I've always thought we had a more or less free press, until I saw the MSM treatment of: Bradley Manning--and taxes!
Let's start with taxes. In the alarmist rhetoric of the "fiscal cliff" commentators, taxes on dividends are treated as if everyone earns them; if their tax rates go up to the same rates as earned income(!), then the bottom will fall out of the stock market; middle class people with 401K's will suffer along with billionaires. After all, they'll have to pay those higher taxes too.
But owners of 401Ks don't pay taxes on dividends their funds earn, although the funds do, so their investments might earn slightly less. But, the big losers, if taxes on dividends went up, would be the people paying the restored 39% rate. They'd pay it on their dividends, too, which is why, if capital gains were treated the same way, their tax rates would go up not from 35 to 39%, but from an effective tax rate of 15% or less, to one more comparable to what 'ordinary' people pay.
That's the idea. It not only would help pay off the deficits; it would lower income inequality. But the Media doesn't want ordinary Joe Blow to know that. Commentators want you to think these higher taxes will hit you 'ordinary' people especially hard.
The fiscal cliff was really an invention of the Tea Party Republicans to force government to shrink, favoring the wealthy. Obama, that 'poor' negotiator, locked them into a closet: to get out, they'll have to concede on higher taxes for the wealthy to avoid being tarred with raising taxes for everyone.
If Republicans want to protect their favorite charity--the military--they could be pressured to give up even more, like those favored tax-rates on dividends and capital gains, even Romney's carried interest.
Are there enough progressive Democrats to push that far, especially given the MSM's conservative corporatist bias on tax issues?
Another media bias is harder to see: it often is carried out by an absence of coverage, as in Bradley Manning, Wikileaks, et al. Here is a whistleblower with global impact, and he's treated like a terrorist and held incommunicado for almost two years, before he's allowed to speak. And then the media hardly covers him, or Assange, or Wikileaks, which revealed more embarrassing state secrets, and gave newspapers more issues to write/pontificate about for months than any other source. It showed how petty and conniving most governments are--especially the United States.
That's not terrorism. Was the boy who yelled: "The Emperor has no clothes!" a terrorist, or a truth teller?
A free press? We have a press dedicated to maintaining the American Empire and its prime supporters--and beneficiaries--the very wealthy. In Fifth Century Rome, the Emperor and Roman Senators had panegyrists, too.
Showing posts with label raising taxes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label raising taxes. Show all posts
Monday, December 10, 2012
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
The Fiscal Slope
It really isn't a cliff; most people don't pay taxes in January; Congress will have time to fix things after the first of the year and has often written tax and spending bills that are retroactive.
One of the advantages of delay is that a "tax increase" on Dec. 31st, i.e. not extending Bush tax cuts, becomes an opportunity for "tax cuts" on January 1st. The Obama/Democratic program of maintaining the lower tax rates for the middle class, becomes "tax cuts" in January. The higher rates, for those with incomes over $250,000, does not become a tax increase: it would simply remain as part of the agreement reached between Congress and the President, as part of the bargain to cut the deficit and debt. The Republican House agreed to this as the fall-back position for cutting the deficit.
This whole "cut the deficit" mania came from the Tea Party caucus in the House: it's miss-timed. The Great Recession has driven most of the current deficit by stimulus and aid to people in distress, and collecting less revenue because fewer people are working.
The whole mechanism of government spending more in a recession in order to ameliorate misery, despite revenue shortfalls, was an innovation of the New Deal. It's not surprising that reactionary Republicans want to repeal the practice.
Consider what would have happened if we'd adopted the balanced budget amendment long advocated by "fiscal conservatives": as revenue went down in the financial collapse of 2008, government would have been required either to raise taxes on those still working, and/or to cut expenditures--on food stamps, schools and everything else, even Defense. The result would have been an ever deeper, broader and self-reinforcing hole in the economy and mass misery. Today we'd still be in a deep depression with no way to dig ourselves out. We'd be in worse shape than Europe.
Once we've spent enough to create jobs (and hopefully to restructure the economy), then is the time to raise taxes on those who currently can't afford it, or to find other ways to balance the books: now is not that time; the economy is still too fragile and too many people are still out of work.
However, to avoid the so-called cliff, to begin to reduce the deficits in ways the nation can afford, raising taxes on high income earners makes sense. They do not "create jobs," from their rising incomes. The corporations they own will hire when there is demand for the goods and services they produce. Not before. High-income earners have garnered almost all the increased wealth since the start of the Great Recession: they are largely sitting on it, or investing it elsewhere.
The Republican insistence on lower tax rates for the wealthy is like the Roman Senate in 476 refusing to raise their taxes to pay the Ostrogoth palace guard. That action precipitated the "fall of Rome."
One of the advantages of delay is that a "tax increase" on Dec. 31st, i.e. not extending Bush tax cuts, becomes an opportunity for "tax cuts" on January 1st. The Obama/Democratic program of maintaining the lower tax rates for the middle class, becomes "tax cuts" in January. The higher rates, for those with incomes over $250,000, does not become a tax increase: it would simply remain as part of the agreement reached between Congress and the President, as part of the bargain to cut the deficit and debt. The Republican House agreed to this as the fall-back position for cutting the deficit.
This whole "cut the deficit" mania came from the Tea Party caucus in the House: it's miss-timed. The Great Recession has driven most of the current deficit by stimulus and aid to people in distress, and collecting less revenue because fewer people are working.
The whole mechanism of government spending more in a recession in order to ameliorate misery, despite revenue shortfalls, was an innovation of the New Deal. It's not surprising that reactionary Republicans want to repeal the practice.
Consider what would have happened if we'd adopted the balanced budget amendment long advocated by "fiscal conservatives": as revenue went down in the financial collapse of 2008, government would have been required either to raise taxes on those still working, and/or to cut expenditures--on food stamps, schools and everything else, even Defense. The result would have been an ever deeper, broader and self-reinforcing hole in the economy and mass misery. Today we'd still be in a deep depression with no way to dig ourselves out. We'd be in worse shape than Europe.
Once we've spent enough to create jobs (and hopefully to restructure the economy), then is the time to raise taxes on those who currently can't afford it, or to find other ways to balance the books: now is not that time; the economy is still too fragile and too many people are still out of work.
However, to avoid the so-called cliff, to begin to reduce the deficits in ways the nation can afford, raising taxes on high income earners makes sense. They do not "create jobs," from their rising incomes. The corporations they own will hire when there is demand for the goods and services they produce. Not before. High-income earners have garnered almost all the increased wealth since the start of the Great Recession: they are largely sitting on it, or investing it elsewhere.
The Republican insistence on lower tax rates for the wealthy is like the Roman Senate in 476 refusing to raise their taxes to pay the Ostrogoth palace guard. That action precipitated the "fall of Rome."
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Who Controls This "Democracy"?
Polls show that Americans want to preserve Medicare; they favor raising taxes on the "rich" and corporations, they want us out of Iraq and Afghanistan and at least a bare majority prefer cutting Defense spending to control the budget.
Yet pundits, experts, politicians and decision-makers all propose the opposite: cut taxes on the wealthy, revamp or cut Medicare, urge Iraqis to keep American troops after 2012, and minimize any withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Among the in-crowd in Washington and the major media markets, the burning question of the day is: how to cut the deficit and the debt. Beyond the beltway, where most people live, the deficit isn't the problem: it's jobs.
Nine percent unemployment implies 91% employed, so most are still working--non-workers are not counted. Given declining demand driven by the double-dip housing market and the fall in demand for workers, a large proportion of those employed fear lay-offs and therefore put up with speed-ups, increased workloads, longer hours and stagnant wages. Further, unions are so weak they can't even keep their members' wages abreast of escalating costs of living.
But Republicans ignore the jobs issue, after using it to gain power in Congress in 2010: everyone they know is doing pretty well. Just ignore all that whining about jobs. Eliminate all social programs like Medicare, instead.
Obama is only marginally better.
The debate on alternative budgets demonstrates how skewed our public dialogue has become. It leaves out the only proposed budget to truly cut the deficit, reduce the debt and create jobs. Why is GOP Ryan's budget proposal considered the only serious alternative to Obama's? It would replace Medicare with vouchers and block grants for Medicaid, and wouldn't significantly cut deficits; it might actually raise them, because of Ryan's tax cuts for the wealthy. Yet, it's considered serious. Obama's budget freezes Federal pay, cuts Food stamps, finds savings in Medicare and Medicaid cut-backs and greater efficiencies in health care, and nominally cuts Defense. Obama doesn't raise taxes on the wealthy until after 2012, and he doesn't significantly cut the deficit, either.
The Congressional Progressive Caucus's budget raises income taxes and estate taxes for the top 1% of earners, on high-earners' payroll taxes and corporate taxes, while capital gains are taxed as ordinary income. It cuts healthcare costs through negotiating Medicare pharmaceutical prices, better management and by adding a public option. It cuts defense by bringing the troops home and shifting defense priorities. It also invests $1.66 trillion in job creation, infrastructure and alternative energy. Progressives claim they'd achieve a budget surplus of $30.7 billion by 2021.
So, why isn't it considered a "serious" alternative? Oh, it's only what the people want, but the public "debate" doesn't include what people want, only what the elite wants. They want to enrich themselves at everyone else's expense, like the Roman Senators in the Fifth Century. If they succeed, we'll have a declining empire, mass impoverishment and no democracy.
Yet pundits, experts, politicians and decision-makers all propose the opposite: cut taxes on the wealthy, revamp or cut Medicare, urge Iraqis to keep American troops after 2012, and minimize any withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Among the in-crowd in Washington and the major media markets, the burning question of the day is: how to cut the deficit and the debt. Beyond the beltway, where most people live, the deficit isn't the problem: it's jobs.
Nine percent unemployment implies 91% employed, so most are still working--non-workers are not counted. Given declining demand driven by the double-dip housing market and the fall in demand for workers, a large proportion of those employed fear lay-offs and therefore put up with speed-ups, increased workloads, longer hours and stagnant wages. Further, unions are so weak they can't even keep their members' wages abreast of escalating costs of living.
But Republicans ignore the jobs issue, after using it to gain power in Congress in 2010: everyone they know is doing pretty well. Just ignore all that whining about jobs. Eliminate all social programs like Medicare, instead.
Obama is only marginally better.
The debate on alternative budgets demonstrates how skewed our public dialogue has become. It leaves out the only proposed budget to truly cut the deficit, reduce the debt and create jobs. Why is GOP Ryan's budget proposal considered the only serious alternative to Obama's? It would replace Medicare with vouchers and block grants for Medicaid, and wouldn't significantly cut deficits; it might actually raise them, because of Ryan's tax cuts for the wealthy. Yet, it's considered serious. Obama's budget freezes Federal pay, cuts Food stamps, finds savings in Medicare and Medicaid cut-backs and greater efficiencies in health care, and nominally cuts Defense. Obama doesn't raise taxes on the wealthy until after 2012, and he doesn't significantly cut the deficit, either.
The Congressional Progressive Caucus's budget raises income taxes and estate taxes for the top 1% of earners, on high-earners' payroll taxes and corporate taxes, while capital gains are taxed as ordinary income. It cuts healthcare costs through negotiating Medicare pharmaceutical prices, better management and by adding a public option. It cuts defense by bringing the troops home and shifting defense priorities. It also invests $1.66 trillion in job creation, infrastructure and alternative energy. Progressives claim they'd achieve a budget surplus of $30.7 billion by 2021.
So, why isn't it considered a "serious" alternative? Oh, it's only what the people want, but the public "debate" doesn't include what people want, only what the elite wants. They want to enrich themselves at everyone else's expense, like the Roman Senators in the Fifth Century. If they succeed, we'll have a declining empire, mass impoverishment and no democracy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)