I know Yglesias is not popular around these parts… but what the heck, he nails a big issue here:
Latest column is about President Obama’s absurd endorsement of Marco Rubio’s absurd bill to exempt prizes won by Olympic athletes from taxation.
For the deep cuts, let me say that I think it’s particularly dangerous for liberals to get into this game. Obviously the specific revenue implications of this bill are small. But the framing around it is deeply right-wing. The idea is that taxes are a kind of penalty, and that we shouldn’t be penalizing these worthy athletes for their efforts.
Look, let’s say Obama wins. All sorts of good things happen. We get a government where regulators actually have freedom to regulate industry. We get to nominate a bunch of sane people to the courts. We get to keep Obamacare in place. We probably avoid war with Iran. All of this is good enough in itself. So please do not for a second believe I have doubts about Obama or am uncertain about voting for him.
But the reality is that if Obama gets everything he wants on the tax front — extension of all Bush/Obama tax cuts for income up to $250k — we still end up with a massive structural deficit that will feed a “need” for new and increased budget cuts and austerity. Of course, austerity continues and extends the weak job picture, which further saps government revenue, which further creates pressure for deficit reduction.
One of the biggest threats we face to health care reform and the social safety net in the long run is the fact that federal revenue are at a 60+ year low as a percentage of GDP. And we can’t rebuild the revenue base without raising taxes… and we will have trouble raising taxes as long as liberals jump on the anti-tax bandwagon as a political expedient.
The GOP wants to “starve the beast.” Supporting policies that justify this starvation is problematic.
The Dangerman
How did we ever survive the other 29 Summer Games where gold medals were taxable?
ETA Each gold medal winner will cash in nicely from product endorsements; really, they can afford the tax hit.
Linda Featheringill
Have they voted on the bill yet? If Obama endorses the bill, will they be likely to vote it down just out of spite?
Tom65
That’s a hell of a leap to say that an exemption for Olympic athletes represents a slippery slope.
Phil Perspective
@Linda Featheringill: I don’t know, considering GOP wonder-boy Marco Rubio is sponsoring it in the Senate.
Johnny Gentle (famous crooner)
All very true and salient points, but it’s not remotely worth the political capital to oppose this.
If this were some kind of multibillion dollar tax exemption with wide-ranging effects, I’d be right there with you. But concerns about framing on something this minor (and popular) pale in comparison to the inevitable shrieks of “Obama hates the U.S.A. and our Olympic heroes!!” should he oppose it.
With this type of insignificant “feel-good” issue, it’s best just to embrace it, avoid a trap, and get it out of the way.
PZ
I’ve always said you’re never going to win the taxes argument if you just make it about taxing the rich. In the end, you need to change the discussion from “taxes are the most evil form of torture” to “taxes are a necessary part of society.” In the end, we need to make the goal progressive solutions. If that means people outside the 1% or even the 10% pay taxes, so be it.
jwb
I agree. The long-term play here for the right wing is that bonuses shouldn’t be taxed as ordinary income and I don’t understand how Obama could have made this misplay. Unforced error.
taylormattd
Yes, yes. The sky is falling, because Obama lent lip service to a silly idea that will have no impact on anything.
Tax exemption for Olympic Athletes will lead to DOOOOOOOM.
Phil Perspective
@Johnny Gentle (famous crooner): And they said the same thing about Glass-Steagall repeal. It’s called embracing stupid policy for stupid reasons. And you wonder why this country is so messed up. And it’s not a tax on the medals. It’s a tax on the bonuses the USOC gives medal-winning athletes. Is your bonus at work tax-exempt?
Villago Delenda Est
@Tom65:
I don’t think it does.
This entire thing is bullshit. Obama should have flat out rejected it and told that vile Rethuglican twit Rubio to pound sand.
Income is income. It should be progressively taxed, because a progressive tax apportions the burden of taxation on those who are deriving the greatest benefit from the infrastructure of civilization.
RP
By this logic, we shouldn’t support deductions for charitable donations.
This is silly. Everybody views taxes as a kind of penalty — why else do we refer to it as a “burden” — and liberals aren’t going to change any minds by trying to pretend otherwise. It’s better to argue that the burden should be distributed fairly, and that includes deductions and exemptions for behavior we like (charity, buying electric cars), as wells as sin taxes and penalties for behavior we don’t.
Dennis SGMM
Obama is stepping on his own message with this one.
jl
@Tom65: I agree. Issue so small bore, would compete with pea shooter. I skimmed MY’s grand and lengthy generalities on this issue, on a par with licensing of barbers and hairdressers as a grave threat to the commonweal.
Maybe some pundit who has the time and maybe would like to do some research could come up with distribution of net outlays and income of olympic athletes so we can have some information.
Oh, sorry, I guess MY will deem me a fool for not deciding the issue on elementary philosophical and economic principles which I should well know.
At least Kaus keeps his ramblings short.
Frankensteinbeck
I have a very dim view of ‘don’t adopt conservative framing’ arguments. We’re not Tea Partiers. If conservatives somehow have anything right, we don’t have to reject it just because we dislike them. Obama has not been shy about saying the rich need to pay more taxes. I personally doubt he intends to stop with the Bush Tax Cuts, but however far he’d like to take that, right now he’s made raising taxes on the rich popular for the first time in 30 years. ‘The rich aren’t paying their share’ is HIS meme, that he planted in his deficit speech, and it worked because instead of running away from right wing messaging, he laid a new message over top of it.
Phil Perspective
@taylormattd: I’ll repeat, if you get a bonus at work is it taxed? Why not argue that it shouldn’t be?
taylormattd
@Phil Perspective: What the fuck does Glass-Steagall have to do with anything?
MikeJ
This is why the popular vision of Democrats is “pro-tax”. Sane Democrats are for enough taxes to pay for the things we need to do. Very, very few people want taxes simply for the sake of having taxes.
Democrats shouldn’t ever be reflexively anti-tax like the Republicans are, but quivering in fear if anybody ever suggests cutting *any* tax is as stupid as anything Grover Norquist has ever said.
Alex S.
Well, what’s Obama gotta do? It’s a lose-lose situation, just make it go away.
Tom65
@Villago Delenda Est: Oh come on, the tax code is full of personal exemptions. This is picking fly shit out of pepper.
The Dangerman
@Johnny Gentle (famous crooner):
Don’t get me wrong; I totally agree. No way Obama can’t sign on to the tax waiver.
My point is … how did this ever become an issue? In the big picture, this is insignificant to all parties.
dmbeaster
This s whiny crap about a non-issue. Its purity troll terrirory and politically unwise. Would you make the same argument about existing exemptions such as for churches?
jwb
@MikeJ: No, you are giving a tax cut to the Olympic athletes who need it least. It’s exactly the logic of the GOP tax plan writ large: the successful shouldn’t be taxed but instead we should let them get away without paying taxes because they are just so damned successful.
Ash Can
@Johnny Gentle (famous crooner): This exactly. I wish I weren’t on the iPad at the moment, so that I could cut and paste your comment here, in bold, italics, blockquote, and neon colors, and put “QFTMFT” after it. You nailed it.
taylormattd
@Phil Perspective: This is a stupid fucking argument to say the least.
First of all, I’m not so fortunate as to get bonuses.
If I was, however, one of those folks who was received bonuses, the last thing I’d want to hear is a bunch of progressive bloggers using my compensation structure as a cudgel to argue the Olympians I see on TV shouldn’t receive a tax break.
Brachiator
If we cannot find a way to revitalize the economy, the idea of a social safety net becomes unsustainable.
The whole idea of a safety net implies that the majority of the citizens are able to live fairly productive and comfortable lives, and that surplus wealth can be used to help the needy and unfortunate.
If the middle class disappears, no one is safe except for a few oligarchs.
Looking at federal revenue, with or without respect to GDP, is a waste of time if the wages, income and wealth of the majority is dwindling to nothing.
@PZ:
You can’t have any solutions, progressive or otherwise, if the economy is dead.
This is not true. It has never been true. It is as ridiculous as is the notion that every pro athlete wit a “fat contract” is set for life.
ETA: I think the idea of exempting Olympic earnings from tax is ridiculous, but it doesn’t much matter with respect to the deficit. It is an irrelevant side issue with a dash of jingoism.
Villago Delenda Est
@Tom65:
Then we need to start eliminating a lot of personal exemptions.
Rents should be taxed at higher rates than wages, for example.
Ditto capital gains.
Those deriving the most benefit from the infrastructure of civilization should be paying proportionally more to maintain and expand it. This is basic fairness. This is simple.
These people will have plenty of money left over for a new BMW every year and all the hookers and coke they can handle.
schrodinger's cat
I guess manufactured outrage is not just for Fox.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
Oh fuck me. One of the reasons I’m an O-bot is because he’s usually not stupid.
taylormattd
@MikeJ: Thank you.
jwb
@dmbeaster: This is the kind of thing you bottle up in legislative committees until the Olympics are long over and so they can die after people have forgotten about them.
Kane
The athletes can easily write off any tax that is incurred from their winnings.
But if we are going to give tax exempt status to Olympians for their patriotic displays of athleticism, why not offer the same exemption to all active duty military as well? Are their actions less patriotic than Olympic athletes? And how about veterans too? And how about police and firefighters and first responders? Are they any less heroic and patriotic than Olympic athletes? And how about…
Judas Escargot, Acerbic Prophet of the Mighty Potato God
Ah yes, even more special perks & status for athletes.
That’s exactly what this culture needs!
gwangung
This applies to the equestrians, skeet shooters, archers, etc. who are the majority of medal winners who DON’T cash in on endorsements?
Scott de B.
We shouldn’t.
The Dangerman
@Brachiator:
Didn’t say they were set for life; I said they would cash in nicely.
Now, everything is relative, but even the most significant sport has magazines, conventions, etc; the gold medalists will get product endorsements and appearance fees. Not all will get rich, but all will do OK.
pseudonymous in nc
I will say this: the US is fairly anomalous in taxing things like competition prizes, so you have the weird discussion about how someone will win a discrete good — e.g. a car or holiday on Wheel of Fortune — but may then have to sell it or claim a cash equivalent to cover the taxes on it.
Honorariums from the national Olympic Committee, though? Marginal, and sets an iffy precedent. But, it’s political bullshit season, and a no-win for Obama.
gwangung
You need to demonstrate this.
Take, say, a fencing medalist or skeet shooter. What are they taking down in endorsements?
Tom65
* facepalm *
I’m out…
BerkeleyMom
@Kane: And how about Nobel Prize winners? Good grief this just goes on and on. Obama should have just kept his mouth shut on this one.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
Yes, because a $2000+ reduction in a lot of people’s yearly salaries will do a lot of good to a struggling economy.
At some point, we will need to address this, after a further stimulus that spends the borrowed money on infrastructure projects. I say for now we pay it by raising the upper tax on the wealthy by a couple more percent. Oh, you say that won’t pass at all? Well, then we take what we can get.
The olympic medal thing is a distraction.
Brachiator
@The Dangerman:
Still not true. Still has never been true.
Villago Delenda Est
This is precisely the opposite of what needs to happen.
The most successful are deriving the greatest benefit from the system. This is evident by the wealth that flows to them.
They need to bear the burden to pay for the system, or we’re basically encouraging parasitism. You make enough money, you get a free ride. The little people carry you. They get to pay for all the benefits of the state…like the recognition of property, for example. Like contracts. Like police to protect you from the people you’re starving.
Why the fuck you WANT to create a more unstable social condition with the GOP attitude on taxes astounds me. This is not conservative. It’s nihilism.
Do we really want to replicate late 18th century France? Do we want to play that game, where the aristocrats get all the benefits and have none of the obligations? Where you tax the vast majority of people in order to give the wealthy a free ride? Where you basically retard the growth of the economy to insure that the top 1% stays there?
Dennis SGMM
@BerkeleyMom:
Exactly. He could have kept just quiet and then signed the son-of-a-bitch when it hit his desk.
pseudonymous in nc
@Scott de B.:
Totally in agreement on that. The US could do with a much tighter regulation of what gets counted as a charity, for starters, and with something like the UK’s Gift Aid system, where you make a declaration that you’re a taxpayer with your donation, there’s no personal deduction, and it’s up to the charity to put in a blanket reclaim based upon the amount received in donations.
Gex
I can see both takes on it. This ISN’T that big of a thing. But we are where we are because Republicans have spent 30 years taking small pieces of government spending and taxation out of context and making the idea of that tax ridiculous. And we chip away and chip away. And we get comfortable with the process of identifying a tax and deciding we don’t need it anymore until we are where we are now.
Violet
This seems like a non-issue. Support it now, while the Olympics are nearing their end. Wait for it to get bogged down in committee and weighed down with other pork barrel pet projects, and watch it quietly die.
Obama wins now–with independents for his willingness to work with Republicans, and with his “support” of Olympic athletes. In five days this will be forgotten because the Olympics will be over.
General Stuck
Reactionary reaction is deeply conservative, since you asked, or not. And there is no austerity currently in place. That is a firebagger blogging point. The entirety of Obama on progressive taxation issues far outshines this small gesture in the spending cut world. It is a difference in strategy for the pragmatic liberal, versus bullheaded intransigence on every single morsel of policy must be liberal, or it’s no good. This is simply the flip side of the wingnut coin as practiced through Norquist pledging. It may feel good to be pure, but in the long term will prove to be a political disaster for those who practice it. See Southern Strategy, and the tea party. That help our side far more than the other side.
Nellcote
Congress has something like 13 work days left this year. They better get on it!
Yutsano
So a Democratic President can NEVER propose a tax cut? Do you think you could stop and think for a second before you answer a question??
The Dangerman
@gwangung:
Want an ROM amount? Not a clue. But it is significantly (and, again, this is all relative) greater than zero. You don’t think they endorse shotguns or whatever the hell fencers use?
“Amateurism” (whatever the hell that ever meant) in the Olympics went the way of the Dodo a long time ago.
Ben Franklin
It’s strictly a political non-loser.
Nearly everyone is high on the ‘amateur’ exhibition of Human Triumph and American ‘Ceptionalism’.
Me? Meh. It’s money that drives it, so let it flow.
eric
You people are politically insane…so you want little miss gymnast or michael phelps endorsing romneey because obama is all about taxes…sheesh.
why is it different? because they are representing the united states of america, whether you think they are or that the should be. to the public and the world, they are the US in that race or event. if we could raise marignal rates .000001% we could make this money back….now it is a dead issue in the campaign….
edited for clarity
PeakVT
Income is income is income. Treating different types of income differently is one of the main problems with the current tax code. Treating bonuses from the USOC differently from bonuses from MegaCorp, Inc. helps perpetuate the idea that it’s a good idea to treat different types of income differently. And poor athletes are already protected from an excessive tax burden by the progressivity of the tax code.
But it’s an election year, so if the Obama signs on to this micro-pander, I don’t care.
Can we go back to talking about how Republicans are lying shitstains now?
piratedan
@gwangung: agreed, my son’s fiance was in juniors for archery, ranked nationally for a time before a degenerative shoulder issue tanked her dreams… there’s no support for these kids following their dreams, which does indeed include a fairly hefty sacrifice for themselves and their families. Maybe if you’re lucky you can supplement your effort with a corporate sponsorship but that is by no means a given from what I understand. She is from a nice middle class family, but they pay their own way to the tournaments, their own hotel, equipment and if/when they get selected to the national team, the extent of the support from the IOC is room and to a degree board, plus the nifty uniforms. The thing is, most of these folks don’t even own the rights to their own images while they’re competing, those go to the IOC or the national sports organizations. I’m not saying that they should get a free ride at taxpayer expense, but comping their travel for themselves and their family should be considered since they are representing the country.
Yes, they’re pursuing their dreams, but to immediately equate it to being set for life if they do happen to be the best isn’t a sure thing, lots of hands in lots of pockets along the way. Lets not even talk about those folks that compete but aren’t podium worthy.
lacp
Anything can become a slippery slope…if you let it. I don’t have a problem with this tax-exemption proposal, although I don’t agree with it, because I really don’t see how it leads to the conclusion that Wiggles comes to. It’s certainly not going to make or break the U.S. economy.
DougJ
Meh, who cares?
ChrisNYC
I cannot think of an issue less important to the real lives of real people than taxes on Olympic gold medals. Good for the Prez for dispatching it quickly and moving on to Romney-hood.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@eric: Because everything exists in a vacuum, that’s why.
Dennis SGMM
@Yutsano:
Of course he or she can. A tax cut for single mothers, a tax cut for the families of Enlisted military, a tax cut for renewable energy…
A tax cut for Olympic athletes? Not so much.
RP
@pseudonymous in nc: Yeah, that sounds like a political winner.
Linda Featheringill
@Phil Perspective:
Rubio is a Senator. Oops, sorry. I was thinking taxation starting in the House. But I have no idea how a special exemption would be handled.
schrodinger's cat
@Yutsano: This post is derivative of MY post in Slate. I am eagerly awaiting why we don’t need licensing for barbers post from BF soon.
liberal
@Villago Delenda Est:
You’re confusing two sets of wealthy people.
The first set got rich by making some kind of productive contribution. They’re not getting a free ride, though—after all, they did make a productive contribution.
The second set got rich by milking economic rents. They’re doing nothing but trucking in government-granted privileges.
Thing is, though, that most large fortunes fall into the second set.
Culture of Truth
A “big issue”? This is a big issue?
Steve
I rather doubt Obama has instructed Harry Reid to fast-track this bill at all costs. It’s just a pander that will probably never become law.
One of the problems with the whole obsession over “framing” is that some liberals have convinced themselves we can change public opinion on anything if we just set the right narrative. In fact, people seeing taxes as a sort of penalty is pretty much the natural order of things, not something Frank Luntz dreamed up. It’s going to take a lot more than us saying, “Golly gee whiz, this is income just like any other income” to move the Overton window on this one.
liberal
@piratedan:
By that logic, we shouldn’t tax authors who make out big, because they took huge risks when they weren’t making anything, at the beginning of their writing careers.
wrb
can’t figure out why my post is spam
The Other Chuck
@Linda Featheringill:
The whole “revenue bills must start in the House” thing is a complete and total joke now.
What the House does now is propose a bill, any bill at all, and send it to the Senate, where they replace _every last line_ of it with their own bill. So technically, it still originated in the House.
Liberty60
@PZ:
This to the nth power.
We already are the party of sober realism; we just need to amplify the message that responsible adults shoulder burdens for the sake of their family, their community, and nation.
Culture of Truth
You can make a lot of money fencing, as long as you don’t get caught.
Jewish Steel
Sternly, grimly taxing happy, youthful medalists is just what they need to see in order to understand we mean business.
Another Halocene Human
@lacp: I object because it’s one more way to dodge the real issue, how do you make the tax system fair for those who have uneven income.
Reagan addressed this by just slashing taxes. It would be fairer if income earners could spread their income over multiple years, the same way jerb cremators who take their income as capital gains (how is this legal?????) do.
Actors are just suckers for not figuring out how to take THEIR earnings as capital gains!
liberal
@Steve:
Not sure I believe that. My old man claims that back in the day, you were proud to pay taxes, because it meant you were successful enough to pay them and were moreover contributing to the common good.
Zifnab
Has the bill made it through House and Senate sausage grinders yet? How much you want to bet there aren’t a dozen Democrats ready to slip a poison pill into this bill along the lines of “And audit the President’s tax returns” or “Cut oil subsidies to pay for the expense” that the Republicans will choke on?
How much you want to bet that if the bill sees the floor of the House, some asshole Republican will try and use it to defund Planned Parenthood?
If this token gesture makes it to the President’s desk, meh. It’s “fly shit in pepper” as someone upthread mentioned (although, more like fly shit in a fly shit compost heap). But I’m willing to bet the bill will be hacked to ribbons by sneaky assholes and die in gridlock long before then. Just like damn near everything that lands on the floor for a vote.
Culture of Truth
We’re 90 days from a national election, and ‘liberal’ pundits think the best use of their time is to attack Obama over this. Criminy, now I recall why I don’t read the thoughtful young Mr Y
AliceBlue
I never realized Olympic athletes received bonuses until I heard a Sirius XM deejay ranting about the taxation. I gather that the athletes are allowed to deduct travel and training expenses, uniform and equipment costs, etc., so they end up paying very little or nothing at all.
Punchy
THIS! Now, if they vote for it, they’ve “voted in lockstep with the Keyanest, socialistest, mostest horrible Preznit evah!”, and if they not turn around to vote against it, they hate athletes, puppies, and vagisil (dont ask, the commercials write themselves)
SatanicPanic
Why does Rubio care? Rafalca didn’t win
Dennis SGMM
@Zifnab:
I think that you’re part right; the Republicans will attach one or more odious riders to the bill, it will pass, and then Obama will be in the position of either having to veto a bill that he originally endorsed or signing the thing and then relying on his apologists to explain his actions.
danah gaz (fka gaz)
@Phil Perspective: “And they said the same thing about Glass-Steagall repeal.”
I’m not so sure. I’m far more inclined to believe Matt Tabbi’s take on that, as he wrote in Griftopia.
His take was essentially this: Since the 1980’s GS repeal had been pushed but ultimately opposed.
This time however, Greenspan and the MOTUs played some dirty tricks:
First, they actually managed to grease the skids enough to slide some mergers through that flew in the face of GS.
Next, Greenspan went in front of the govt and said essentially, that since these mergers had already taken place, if we didn’t legalize it after-the-fact then it would cause the market to tank due to the exposure of criminal behavior by some large institutions.
IOW, (more or less as Tabbi puts it) he held the gun to his own head and said “Do this or the Ni-CLANG gets it!”
Quicksand
@The Dangerman:
OMG that should be tax-free toooo! Why do we punish success?
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@liberal: I like to pay taxes in the same way I like paying for that large screen TV. Would I love to get it for free? Of course. But, in the real world, if I consider it to be worthwhile, then I am willing to pay for it.
Now, the analogy isn’t perfect, because I am also willing to pay services I don’t receive, but the feeling is the same.
Another Halocene Human
@liberal: Again, we should allow income earners with uneven incomes to spread out their earnings over multiple tax years–just as the owners and wall street boys can do already with capital gains and losses.
If someone started making money consistently (say, started a successful construction business, or starred in a broadway production as stable as Cats or wrote a book that got a movie deal and the royalties will be coming in for years) then they would have to roll that up and pay the regular rate. If that all ended and their income got spotty again they could go back. And in a fair world EVERYONE could put aside to the same annual limit for retirement accounts instead of different special deals for different people.
wrb
I’m gonna figure out this spam thing if it kills me
not so
It can be ent•irely rep•laced with much better options
• shift tax to those making over $250,000
• a confi•sc•atory inhe•ritance tax over a couple of million
– elim•inate trusts
– a carbon tax.
Thus it isa step in the right direction.
Anyway, we absolutely shouldn’t be increasing taxes on low and middle incomes in a depression, we should be reducing or eliminating them.
the Conster
Every minute talking about this horseshit is a minute not focused like a laser beam on Romney’s tax cheating. Get lined up behind Harry and Obama so they know we all have their backs. Jeebus, people, this is war.
Brachiator
@Another Halocene Human:
I’m not sure what you mean here. Are you talking about people who have very low income in one year, and significant income in another year or years?
Individuals used to be able to use income averaging. It was a pain in the ass to compute, and had its own brand of unfairness. For example, if you got married in one of the years, you had to include the spouse’s income in the calculation. After a while, it didn’t seem to be really worth the effort.
Farmers can still use income averaging in some situations.
danah gaz (fka gaz)
@Culture of Truth: And *this* is what it boils down to, doesn’t it?
I totally agree. You won the thread, and the rest is just a mop up.
MikeJ
@Another Halocene Human:
Income averaging was done away with in the 1986 tax act because it made the brackets flatter, i.e. it wasn’t needed because you weren’t going to have a year that pushed you into a 75% bracket. If you lower the top bracket, do away with multiple brackets, *and* allow income averaging you deal a massive blow to the treasury.
danah gaz (fka gaz)
@the Conster: This, too.
Another Halocene Human
@Quicksand: I thought the whole poison pill in the Rubio plan was that it would allow with sneaky structuring for Michael Phelps to get that endorsement cash tax free.
Meanwhile, the actual medals themselves were never taxed, according to TP this morning.
Robert Sneddon
I thought that many US politicians were all for simplification of the tax system — a flat tax or removal of a lot of special exemptions and such from the multi-thousand page tax code. Adding another page or two to the code to give Olympians (just the ones participating in the 2012 Games, or previous ones? The Paralympics too?) this tax-free status for their bonuses would seem to go against the wishes of the flat-tax boosters and such.
A better solution might be to calculate the tax the Olympians will pay on their bonuses and vote for a one-time payment from Government funds to them to counterbalance the tax. That’s the same as exempting them from the tax as far as revenues go but it makes the point that it is costing the Government money it has to take from other revenue sources to make this gesture. Cue the screaming from certain types about Government handouts and giveaways…
Mnemosyne
@Violet:
Yep. Opposing it would just cause the right-wing Wurlitzer to fire up, so it’s better to give it lukewarm support and let nature — in this case, the Congressional teabaggers getting bored and dropping the whole thing — take its course.
Kane
I like the idea that the government is inspecting our food to ensure that it’s safe to eat. The idea that government is inspecting our air and water to ensure that it’s safe to breathe and drink. I like that government provides air traffic controllers to guide planes safely. I like the idea of government providing police and firemen to protect our streets, our homes, and our businesses, and teachers to educate the population.
I like the idea that government is there to provide aid and assistance when disaster strikes. I like the idea of having government watchdogs to ensure that toys are safe for our children, that products are safe for consumers, and that predatory financial institutions are not taking advantage of customers. I like the idea of government holding businesses and corporations accountable and preventing them from harming our environment and riding roughshod over citizens.
I like the idea of having a government that provides a strong military to defend our freedom and our way of life, while also providing for our veterans and their families. I like the idea of government ensuring that everyone has access to health care. I like the idea of government providing food, housing, and a helping hand up for those in need. I like the idea that government provides tens of millions of jobs. I like the idea of government ensuring that citizens have access to Medicare and Social Security. I like the idea of government ensuring that our seniors live their golden years with dignity and respect, and that our young have access to higher learning and opportunity.
I like the idea of government strengthening the middle class and ensuring that opportunity and the promise of the American Dream is available to all. I like the idea of government defending equality and ending discrimination. I like the idea of government protecting a woman’s right to choose while providing viable solutions to decrease unwanted pregnancies. I like the idea of government allocating land for affordable housing and for parks for all to enjoy. I like the idea of government protecting the rights of workers. I like the idea of government ensuring that all people of all faiths have a right to worship freely.
I like the idea of government insisting that everyone shares in the responsibility of shared sacrifice, including corporations and those who have benefited the most from the sacrifice of others. I like the idea of government building and restoring our infrastructure with the view that our infrastructure is an invaluable legacy passed on to future generations. I like the idea of government enriching our lives by investing in science, technology, health, and our future.
I like these and many other ideas of what government does and what it can do. But government can’t do these wonderful things without taxes. Taxes are not a punishment or a penalty. Taxes are a responsibility that each of us shares to ensure that the middle class and our democracy remains intact.
Culture of Truth
A lot of professional athletes live in FL. No income tax, sunny weather, golf courses, pools, tennis courts, and an abundance of other equally crazy people.
TK-421
I can’t believe President Obama waded into this stoooooooopid mess. Income is income, folks, and if we can’t stand up and say ‘pay your fair share’ then we’re not heading anywhere good.
I didn’t hear a peep of protest from the athletes themselves over the taxes they would allegedly pay for winning at the Olympics. So let’s see- it’s not a good idea to start declaring some prize income “special,” and the people liable for the taxes on that income aren’t complaining. So of course let’s poke this bear and create a new fiscal/tax problem. Of course we should do that because USA USA USA!
There is no need for anyone, let alone President Obama, to say anything other than ‘income is income, and everyone owes their fair share, period,’ and just walk away from this.
Culture of Truth
We should tax the losers! That should get those legs moving.
Another Halocene Human
@MikeJ: Easy fix for that–bring back the top brackets.
US society was better for it.
peorgietirebiter
Sounds like a Rubio tried to set a trap and Obama didn’t bite
Seanly
If the athletes were taxed for the value of the flights, room & board, I could understand the anger/outrage/whatever. But they are given a $25k bonus when they win a gold (I guess less for silver & bronze). That’s income. Tax it. The media makes it sound like they win a medal and then have to fork out dough to the evil tax man. No, they win a medal, they get money and come April 15, they need to declare that income & pay taxes on it.
If I were to be given $25k as a bonus I would have to pay taxes on that. And my company would take out 25% for Uncle Sam before I saw it. If my taxes was supposed to be less (or more) it gets handled when I file.
Caz
You act like there have been spending cuts or austerity and it’s hurting us. Nothing has been cut at all, there has been no austerity at all. Even the sequestration cuts that they are trying to back out of aren’t really cuts – they are simply increases, just not as big of increases as they originally wanted.
If and when they actually decide to cut something, then we’ll see. For now, there has been absolutley no cutting or austerity at all.
Dennis SGMM
I ran Cross Country for four years in High School. Can I haz a tax cut?
Brachiator
Can I get a tax cut for watching the lame NBC coverage of the Olympic Games?
Chris
@RP:
Immaturity of the electorate FTW. Whining that paying your taxes is a “burden” is like whining that getting a job is a “burden.” It’s part of growing up. GTF over it.
I know, I know, can’t say that out loud…
liberal
@danah gaz (fka gaz):
My recollection is that, yes, they’d blown so many holes through it that by the time they actually repealed it, it was already dead anyway.
liberal
@Caz:
Really? States haven’t cut back?
liberal
@Another Halocene Human:
Looking at the top rates paints a woefully incomplete picture. You have to ask what is being taxed at those rates.
Capital gains certainly weren’t, for most of the history of the tax code.
danah gaz (fka gaz)
@liberal: Alan Greenspan is a traitor.
Commenting at Balloon Juice Since 1937
Why does Marco Rubio want to divide America just for political grand standing?
Peter
Whoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Caaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaares
taylormattd
@eric: Of course they are insane. Insane, stupid, whiny, and mentally masturbating all day long.
They are why we can’t have nice things.
taylormattd
@Culture of Truth: The Professional Left, doncha know. They are always correct, I herd it on the Kos.
politifarce
LOL….boy this Bernard Finel really drank the kool aid. Must be reading too much Greenwald or watching too much Faux.
News flash oh poorly informed one. Eliminating the Bush tax cuts largely eliminates the structural deficits.
Sheezus….and this is supposed to be a site where well informed political junkies hang out??? Cole is obviously scraping the bottom of the barrel.
Where do you find these people Cole? On Dkos or FDL maybe?
David Hunt
Y’know? I bet Neil Armstrong paid taxes on his full 1969 income…
The Moar You Know
This falls into that really sad category of Balloon Juice posts that I like to refer to as “click bait for the Firebaggers and retards”. Having made my contribution, I’m out.
danah gaz (fka gaz)
Bernard Finel @ Top,
I agree with you in substance,
But I agree with Culture of Truth, Peter, and the Conster even more.
You are playing into the Republican framing game. You are giving this more attention than it deserves.
Ignore it. Stay focused on Romney’s lying and secrecy, and on Obama’s strengths. It’s election season.
Jonathan
@Robert Sneddon:
Right, the US Olympic Committee could “tax protect” the bonuses on the medals, just by cutting them a check, instead of building it in to the tax code.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@politifarce: I think you misread: He’s using the Obama-endorses-the-Rubio-don’t-tax-the-Olympiads plan as an excuse to go after Obama because he won’t end the Bush tax cuts on everybody.
Darkrose
Aslan on a cracker. Are we really getting butthurt over something that affects (so far) 79 people?
And for those people insisting that athletes are all raking in big bucks, I’d like to introduce you to Sarah Robles.
scav
@liberal: The cuts in infrastructure, especially pathways connecting neurons has been devastating in Caz-landia. So bad that activity has shut down entirely at all synapses connecting CPU and what’s usually benchmarked as reality. Scientists are frankly baffled by the superficially grammatically correct output emitting from such a compromised network. But, in any case, remember, there are no problems whatsoever with what’s happening, “no one is hurting” until it is to Caz’s handlers’ benefit that AWOOGA AWOOGA! the system is falling apart! and people are hurting!!!
RP
@Chris: You’re right — you can’t say that out loud. I agree that paying taxes is the price you pay for living in a civilized society, and I really don’t mind paying them. But most people see taxes as a burden, and giving exemptions for olympic medals isn’t going to have any effect whatsoever on the framing of the issue.
patroclus
It isn’t a “big issue” and Yglesias is wrong.
piratedan
@liberal: don’t agree with your example, authors (and by the same tangent, musicians, actors and other performers) have some control over their works, i.e. they get paid for the use of their efforts/labors by having contracts in place. Nor are they in an arena representing their country in an international competition. These athletes have to surrender those rights in order to compete, their effort, their images, but no control. It’s like the rest of amateur sports in the US, at which point does the image of the athlete sporting gear with University name on it outweigh the recompense of an education.
Not everyone who competes in the Olympics is Mitt Romney’s horse. My apologies to all if I feel that the person who manages to score an unexpected bronze while representing the country should be allowed to enjoy the moment without the IRS being involved. Guess that still makes me insufficiently pure of my bourgeois taint. :-).
Just have a hard time comparing folks in sports like handball and weightlifting that have marginal “marketability” to those that are professional basketball players.
jefft452
@The Dangerman: “ETA Each gold medal winner will cash in nicely from product endorsements; really, they can afford the tax hit.”
@Brachiator: “This is not true. It has never been true. It is as ridiculous as is the notion that every pro athlete wit a “fat contract” is set for life.”
Why does it matter either way?
you only owe taxes on money you actually make
piratedan
in case there’s any confusion:
Payment for winning Olympic medals varies by country.
The United States Olympic Committee pays its medal winners $25,000 to gold medal winners, $15,000 to those who take home a silver and $10,000 for a bronze. Some of the richer U.S. sport federations give additional prize money to their winners as well.
That’s the “largesse” we’re talking about here…. not sure why folks are after Olympians making sure that they don’t get a break doesn’t seem to be worth the outrage.
OzoneR
@PZ:
I wonder if it ever occurred to anyone that the reason the latter argument isn’t politically viable is because many, if not most, Americans just don’t give a shit about the rest of society?
someofparts
When I was getting a whopping $250/wk in unemployment payments for three quarters when there was no work to be found, that pittance was sure taxed. If we can tax that, I don’t want to hear anyone even remotely well-off complaining about taxes. yeesh
Unsympathetic
“We get a government where regulators actually have freedom to regulate industry”
This is absolutely not true. Obama does not regulate finance in any way.
1) Schneiderman’s mortgage investigation had teeth – until Obama’s cabinet got their claws on him.
2) “Nobody committed any crimes” was a ridiculous lie. Bankers should be taken out in handcuffs and locked up for decades – they have been breaking laws. Forgiving them simply enables banksters – they’re inherently immoral.
3) The “free trade” bill with Panama was nothing more than a tax shelter for NY banks. It didn’t “create jobs” – please, a country with a GDP smaller than New Hampshire has the purchasing power to buy.. what, exactly? Why do you think Panama is the second-largest tax haven in the world after the Bahamas?
4) Removing mark-to-market means that banks can hold loans on their books at literally whatever they want to say it’s worth. I drive a CR-V.. anyone feel like giving me a loan for $700,000 backed by that? Hey, it’s an asset!
5) If Obama was actually going to regulate finance, he would remove the 0% interest rate they currently receive. Bankers made bad bets on mortgages and on stocks at the beginning of the 00’s – and should pay for it with the bankruptcy of their firm, not be ladled free money which is the fruit of everyone else’s labor.
6) Derivatives would be regulated – in any way.
Active financial regulation is key to a free society.
And don’t forget: The GOP doesn’t plan to cut the deficit – their plan is simply to cut taxes on rich people and increase taxes on the middle class. The deficit under the Ryan plan doesn’t change. Don’t get distracted with the “top tax rate” headfake — the top tax rate is only applied to dollars beyond that value. Mittens pays precisely the same taxes as you and I on his first $150k.