The Interesting Shift on Taxes

[alcibiades_mystery]

One of the interesting phenomena I think I've seen on the board over the last few days is a shift toward the idea that Clinton era rates should have simply been applied to all. That is, nobody should have the Bush era rate, because we cannot afford it at any level of income.

I call this a shift, because it seems to have appeared in stages. before the deal took shape, many people were arguing that we should go "over the cliff," then present the $250,000 number as the only alternative, daring GOPers to vote against it. This position retains the idea that those under $250,000 should keep their Bush era rates. Then, I saw some suggestion that $250,000 wasn't really middle class, and that the number should be pegged at $160,000, or thereabouts.

Finally, in the last two days, with the deal seemingly coming together, the faction that insists on no Bush era tax rate for anybody has become much more vocal (or gained many new members, I can't tell which). I have to tell you that I'm sympathetic to this position, even though I've argued that to raise taxes now on the middle class - which does most of the consumption - would be the Keynesian equivalent of massive spending cuts.

There does seem, however, to have been a concrete shift in the argument, from "We would get the GOP House to reinstall the middle class tax cut by public pressure," to something like "The middle class tax cut is itself a conservative Trojan Horse," or something. So where are we?

1 vote, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Clinton Era Rates for Everybody
	1 (100%)
	Clinton Era Rates for under $160,000
	0 (0%)
	Clinton Era Rates for under $250,000
	0 (0%)
	The Deal as Passed (Under $450,000)
	0 (0%)
	Bush Era Rates for Everybody
	0 (0%)
	Taxes?!? Up Somalia!
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[bowens43]

1. Our party has now embraced the conservative idea that tax breaks stimulate the economy.

It's been proven over the last ten years that they don't but what the hell let's make them permanent anyway and while we're at how about setting aside a little tax money to carve Reagan into Mt Rushmore?

[reteachinwi]

3. Stone Mountain Georgia

would be more appropriate.

[dawg]

5. Hey, we gave the world MLK Jr. and Jimmy Carter.

Cali has to take the blame for Reagan. (and Nixon)

[Fumesucker]

7. The county Stone Mountain is in is a heavily blue one n/t

[Chathamization]

2. They're going to have to find $2.8 trillion

(over the next decade, more beyond) or so to make up for the tax cuts that were just made permanent. Do you think they're going to do this all by raising taxes and cutting defense? Or do you think that any deal is likely to have some serious cuts to social spending?

[Chathamization]

4. Sorry, old numbers. $3.6 trillion now

I was looking at 2010 numbers, here's the current CBO estimate:

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/economy/275095-cbo-fiscal-cliff-deal-carries-4-trillion-price-tag

Keep in mind this is the kind of money that could provide us with enough stimulus to get us back to full employment, fix our infrastructure problems, make a massive push for green energy and still have money left over.

[dawg]

6. High incomes should face the Clinton rates immediately.

Middle and lower incomes should see a gradual phase-in. It would be too much of a shock to impose those rates immediately. (Especially in a still-depressed economy)

The resulting revenues should be used to maintain, and expand if possible, our inadequate safety net programs.

That, plus more fundamental reforms of our health care system, would solve 90% of our long-term problems.