prev
next
WH: Obama won't back down on tax hikes for wealthy
After President Obama met today with leaders of labor unions and progressive organizations intent on preserving the social safety net, the White House reiterated that the president will not budge on the matter of raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans.
"I'm open to compromise. I'm open to new ideas. I'm committed to solving our fiscal challenges," Mr. Obama said Friday.
Today, White House spokesman Jay Carney confirmed that, when it comes to addressing the nation's fiscal issues and the economy, Mr. Obama "is not wedded to every aspect of his plan, and that he understands that in order to reach an agreement, everyone needs to compromise."
When asked whether that meant compromising on his long-standing promise to raise the Bush-era tax rates on income over $250,000, Carney flatly rejected the idea.
"He would, as I said the other day, not sign a bill that extends the Bush era tax cuts for the top two percent," he said. "That has long been his position. It has not changed. He will not sign such a bill. That bill would never pass the Senate, but if somehow, miraculously it did, he would not sign it."
Mr. Obama met today at the White House with labor union leaders, leaders from left-leaning think tanks including the Center for American Progress and the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, as well as leaders from progressive groups like MoveOn and the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare.
Tomorrow, the president plans to meet with a group of executives, including the CEOs of companies like Aetna, Xerox, Honeywell, General Electric, Ford and IBM. The president has also invited congressional leaders to the White House on Friday.
The meetings come as Congress prepares to tackle the looming "fiscal cliff" -- a series of tax increases and spending cuts slated to go into effect on Janary 1, which could potentially send the U.S. into another recession. The "fiscal cliff" includes the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts and the expiration of the payroll tax holiday that Mr. Obama instituted. Around $1.2 trillion in cuts to both defense and non-defense programs are also set to kick in on January 1 unless Washington acts.
Progressives coming out of today's meeting expressed confidence that Mr. Obama would stand his ground on the issue of raising taxes.
"MoveOn's 7 million members will be pleased to know that President Obama today strongly reiterated his steadfast commitment to ensuring that the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent finally end December 31--and to protecting the middle class in the process," MoveOn executive director Justin Ruben said in a statement. He added that his organization is staying "fully mobilized" after the election in order to pressure Republicans on the issue.
Similarly, the Associated Press reports, Service Employees International Union president Mary Kay Henry said labor needs to be "as engaged as we were in the election throughout the rest of this year to make sure we get the Republican House to say yes to tax cuts for the middle class."
House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi stressed to reporters today that while Democrats are seeking a "balanced approach" to the fiscal cliff that includes new tax revenues, they are primarily interested in finding some kind of solution. "I want you to be disabused of any notion that there's any widespread thought that it would be a good thing for our country to go over the cliff," she said. "We want an agreement."
Popular in Politics
- For GOP, scandals could be an electoral plus - or minus 275 Comments
- Officials on Benghazi: "We made mistakes, but without malice" 313 Comments
- IRS targeting overlooked biggest soft money groups
- Republicans use IRS scandal to tar Obamacare
- Where is the Benghazi cover-up Republicans promised? 395 Comments
- Ousted IRS chief: "I did not mislead" the American people 260 Comments
- Why Obama should worry that current scandals might impact 2016 231 Comments
- FBI seeks anonymous source behind Menendez allegations
Most Popular
-
01
-
02
-
03
-
04
-
05
Most Shared
Most Discussed
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Wow, you dodged that fact-driven analysis like the plague! Didn't suit your agenda so you didn't even address it. What a loser.
Nah, pretty much the bubble (look at what I responded previously) of the housing market was the wholly owned failure of the GOP and their "trickle-down delusions."
_______________________________________
You didn't answer my question in the first place. That makes you the dodger. Learn some reading comprehension then you can play with the adults. Name 4 instances where tax hikes have sparked the economy and driven job growth. That was the question.
I'll say it again and type very slowly so you understand: Name 4 instance where a tax hike has sparked the economy and driven job growth.
This is a vague statement, and proves nothing.
The year was 1993. It is a myth commonly used in the Liberal camp to justify a tax hike. Again, it is a myth.
The Democratic Political Disaster immediately followed in 1994, after which Clinton did a major flip flop and even admitted "Probably there are people in this room still mad at me at that budget because you think I raised your taxes too much. It might surprise you to know that I think I raised them too much, too."
After which he immediately started cutting taxes. Following which we had the tech boom.
So much, murdoch for your vague assertion that the economy improved because of the tax hike.
And thus proves there is NO instance in which tax increases resulted in sparking the economy. Don't believe everything your read on Lib Statistician Blog sites.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
I've never heard anybody cry about other people being successful. Perhaps you are living in a fantasy.
Here's your evidence (http://conceptualmath.org/philo/taxgrowth.htm):
_______________________________
read the post again.
then point out 4 instances where raising taxes sparked hiring and investment (which connotes hiring, because investment includes companies expanding). You are obviously in favor of Obama's tax hikes. Taxes are not going to pay off the debt. People going back to work and increasing income tax revenue because more people are working will help reduce the debt.
The tax hike in question, 2% on the wealthy, will do nothing. So why do it? They talk about $70 billion in revenue but count on less than that as the wealthy change their behavior overnight to minimize their tax liability.
The only reason behind the tax hike is pure wealth envy. That is the only reason one would want someone else to pay more at no net benefit to themself.
BTW, the GOP did not create the recession. Greedy homeowners lying about their income or signing contracts they didn't understand, along with banks offering financial instruments that were guaranteed to fail, plus Republicans who deregulated the industry and Democrats (like Barney Frank) who stood by and let it happen, caused the recession. but don't let facts get in your way.
Nah, pretty much the bubble (look at what I responded previously) of the housing market was the wholly owned failure of the GOP and their "trickle-down delusions."
Taxes: My version of a "flat tax", brackets as follows. Single <50K & married <100K, zero, zip, nada, nothing. Single 51K-125K & married 101K-250K, 15%. Single 126K-500K & married 251K-1000K, 25%. Single >500K & married > 1000K, 40%. These percentages apply to the part of the income that fits into the bracket. example: You are single & make 75K. You pay nothing on the first 50K & 15% on the 25K over 50K. These percentages are on ALL income irregardless of source. What, you ask, is "flat" about these tax brackets? Simple. No deductions, no adjustments, no credits. If it's income, you pay on it at the indicated rate. This generates a whole bunch more revenue & has the added benefit of making tax preparation REALLY easy. :) And maybe helping to put the IRS out of business.
Social security & medicare: Take the caps off. They are both capped right now at around 125K income. So, take the caps off and if you as a CEO are comopensated at $10 million a year then you, and the company that is paying you, owe FICA & Medicare on it. That, I think, makes for instant solvency for both of those programs.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Another point, Republicans were decrying tax increases as a threat to jobs since I can remember. They have been disproven time and time again. Yet, there are some out there gullible enough to fall for it over and over again. I don't understand these people.
My philosophy: the more Republicans cry about it, the better idea it probably is.
_____________________________
The only crying and whining I hear are the greedy little Lib pigs who cry about what other people HAVE and why can't they have it, like other people's money.
Since it has been disproven time and time again that raising taxes sparks jobs growth, point out for us, if you will, 4 examples where taxes were raised and subsequently, companies started a rabid stretch of hiring and the economy took off.
If any of your examples comes around an economic event such as World War II or the tech boom, you must identify the matching economic event occurring now. I'll save you the trouble though - there is no event so the increase you point out has to be the sole factor.
Your turn. (Clinton era doesn't count - tech boom, which actually came after a significant cut to cap gains, following which a recession wiped out all the surplus)
Here's your evidence (http://conceptualmath.org/philo/taxgrowth.htm):
"It seems self-evident that tax-cuts should stimulate the economy. It seems so self-evident, that we discuss the theory as if it were a known fact. We don't even question the claim. But history offers us some evidence that tax cuts don't stimulate the economy.
* In 1921 & 1925, major taxes cut were passed. In the following years a stock market bubble formed while working class wages stagnated, then in 1929 the bubble burst and the economy crashed into the Great Depression.
* In 1981 a tax cut was passed. The economy sank deeper into recession and stayed in recession for nearly two years.
* In 1987 major tax cuts were passed. By 1990 growth declined leading into the 1991 recession.
* In 2001 a tax cut was passed, and another rebate was given in 2008. From 2001 through 2008 the economy grew slower than it did in the preceding 8 while a bubble formed in stocks, housing, and executive salaries. In 2008 the bubble burst, and now the economy in sinking into the worst recession since the Great Depression.
So what do we see in the data overall? Perhaps we should look at the data more thoroughly. We start by looking at the marginal tax rate on the richest citizens.
When we look at the tax rate charged to the richest citizens, we see that low taxes correlate to slow growth. When marginal taxes on the rich were below 40% growth remained below 4.5%. When top taxes were above 65% growth tended to be higher, even going above 6%. Historically, higher taxes on the rich have correlated to higher growth.
Overall, higher taxes on the rich historically have correlated to higher economic growth for the country. It's counterintuitive, but it is the historical fact. Just, to be certain, we can compare taxes to job creation also.
Again we see higher growth when the marginal tax on the rich is higher. It might seen odd, but that's what history shows us.
Let's look closer at how the economy changed after tax cuts. We can look at how both GDP and employment grew just before the tax cut, and then just after the tax cut. Did they grow faster or slower?
In the last 50 years there were 5 tax cuts to the rich. Three of them were followed by a decline in GDP growth, 3 were followed by a decline in employment growth. The evidence suggests that tax cuts do not promote growth and probably promote decline.
In the last 50 years there was just one tax increase to the rich. After that tax increase both the GDP and employment growth rates increased significantly.
The historical evidence suggests that an economic decline will follow a tax cut to the rich, and economic growth may follow a tax increase to the rich. The evidence suggests that the optimum tax marginal tax rate on the rich is higher than 60%."
Doesn't the scenario described in the last paragraph sound eerily familiar?
"According to a new study by the Congressional Research Service (non-partisan), there's no evidence that tax cuts spur growth.
In fact, although correlation is not causation, when you compare economic growth in periods with declining tax rates versus periods with high tax rates, there seems to be evidence that tax cuts might hurt growth. But we'll leave that possibility for another day.
One thing that tax cuts do unequivocally do--at least tax cuts for the highest earners--is increase economic inequality. Given that economic inequality is one of the biggest problems we face in this country right now, this conclusion is very important.
Before we go to the charts, a few observations.
First, this topic has become highly politicized, so it's impossible to discuss it without people howling that you're just rooting for a particular political team. Second, no one likes paying taxes. Third, everyone would like a tax cut, including me.
So I think we can all agree that everyone would prefer that tax cuts actually did spur economic growth.
Alas...
Okay, first let's look at the top marginal tax rates for the past 60 years or so. These are not effective or average tax rates--they're just the top marginal rates. As you can see, they've trended steadily down...<article truncated for brevity, see site at above URL for more details>"
linkicon reporticon emailicon
.
.
LOL!....."$70 billion per year"... according to who there ignorant Republi-minion, "Fox News"?
(hehehehehe!)
_____________________________________
No you blithering, babbling buffoon LOL - anywhere of a hundred sites I'm sure but you can start with this site.
The $70 billion figure is about as common as they come. It is a liberal staple quasi-fact - problem is libs are too stupid to do the math and realize it's proof that the tax hike wouldn't accomplish a single thing. You obviously haven't, but that's no surprise.