The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has put hard numbers to Nancy Pelosi’s shift on the Bush tax cuts. So now we know specifically that raising the dividing line on the tax cuts from $250,000 to $1 million gives back $366 billion in revenue over a ten-year time frame. This is in line with Citizens for Tax Justice’s calculations of 43% less revenue from the shift. CTJ also pointed out that half of that revenue would go to millionaires, since they would get a tax break on all of their earnings from $250,000 to $1 million. So that results in a $183 billion gift to millionaires.
This also shows what a relatively small playing field you would have left by raising the bar to that degree. Letting all the Bush tax cuts expire would increase revenue something like $3.2 trillion over ten years. If you just let them expire over $1 million in revenue, you take in $463 billion, about 14% of the total. So Pelosi would compromise 6 out of every 7 dollars of the Bush tax cuts before the negotiation even begins.
CBPP also points this out:
Extending tax cuts for high-income people also is a poor way to support the economic recovery. An economy in a recession or the early stages of recovery needs more spending, not more saving. But research shows that high-income taxpayers save, rather than spend, a greater share of any tax cut they receive than low- and moderate-income households. That’s why the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has noted that legislation to extend most of the Bush tax cuts while letting tax cuts exclusively for high-income taxpayers expire would deliver a higher bang-for-the-buck as stimulus — that is, more stimulus per dollar of fiscal cost — than a package that also allows tax cuts for those at the top to continue.
In the longer term, if you believe there will be further deficit reduction down the line – and the vultures have been circling on this for a long time on Capitol Hill – that $366 billion forgone, half of it to sit in a millionaire’s bank account, would have to come from somewhere else. And given the predilections of the political class, you’re talking about Medicare, Medicaid, or other safety net programs. That’s basically all that’s left, as Jared Bernstein points out.
The best way to get this done is to let all the Bush tax cuts expire and then come back with a new round of tax cuts. That paradoxically may end up being the result, considering that Republicans are religiously opposed to tax hikes of any kind, and they won’t split the Bush tax cuts to accommodate that.






24 Comments


Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Hey, she’s gotta leave Obama something to cave over.
After taking impeachment of the table, would that have set back the rabid right, not one of her sellouts surprise me.
Don’t listen to what she says, watch what she does. She has actually done nothing, this is a trial balloon to see how the polls react. If they react poorly, she takes the blame for Obama. if they react well, Obama steps up and “leads”.
Boxturtle (I smell catfood)
Let us hope that cynicism is driving this posture, and Pelosi is expecting Republicans to dig themselves a grave with unequivocal opposition to any division of the soon to expire Bush tax cuts. They have been that dumb in the past. Nothing in the Washington conversation on this suggests Republicans are any less radical going into the elections.
Every time one of these Pelosi posts come up it undermines the meme that’s been squealed for the last 10 years. Now it turns out the Bush Tax Cuts For The Rich went 86% to those making less than $1M, and 74% to those making less than $250,000.
May I point out that we are talking tax on annual income after deductions, not wealth? We usually think of millionaires as people whose net assets = *lifetime* surplus income after all expenses and including inherited wealth and real property, is greater than a million dollars (and, to pick a nit, under a billion). Most of us know a few of these.
We are considering the much rarer and richer bird: a household which has annual taxable income after all deductions of $250,000 or a million dollars. I assure you that these people already employ tax lawyers and are usually in a position to influence both the form of their income (ie, bonuses rather than salary) and its tax treatment.
How many of those do you know know?
Remember, she has said that she is an administrator while the all those whining DFHs are lowly advocates.
And she will continue to administer to the needs of the elites while stomping on any of those fucking retards from the left who dare to suggest that she attend to the actual concerns of the people who voted her into office.
If I have a product or service, -say selling candy bars, and I discount/rebate the retail from its regular $1.49 to .99 for one or even 10 years, when the price RETURNS to its regular SRP of $1.49, that’s not a friggin’ price increase! It’s about time these jesters were reminded, along with both a younger generation of adults who perhaps aren’t aware and a middling generation who may have forgotten, upper marginal tax rates were 70-90% from WW2 to Reagan. There still were rich people in those 40 years.
We the public aren’t even asking for the rate to return to the 70-90% range (although 50% upper bracket might be reasonable); we are simply watching a temporary discount (the Bush tax cuts) expire and are being told by both sides and the lapdog press that it’s somehow an increase, a tax hike, godforbid! It’s not the Bush new-tax-rate-forever that is expiring, it’s a temporal tax cut that’s expiring. It’s a disaster that we’ve let them run away with the language like this for so long. The beneficiaries of these cuts have gotten a discount/sale price for ten damn years (on top of a giant ‘rebate’ from the 1944-1980 rate) and have shown very plainly that they aren’t ‘job creating’ or stimulating the economy with their newfound bonus take-home pay as we were told they would.
So as a practice, don’t let any conversation, even among friends, refer to the ending of this discount/sale/reduction as somehow being an increase/hike/etc.; it’s just not! I tend to use the word “return” or “end of a rebate” when talking about this issue; what are some of the terminologies other pups use to correct the phrase ‘tax hike/increase’ in this instance? Because we need to start hammering home those phrases now.
You misunderstand how marginal income tax rates work. Most of that *does* go to the top. Even of the President’s plan, which is to keep the Bush tax cuts for those making under $250,000 this was said:
-stewartm
Oh Jesus, Ralph Nader was right all along and he was not un-American?
Let them ALL expire. If you want to help lower income/middle income people, increase the standard deduction and personal exemption to something reasonable (like, to something like what it really costs to live in the US). But I guess that would be admitting to having the PTB lying about our true inflation rate, rather than the tweaked-down version.
Better yet, create a permanent WPA with the tax revenues generated.
-stewartm
236,883 people made more than $1M (last data I could find). At $6300 each, that’s another $1.5B out of $3.2T. Change my numbers by less than a percent. Drop, meet bucket.
I don’t know about that. You know I’m a fan. But I think you give the lady too much credit. I’m not sure she owns any baloons and as far as “falling on her sword” for Obama, Vegas odds are 9-2 against. I checked.
Proud to acknowledge you’re from Texas. That’s some damned impressive math.
I’m sure Nancy was not aware of that when she adopted this position. /s
David, I love graphs. I think everybody does better when they can “visualize” the argument.
Also, $366B is actually $366,000,000,000.00….give or take. That’s quite a bit of money.
Here’s a link for you. Lots of pretty graphs too:
And, from Democracy Now! on Obama’s “Middle Class” tax cuts:
Any way you slice or dice it, the “middle class” tax cut ain’t for the middle class.
-stewartm
Thanks. I always appreciate your contributions.
Nancy Pelosi has simply gone over to the other side. It as simple as that.
If the Bush tax cuts expire, the projected additional revenue is $3.2T, i.e., $3,200 billion. Pelosi proposes to give up all but $463 billion of that. So, where will that other $2,737 billion come from? You guessed it. She now wants to adopt the Simpson-Bowles catfood proposal, which she opposed last time around. In other words, she has sold out. I don’t know what she gets for this about-face, but you can be sure that Obama has promised her something.
IMHO, it is sufficiently important to get Pelosi out that I’d vote for a Tea Party candidate to replace her.
Thank you.
Obama wants the capital gains tax rate to go to 23.8 %. Looking at this chart, still that’s a lot lower than it’s been in our past. If Obama wanted to be consider a “liberal”, he’d be talking about 35 %, like it was in 1976.
That’s why CEOs tend take the bulk of their income not in wages (which can be taxed currently at 35 % marginal income) but as stock options (taxed at 15 % when they cash them in, after a mere 2 years). That part of the Bush&Co tax cuts aren’t discussed as much.
-stewartm
I don’t care so much about all the psychological possibilities behind this. What seems clear is that a lot of the “middle class” earning between $250 thousand and $1 million annually are squeaking, and getting potentially greased. We do not live in the same country. More accurately, IMO, it’s not even a country in which average folks have any leverage, consistent advocates, or productive alternatives. If that seems depressing, to me, it is. Need to get a really rewarding hobby or something.
If anyone can indicate any real points of leverage to access the game, I’m all ears. Otherwise, we’re just the necessary groundlings while we watch the play take place on stage. Only the play is the real deal, and we’re only able to watch and throw the occasional rotten turnip.
…X 2…good comment … goes and gets to the middle…who gets what and who gets lots.
It’s a total betrayal. Watch for the Dims to find a “national security” and/or “jobs” justification for reaching a “bipartisan agreement” to “offset” any defense cuts, while permitting slashing of public works and social programs and forcing the states to continue doing the same.
Thanks, I followed your link and I’m not sure if you realize it, but the main chart is for “household” incomes. It looks like the rich get so much extra, but it doesn’t take into account how many households fall in the rich catagory vs. other income levels.
If I take the data from your link and multiply it times the number of households in each income level from here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States
It come out to be:
78% of the dollars go to the households making less than $200K.
That’s right in the range I started with at comment #5.
The starting point for the top 1 % of household incomes is $350,000/year. From that, almost 40 % of that income comes from capital gains.
The top 1 %’s share of income is c. 20 %, varying year by year. Yet the Obama “middle class tax cut” gives the 1 % a tax cut of more than that– you’re calculating a cut of 24-26 % based on *wage income* affected by the income tax, which is what the article says.
Yet there is another component, capital gains, which makes up almost 40 % of their income. Obama’s “middle class tax cut” plan will raise that up to 20 %, far short of the 28 % they paid in 2001. Moreover, Obama’s “middle class tax cut” cuts dividend taxes; I don’t have the share of the top 1 % on that now but I’m sure that share is far more than the median.
Any way you slice it, Obama’s “middle class tax cut”, and even more so Pelosi’s, disproportionately favors the rich. If you really want to favor the poor and middle class via the tax system, the best way to do so is to a) let the Clinton rates return, ALL of them, and then b) raise the standard exemption/personal deductions to more realistic levels. Heck, c) add higher rate tiers above the Clinton top rate of 39.6% (say, 5 % more every $250,000 of income up to 90 %).
-stewartm