Anyone who thinks that Democrats have suddenly got religion on revenues and the need for tax hikes on the rich (or simply to let the Bush tax cuts expire entirely) should take a look at the Tax Day press release I just got from the Senate Dems. Here’s the headline:
“FACT SHEET: DEMOCRATS HAVE PASSED $1.5 TRILLION IN TAX CUTS SINCE 2007″
Here’s the subhed:
“Americans’ Tax Burden Is At Its Lowest In 60 Years”
Here’s the first line of the release:
“Democrats know that one of the best ways to help our economy recover is to reduce the taxes that families and businesses pay each year.”
The rest of the release denotes all of the tax cuts Senate Democrats have passed since January 2007, and it’s a pretty accurate list.
Perhaps, you say, they’re just rebutting the “tax and spend liberal” label and doing so effectively. But if you think this is the crew that’s going to pick a fight on taxes, even for the rich, I think this release puts that to bed. They see endless tax-cutting as a selling point. And whether you think the deficit matters or not, the end result of lowering revenue to a 60-year low ends up being an artificial demand for spending cuts, which we just saw ushered in with the 2011 budget. And if the fiscal policy debate is to be believed, that’s only the beginning.
Another data point here is Mark Warner’s performance yesterday on Face the Nation:
WARNER: Bob, I think you’ve got to look at both sides of the ledger. Long before I was in politics, I spent 20 years in business. I built companies. And you’ve got to look at the revenue side. You’ve got to look at the spending side.
We’re looking at a ratio of about $3 in cuts for every additional dollar in revenues. And the revenues we’re talking about literally are coming from lower rates, where we can lower our rates on individual and on corporate rates back to where they’re much more competitive on a worldwide basis. But we’re getting rid of a number of the tax expenditures.
I mean, a fact that I’m not sure most Americans realize — we collect about $1 trillion a year in income taxes, yet we have $1.2 trillion a year in income tax expenditures, deductions, many of them that are popular, charitable deduction, home mortgage deduction. If we would cut back on some of those, we could actually lower rates and still increase revenues.
SCHIEFFER: So that’s where you would get the additional revenues, by eliminating deductions, not necessarily by raising taxes?
WARNER: We’re not talking about raising taxes.
Now, you could have a field day eliminating tax expenditures, many if not most of which benefit the rich and corporations. But as Digby notes, these are the kind of zombie policies that are hardest to kill. They get less scrutiny than spending programs, the writing of tax expenditures is dominated by lobbyists, and they’re easy to slip into any old tax bill. What’s more, as made clear by the press release I initially noted, members of both parties LIKE tax expenditures. Republicans say they’re rewarding investment and entrepreneurship, and Democrats say… they’re rewarding investment and entrepreneurship, only the “right” kind.
And at least on the corporate side if not on the individual income tax side, the White House wants to offset the elimination of all these tax expenditures by lowering the corporate tax rate, making for a revenue-neutral reform. And so GE or Bank of America, which paid no tax before, will probably be safe from having to pay any tax again.
In addition to all this, Warner said Sunday that Social Security, which hasn’t added one thin dime to the deficit, would have to be part of any solution. You know what could really help out the finances of Social Security, as long as we’re lumping it in with the budget deficit? How about some of those $1.5 trillion in tax cuts enacted over the past four years!




21 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
That’s probably why the richest Americans pay a lot smaller rate than you or I do:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/04/18/967905/-Wealthiest-Americans-paying-17-percent-effective-income-tax-rate,-down-9-points-since-1992-
David, this statement is simply not true. I saw that Bernie Sander’s came out with the same Missleading claim. The New York times story was misleading at best. They were referring to GE’s income tax benefit. This made people think that they got a $3 billion dollar refund when in fact they will probably owe. The New York times number is coming from the income statement and that number is not the amount owed to the IRS in a current year. You have to look at the Notes to the financial statements, inorder to guess on whether they owe or don’t owe. Tje income tax benefit or provision is a combination of current and deferred taxes. I keep seeing this incorrectly posted at FDL.
I do agree that GE’s effective tax rate is way too low at around 9%. It should probably be up around 40-60% in a fair society, but we shouldn’t missinform the public to make a point.
Where did I say in this story that GE got a $3B refund? Please pick it out. I covered the GE/NYT controversy, including the Allan Sloan/Jeff Gerth report at Pro Publica. GE shifted its story. They initially said they would owe no tax in this calendar year, then after constant questioning said they would maybe pay a small tax. Immelt publicly said that GE Capital wiped away their entire tax liability. And none of this is applicable to BofA.
Yes, there are corporations that pay $0 in taxes. I don’t think that’s a particularly misleading point.
http://news.firedoglake.com/2011/03/28/ge-pays-no-taxes-wants-workers-to-accept-cuts/
It is the first sentence in your article.
Emptywheel has also misrepresented what this $3 billion tax benefit means. If you look at the cashflow statement you will see that they have made payments for taxes. It is the second to last line of the cashflow statement. They may get money back but so would you and I if we paid estimated taxes during the year.
HuffPo has a story today showing the cost in “lost” taxes for the ten biggest Tax expenditures. Wanna know a few?
#2 The mortgage interest deduction. This helps the “rich”? Not so fast. First of all, there is no deduction for mortgages in excess of $1 mil, so those big mansions (like the one in HuffPo’s lead picture) don’t get that much help. In addition, although a “million dollar” mortgage sounds like it’s for really rich people, in many areas of the country that’s not so.
I’m personally amazed when I watch “House Hunters” on HGTV and see some of the houses that people can buy in other areas of the country for $350-$450K. Where I live in CA, an old lady who lived in a small house across the street passed away. A developer bought the house from her heirs for $440K, leveled the lot, and is now building two new houses, each about 1,900 sg. ft, that will go on the market for $900K. (BTW, the lots these houses are on are only 25′ wide by 100′ long.)
I was fortunate to buy my modest house in 1978 for $82.5K. But I never would have been able to pay for it if I had not been able to deduct the mortgage interest in the many years in which I made $22-$30K gross per year, with no employer-paid health coverage.
#5 Exclusion of “net imputed rental income”. You know what this means? It means that homeowners don’t get taxed on the value of the rent they could charge if their house was a rental. Eliminating this exclusion would really hit older folks who have paid off their house, because even after they retired they’d still have to pay taxes on the theoretical rent their home would bring on the rental market. My house has a rental value of around $24-$28K a year. My Social Security is $17.5K a year. Try living on that while paying taxes on theoretical rent you never received.
#6 Deductibility of state and local taxes. Here’s how HuffPo explained it: The rationale behind this deduction is that taxes paid to state or local governments reduce a taxpayer’s ability to pay federal income tax. But state and local taxes essentially “pay” for services that, if purchased directly by the taxpayer, would not be deductible. The benefits of this deduction are disproportionately enjoyed by the wealthy, property owners, and residents of high-tax states. Because so many of those high-tax states are blue, this is one tax deduction that some conservative activists actually want dead.
That’s right, if you live in expensive areas of the country, with high taxes to pay for the kinds of educational, social, environmental services and protections that we progressives support, you should get ratfucked on your federal taxes while morons in LA, MI, ARK, and so forth get rewarded by not having those services.
Yeah, getting rid of many of the major “tax expenditures” is a great idea because they mostly benefit the rich.
That list of “moron” states should have been MS for Mississippi, not MI for Michigan. Didn’t notice the error until after the edit time limit expired.
I would also point out that eliminating the deductibility of state and local taxes would mean that people would pay a tax on a tax. Money that you never got to use because it was paid to local and state government would get taxed again by the Feds.
As I said, “in this story.” The one you cite is from three weeks ago, and in between I wrote about the Sloan/Gerth findings:
http://news.firedoglake.com/2011/04/05/rhetorical-questions-for-jeff-gerth-and-allan-sloan-on-their-ge-tax-story/
Two words on Senate Democrats: Fuck’m.
dumb question here but i don’t wanna stay ignernt—- what’s an income tax expenditure as opposed to an expenditure?? thanks in advance
Explain me this:
A million dollar mortgage at 5 percent carries 50,000 interest a year plus amortization. That’s not a small sum for most people in a country where the median family income is under 50,000. I suppose it all turns on who you consider rich, but considering that the top one percent are those above 250,000, it doesn’t leave a lot of room for the majority of households above the median to finance a million dollar mortgage. This is village-speak. Villagers make the income that supports million dollar mortgages. The vast unwashed don’t.
The idea of a tax expenditure goes back to the 1960s. The idea was that the tax rate is a fixed parameter that yields a predictable revenue given the level of GDP. So if the government reduces that tax to some selected group, it counts as an expenditure, because otherwise the government would have the revenue. It’s analogous to the argument that interest you don’t pay on a mortgage is the same as interest you earn (tax aside). The economic logic is impeccable, but the rhetoric leaves a lot to be desired. At the time it was promoted as an efficient alternative to straight expenditures, since individuals could be expected to respond efficiently to the new tax rates.
It seemed like a good idea at the time.
I am confused…
How do they expect to run on the slogan “not as bad as the Republicans”
when they are running around bragging they are out republicaning the Republicans?
it might help if progressives would have followed (or would now follow) galbraith’s advice:
instead of letting the D party leadership pretend to be “serious” about the deficit while showing how the Rs are big hypocrits because they don’t really care about the deficit.
we’ve been massively misinformed about the basic economics involved with political partisans using the deficit non-issue for their own partisan ends while the country ignores the real issues that face us.
i’ve just about come to the conclusion that politics rots brains. we need a public service commercial: this is your brain on politics. it’s makes all of us, not just palin, sound bat-shit-stupid.
This is a key point. People want to define “rich” as a lifestyle, and qualify it based on their local cost of living (dominated by housing costs). The only realistic way to define it is with respect to median individual or household incomes. Upper middle class at say 2.5 times, rich at say 10 times.
If your lifestyle costs so much you can’t pay your fair share of taxes, then live more modestly or move. In no way should we be tailoring the tax code to help people pay too much for housing.
The mortgage interest deduction is not a subsidy for the homeowner, it is a subsidy for the FIRE industry. As the realtors are fond of saying, it’s not the price, it’s the payment. Specifically, the payment after taxes. The after-tax payment you can afford does not change because of the mortgage interest deduction, however the pre-tax payment does. That lets you spend more pre-tax money on the same house, and everyone along the line gets their percentage of the larger sum. Without the subsidy, prices would simply have to fall. If they fall below the cost of construction, construction stops and when the available housing is filled people have to move to more affordable areas. It’s the magic of the market.
…prices would have to fall.
Fine with me. Living in Los Angeles, just about everything livable is still out of reach. But this is also why we probably won’t see the deduction go away. The middle class home owners – the ones who vote consistently – would pitch a fit.
Athenae is upstairs!
Late Night: King Tut, Blow Your Horn
I had no idea that the geniuses in the blue states were being fucked by rats. I’m gonna tell all my moron friends and stupid ass relatives here in Louisiana just how lucky we really are.
There are exceptions to every situation. (Ex: Blue Texan, Margaret, etc. in TX, Mason in KY, Talking Stick in GA, etc.) Lots of progs get out-voted in many red states. (And I was just being a general wise-ass.)
The key question is: Do you believe that state taxes should be deductible from federal income taxes or not?
What you don’t seem to get is that in high cost/high tax states the guy making a $100K a year is the same as the guy making $50K a year in a state with half the cost of living. Young couple (late 20′s) just bought a little (1,000 sq ft) house down the street from me. Price: $614K. Rich? Not hardly. He’s a fireman, she’s a school counselor. (I’m guessing parents probably helped out with the down payment.)
Where I live there are lots of people living in houses that cost between $800K and right at, or just under a million dollars) who are, by any realistic measurement, not rich. They are, by profession, middle class. Wife is a teacher or a nurse or a sales rep. Husband works in IT or is a cop or an engineer. Not richy-rich, just two average folks trying to get by and raise a couple of kids in a high-cost environment.
Yawwwwn. GE paid no taxes and got a refund.
If you think it’s not true, why not provide some links to refute that. In the meantime, I will keep on saying what I have read in numerous articles, they paid nothing. If I turn out to be incorrect, Oh well…. sorry, my bad. Fuck them anyway, they pay way too little. PERIOD.
While it is admirable to strive to be as accurate as possible (links please), I do not need to know every fact, see every “i” dotted and “t” crossed to know I, you, we are being fucked, again and again. So, excuse me if I find you unreferenced post and admission at the end that they pay too little tiring.
http://www.ge.com/investors/financial_reporting/financial_statements/index.html
Look at the last line of the audited cash flow statement. They haven’t even filed their tax return for 2010, so exactly how could they have gotten a refund? Go to Note 14 of the notes to the financial statement. The New York times article has been shown to be completely missinformed.
I totally agree they pay too little taxes, but to say they are getting a refund or paying no taxes is just spitting out an uninformed statement.