Tweet
Responding to a We the People petition, White House policy advisor David Plouffe said that the President would veto any effort to extend tax breaks for wealthy individuals, one of the more forceful promises made in the tax debate. This goes further than the President’s speech yesterday announcing his support for extending the Bush tax cuts only on the first $250,000 of income.
As many have pointed out, this would cut taxes for people making over that amount too, because of our marginal tax system. Someone making $300,000 a year would get Bush-era tax rates on the first $250,000 of their income, and then Clinton-era rates on the additional $50,000. But they’d still see a tax cut. In fact, viewed in isolation, the Obama plan for tax cuts would accrue more to the rich, because they would benefit from cuts on that first $250,000, whereas someone making less would only see tax cuts on their full salary, which is below $250,000.
Nevertheless, the phasing out of the Bush-era rates for the top two brackets does generate $850 billion in revenue over a 10-year period, and despite extending those rates in 2010, the President and his team are staking out a more forceful policy this time around. First of all, they are making the case that tax cuts for the rich do not lead to any tangible economic benefits, as the President said yesterday:
Moreover, we’ve tried it their way. It didn’t work. At the beginning of the last decade, Congress passed trillions of dollars in tax cuts that benefited the wealthiest Americans more than anybody else. And we were told that it would lead to more jobs and higher incomes for everybody, and that prosperity would start at the top but then trickle down.
And what happened? The wealthy got wealthier, but most Americans struggled. Instead of creating more jobs, we had the slowest job growth in half a century. Instead of widespread prosperity, the typical family saw its income fall. And in just a few years, we went from record surpluses under Bill Clinton to record deficits that we are now still struggling to pay off today.
Furthermore, from a political standpoint, at no point in 2010 did the President threaten a veto. But here’s David Plouffe today:
The President also believes that the top 2% should return to Clinton-era income tax rates — when the United States created 23 million jobs and ran the biggest budget surplus in history — and will veto any legislation that extends the unaffordable Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest in our country.
It’s true that the President’s credibility is suspect on this issue. And it’s true that the outcome of the elections will factor heavily in what transpires, particularly in 2013 if the Bush tax cuts all expire due to gridlock. But the veto threat is new, so it ought to be pointed out.
42 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
What Obama didn’t say was that earners with less than 250 k will ALSO see
their taxes increasing ANYWAY ,you wait up and see.
Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.
Obama: World’s Greatest Living Liar.
My guess is that, with his electoral survival at stake, This Time Really is Different.
But it’s too late. The Repubs will base their strategy on his track record
as the Great Compromiser, there’ll be a train wreck, and the cuts will expire.
Which will be fine by me.
“But the veto threat is new, so it ought to be pointed out.”
Hmmm, is that so “hopes for change” will revive?
Or, that when it doesn’t happen, in the pragmatic expediency of “the moment”, when it arrives … that somebody might remember he said it?
Oh, brother … where art we …?
Thanks for keeping us informed, DDay.
Ain’t that Obama a pistol?
DW
He’s clearly desparate now. He’s stuck between a rock (“fucking retards” who won’t show up to vote) and a hard place (his corporate owners). I agree he has no credibility on this.
Instead of going back to the Clinton era, how about the Bush Sr. era?
The capital gains tax rate was 28% back then.
He did threaten to veto the NDAA, until the ‘Power to Disappear” was vested in him rather than the Sec. of Defense(War). If O’s a pistol, he’s a loaded one pointed at the head of the 99%.
I guess Obama has finally realised that those “centrist Republican voters” aren’t going to cross over and vote for him, despite his contempt for liberals and leftists and dirty hippies and all his “bipartisan” gestures. He needs those “fucking retards” to win. Should have thought about that a couple of years ago.
Obama has a serious credibility issue on taxes (having extended the Bush tax cuts in 2010 and then acted shocked when everyone was angry at him) and practically everything else. Couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy. It’s fun watching him having to crawl out of the hole he dug for himself.
Interesting how the policies favored by Prescott Bush have been the ruling principle since G.H.W. “CIA” Bush attained the VP spot with Ronnie.
Actually, factually, that would be fine by me, as long as we go back to the Clinton-era rates (better still would be the Eisenhower rates, but I’m dreaming).
Veto?? All Obama has to do is N-O-T-H-I-N-G to accomplish this goal. How hard is doing nothing? Well, apparently that was beyond him in 2010.
-stewartm
That hole is lined with 24K gold. He’s set for life no matter what happens.
He thinks he can actually move legislation?????
Where’d he get that idea?
All he can do is veto the Bush extension. And he coulda done that last time. Oh, I forgot, he cut the greates “deal” ever, he swapped the Bush extension for DADT.
Indians got a better deal for Manhattan.
I firmly convinced now that David Plouffes is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
It is time this President found his backbone. NO EXTENSION OF THE BUSH TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHY. The President and congress are planning cuts in spending that include or will include SSMM. THAT IS A TAX ON THE MIDDLE CLASS BY ANOTHER NAME.
Obama must be made to see that his austerity program is a tax on the middle class by another name. He must be made to acknowlege that or lose the election.
Tribal chiefs in Afghanistan and Iraq’s Al Anbar Province got an even better deal with “little blue pills” increasing penile stamina, ten fold! SOSDD!
Please tell me, what are you basing that on? I wouldn’t mind paying a little more as long as services improve and the rich pay substantially more but if you’ve read something that suggests to you that middle class earners will pay more, please share it with us.
You are correct….. He needs to take a little blue pill and grow a set. Pres Theo Roosevelt knew how to handle these arrogant self serving POS. Even President Reagan taxed one million dollar earners at a higher rate than a bus driver. I believe everything setup by the founders is under attack by “corporate aristicfascists” seeking to protect cash cows at the expense of the republic’s health, while “brownshirting,” the governed. Got to love that bipartisan corporate enabled, fist, not!
Yessir, I reckon you’re wholly right.
At least, Ole Barack don’t go off half-cocked like them other thumpwhumpers, he almost always goes off’n the deep end.
And, if’n ya ain’t doin’ nuthin wrong or actin’ like them retarded effers, ya ain’t got nuthin’ ta worry about.
Acourse ya won’t see it comin’ … he allus sez.
Leastwise, he don’t dress funny like that other guy and say completely dumb-soundin’ stuff … a much better prevaricator … even if I cain’t stand the sound of either of ‘em’s voices, no more.
Actually, I’d say the current Preznit is more like them stealth drones, which is ta say, a lot more dangerous … but then, I do haf to stipulate (how’s that fer a big word?) that he is not “perfect” … nor is he made of green cheese … beyond that, I dunno.
I figure we is gonna have him runnin’ the show agin, regardless, come November.
I don’t even wanna think about it, no more, hbb, and that’s the fack.
DW
I’ll believe an Obama veto when I see one. On the other hand if he sticks to his word, it’s going to be popular, just not with rich people.
It’s Obama posing for the cameras, saying whatever he thinks needs to be said. He’s ready for the close-up, Mr. DeMille.
Don’t believe him for a second.
The 2008 Campaign promises, recycled.
Who trusts Obama anymore? (Of couse that doesn’t count Republicans who can count on Obama any and every time.)
Why Margaret, the middle class always pays more, especially since we have the new “American Life Tax?”
Coercion under fear of a punitive tax penalty, because you exist and government can’t control the legal entities they create call corporations? Corporations many of which people assume wrongly, are for profit corporations which pay taxes, when they are tax exempt public charities and pay no taxes? Like those tax exempt Political Actions Committees, operating tax free while engaging in partisan political activities after huge donations from undisclosed corporate donors? I wonder what burden of government these social welfare organizations 501 c(?) alleviate while using the money for political purposes, to make love to people?
“. . . the President would veto any effort to extend tax breaks for wealthy individuals . . .”
And he will continue to say this until after the election when he will do the opposite.
You know what? I wrote out a response to this but then I asked myself what the point would be to that. Henceforward, if you or anybody else wants to pretend I’m as stupid as some people seem to think in order to create an opportunity to climb up on your soapbox and rant about your pet peeve, then by all means, feel free. I’m going to stop objecting because I just think it’s just so pointless and futile. From now on, everybody may treat my comments as wildcards that one can play in order to go off on any random topic they choose.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) — President Obama and Republicans battled Monday over a familiar dividing line: the Bush tax cuts.
While they disagree over taxing the rich, both support extending the Bush tax cuts for the middle class for one year.
Still, middle class Americans may end up paying more in taxes next year anyway. That’s because neither side is pushing to extend the payroll tax cut.
The payroll tax cut is worth 2% of one’s wages up to $110,100 for 160 million working Americans. It was originally intended as a temporary measure for 2011 but was then extended for this year.
As a result, a person making $50,000 has enjoyed roughly $83 extra a month, while someone making $110,100 has been taking home an extra $183.50 a month.
Related: Obama vs. Romney on taxes
On an annual basis, if the payroll tax cut is allowed to expire, those making $50,000 will pay another $1,000 in payroll taxes, while those making $110,100 and up will pay another $2,202.
Revenue from the payroll tax is intended for Social Security, which is a pay-as-you-go system. And at this point the system uses every dollar of payroll tax revenue it gets to pay benefits.
The estimated total cost of the payroll tax cut is roughly $120 billion a year. Social Security is not absorbing that loss, however, because the Treasury Department has been replacing the lost payroll tax revenue with money from general funds.
In reality, it’s doing so by borrowing money, thereby adding to the country’s debt.
So unless Congress decides on a new way to fund Social Security, the payroll tax cut cannot go on forever.
Indeed, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said as much before the Senate Budget Committee earlier this year. “This has to be a temporary tax cut. I don’t see any reason to consider supporting its extension.”
Of course, that doesn’t mean some in Congress won’t push for one — especially during an election year in which the economy is weaker than expected.
“For now, supporters of the cuts are keeping quiet,” said Sean West, U.S. director of the Eurasia Group. “They may well wait until after the election to push for it specifically.” To top of page
Suckers.
“And we were told that it would lead to more jobs and higher incomes for everybody, and that prosperity would start at the top but then trickle down.”
Ha! What snake oil salesman told you that one? Why were you ignorant enough to believe it? Why would anyone in their right mind think that you could have believed that bullshit? You tried it “their way” and trickle down didn’t work, huh?! What a fucking surprise. Who hasn’t known that for decades? Are you sure that what you tried wasn’t “your way”?
Obama supporters, this is the nonsense this guy expects you to believe.
In what Hall of Mirrors is the President’s credibility on this issue merely “suspect”?
Agreed. Why should he break a sweat? He’s assured his children and grandchildren a lofty place in society (see Chelsea Clinton) and his corporate masters are happy. He never had any intention of helping the riff-raff. Anybody who believes him now is a masochist.
He’s discharged it several times already both at the heads of the 99% and those he has murdered abroad by executive fiat. He’s fixing to reload for another four years of pulling the trigger.
Perfect call HBB.
This president’s credibility on every issue is suspect. But people are going to settle for him again, you can tell: his actions are greeted with too little anger, and his groundless assertions on jobs and health care go all but unchallenged. Americans are tired and confused and scared and they’re gonna settle.
“As many have pointed out, this would cut taxes for people making over that amount too, because of our marginal tax system. Someone making $300,000 a year would get Bush-era tax rates on the first $250,000 of their income, and then Clinton-era rates on the additional $50,000. But they’d still see a tax cut. In fact, viewed in isolation, the Obama plan for tax cuts would accrue more to the rich, because they would benefit from cuts on that first $250,000, whereas someone making less would only see tax cuts on their full salary, which is below $250,000.”
Additionally, out of the other side of his mouth, Obama will talk about the tax cuts for corporations.
Most of the wealthiest are “incorporated” in some form or another.
They’ll get their cuts(even if they want it all now).
Above all, the Democrats once again let the Republicans set the terms of the debate.
I. can. not. stand. them.
Why anyone listens to anything Obungle says anymore is beyond me.
And vetoing this will do what, as far as all of the things that he needed to do when he had the clout to do them, goes?
It’s more campaign-year foofaw;
braaave Obama, NOW fighting the good fight…after he’s re-empowered the assholes…of course, at this point, the veto is about all he’s got left, from the political jackhammer that the american people gave him, in 2008.
Bullshit. The TOP will ‘take hostages’ again forcing him (yeah, right) to fold like a pup-tent in a typhoon. Like he planned on all along. Then he will point and wail, “I tried, but they wouldn’t let me. So I had to keep the breaks for millionaires so I could give you peons crumbs.”
Failing to win Republican votes sure wasn’t from lack of effort on Obama’s part! Cool username, BTW.
why are my eyes rolling?…
“. . . even if I cain’t stand the sound of either of ‘em’s voices, no more.”
One of the interesting things about Obama is that he is every bit as demeaning and condescending in his pubic language as George W ever was. But Obama uses three syllable instead of one syllable words and thereby fools the Liberals.
That’s about the size of it.
One thing about Obama is that when he vows to do something, you can count on it. Sort of like his vow to fight and even filibuster FISA/retroactive telecom immunity when he was in the senate. Or maybe like his vow to re-open NAFTA if he was elected president. You know…stuff like that.
It is time this President found his backbone.
Obama has a strong backbone. He uses it to stand up for conservative ideas against liberals, and has pretty much since the day he took office. Obama isn’t weak of backbone in the least. He pretty much gets what he wants. You just need to be open to the idea that he wants it. If you’re waiting for a liberal backbone to show up in Obama, you’ll be waiting forever.