulsing.
Hell, throw in another 26 (DO I HEAR 39?!) weeks of unemployment compensation for the 99’ers, and the wingnuts may stroke out totally.
And, suddenly, I could begin to like this deal.
The Voice
mr. whipple
@The Republic of Stupidity:
Yeah, I know. But come back to me when Warren Buffet pays as much tax, as a percentage of his income, that the person who owns the local sandwich shack does. Then I’ll be glad to get my feel good Patriotic on and pay more taxes to reduce the debt and deficit, until the next fucking republican comes along to blow it up again.
calling all toasters
So if the bottom 98% get 51% of the benefit, everything will be hunky-dory? Go back to hippie-punching, Cole.
The Republic of Stupidity
@mr. whipple:
I thought about your comment and kinda realized something else needed to be said there… and you just said it.
Yes, the OTHER half of that sentiment would be having our elected officials get their heads out of their Cheneys and stop lying to us… and be willing to take that same one in the wallet too, also… along w/ the rest of us…
WyldPirate
@Mithras:
The problem is not the amount, but the disproportionate amount of the cuts that go to the ultra-wealthy.
the 15% tax on capital gains is just insanity. This is the type of thing that–as Warren Buffett says–allows him to pay less in taxes than his secretary.
More insanity is the special provision–just for hedge fund managers–that allow them to pay just 15% on their earnings because it’s a “financial service” towards capital gains or some shit. That is the most inane thing I’ve ever heard.
FormerSwingVoter
Ask and ye shall receive!
Compared to letting all tax cuts expire:
http://taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?Docid=2863
Compared to extending all Bush tax cuts but nothing else (note the percentage change in after-tax income column):
http://taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?Docid=2865
I would like to point out that four Democrats plus Lieberman voted against the “extend all but the tax cuts for the rich”. Getting that deal through was always about as likely as… as… some… really unlikely thing.
The scenario was always going to be “all cuts extended, although temporarily for the high income ones”, due to the asshats in the Senate.
The Republic of Stupidity
@WyldPirate:
This, coupled w/ the fact that many, many CEOs now take their compensation in the form of options, and not regular salary, certainly helps explain why so much money has managed to accumulate in the hands of fewer and fewer people over the last 15, 20 years…
WeThePurple
John,
I posted that last night on the chart thread:
I have seen this chart in a bunch of places now and it is a bit misleading as to where all the money is going because it intentionally omits the fact that there are a lot fewer people in the $1,000,000+ category than say the %50,000-$75,000 range. I did the math based on census info and you get the following for percentage of total tax cut benefits:
Democratic Plan
<$200,000: 83%
$200,000-$1,000,000: 15%
$1,000,000+: 2%
Republican Plan
<$200,000: 64%
$200,000-$1,000,000: 15%
$1,000,000+: 21%
Compromise Plan
<$200,000: 67%
$200,000-$1,000,000: 14%
$1,000,000+: 17%
Obviously the amount the super-rich get is obscene, but that graph makes it seem like people that make over $1,000,000 are getting more than half of the money and they aren’t.
Ash Can
I didn’t see that balloon graph until this morning, long after the comment thread had reached the point of tl;dr. But the same thing occurred to me. The graph basically singled out the worst aspect of the tax compromise and presented it in dramatic manner, without any of the mitigating circumstances. And that’s what graphs do, and why they can be very misleading, even when what they portray is true in and of itself.
I’m no huge fan of this deal myself. But the fact remains that the Congressional Republicans do not give a shit about the middle and lower classes most of the time, and the rest of the time are actively trying to harm them. Unless and until the great unwashed somehow figure this out and stop voting them into office, legislation will somehow have to get past these sociopaths. If the price of keeping families together and preventing people from starving or freezing to death this winter is some fat cats getting fatter and kicking the deficit down the road, it’s just something those of us with consciences have to do. It’s a Hobson’s choice, to be sure, but some fires are doing more damage than others, and have to be put out first.
Steve M.
The graph you need to see is the distribution of what we’ll get once the congressional Dems’ almost certainly futile and ineffectual hissyfit ends. For that, you’ll probably need to redesign your blog layout in order to fit the even more massive circle that represents outlay to millionaires.
Nellcote
Another Ezra graph that might help.
Martin
@dmsilev: I have a proposal. In lieu of campaign finance reform, which we clearly will never achieve, every candidate for national or statewide office should be required to write a lengthy sex scene. Some federal office will visit them at random after they’ve been certified on the ballot and force them to start writing – so no cheating here.
It needs to be of decent length, we’re not talking just a paragraph here. It can involve anything they want. If they think a sex slave and a bear is appropriate, fine. Some minimum requirements – someone has to climax, etc.
This goes into everyones voter guides. It’s out there, you know. Need to be 18 to vote, so no worry about it getting mailed to the kids.
I think the quality of impromptu writing and imagination, restraint, and lack thereof in sex scenes would add significantly to the public’s understanding of our candidates for high office.
Martin
Actually, the graph that needs to be seen is the one that Durbin alludes to in his op-ed. We need to see representative income groups that show total income (including cap gains, etc.) and then see what deductions they take (as a group) and then see what they pax in taxes (in all categories).
The little bubbles are nice and all, but you don’t really grasp the tax picture until you see that the bottom 20% of so of non-retired filers are earning under $20K. It’s not the taxes that tell the tale but the gross vs adjusted gross income. Income is what ultimately matters, and focusing on what is paid completely undermines the problem of what people live off of.
News Reference
Ezra’s graph fails to show, and even distorts the fact that:
25% of the tax benefits go to the top 1%.
Emerald
John, here’s an analysis you might enjoy: http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2010/12/just-because-everyones-freaking-out.html
And also take a look at the graph in this DK diary, which shows how much the Dems got, and how little the Rs got:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/12/8/926896/-Obamas-Tax-Deal:-A-GOOD-Deal-(updated-with-clip-from-The-Last-Word)
Also, here’s Robert Samuelson, crying that the Republicans are getting swindled in the deal: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/09/AR2010120904472.html
I might add that everybody’s got their panties all in a twist over what’s essentially a chimera. The wealthy do not pay their “income” tax rate, which is what this deal’s about. They pay the much lower capital gains rate. The only wealthy who would really benefit from this are short-term big earners like star athletes and entertainers, who do make their millions as “income.”
And that’s why Warren Buffet pays at a rate less than his secretary. He doesn’t pay “income” taxes. He pays capital gains, if he pay at all.
Batocchio
NYT: “At least a quarter of the tax savings will go to the wealthiest 1 percent of the population.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/08/us/politics/08impact.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss
johnny walker
And the trolling spree continues. Whatever generates more hits I guess. I guess I’m supposed to continue (pretending I’m) buying that Cole is just so darn thoughtful on this stuff that he changes his mind on a daily basis.
Whatever dude. Hopefully that “straight up trolling” post the other day was fun, ‘cuz your credibility’s shot. No guys, now I sincerely believe your motivations are too complicated to be explained away as hatred of Obama! I’m really having seconds thoughts about this stuff! My role at this blog still involves something beyond stirring up angry comment threads, honest!
utmb
A Steve Benen graph & commentary:
See graph