Read Declan McCullagh's Lips: No New Taxes
Britain's Queen Elizabeth II holds a bouquet of flowers as she returns to Buckingham Palace after attending a service of thanksgiving and a lunch in honour of the Diamond Jubilee in London,Tuesday June 5, 2012. (AP Photo/Carl Cort, Pool) / CARL COURT
This column, Other People's Money, is written by CNET's Declan McCullagh. It will appear each Wednesday on CBSNews.com.
As October surprises in politics go, it wasn't much of one. But this month's appearance of Joe the Plumber, coupled with a YouTube clip featuring a younger Barack Obama talking about "redistributive" measures, have injected taxes into the presidential campaign's last month.
If we're entering a recession of unknown scope and duration, as seems to be the case, this would be the worst time to raise taxes. Unfortunately, both Barack Obama and John McCain have less-than-stellar records on this point.
The next president and Congress should take a lesson from their predecessors' failed policies during the Great Depression. That's when President Hoover signed into law the Revenue Act of 1932, which ended the low-tax policies of the 1920s with the largest peacetime tax hike in the history of the country.
The Revenue Act hiked corporate income taxes, doubled the estate tax, and raised the top personal income tax rate to 63 percent. Wartime excise taxes were revived, and new taxes were slapped on gasoline, tires, cars, telephones, bank checks, electricity, toiletries, jewelry, stock transfers, and so on.
That was followed by President Roosevelt endorsing a further increase in the top income tax rate, which reached 79 percent in 1936. Other new taxes that sprouted in that decade include a tax on dividends, a capital stock tax, liquor taxes, and the Social Security payroll tax. Roosevelt claimed
that forcible wealth redistribution was "the American thing to do."
Well, we know how that particular exercise in patriotism worked. During the Great Depression, the stock market fell by 90 percent, the economy contracted by 30.5 percent, and unemployment reached 24.9 percent.
To be sure, tax hikes alone didn't account for that decade's misery. Four years ago, a pair of UCLA economists calculated that other New Deal policies probably played the largest role in prolonging the Great Depression by seven years.
But higher taxes are nevertheless a sure way to delay a recovery. In times of economic strain, reducing taxes will stimulate healthy economic activity. Raising them will reduce disposable income, shrink spending, and lead to a contraction in economic activity -- precisely what politicians claim they don't want to do. It's also no way to create jobs.
Yes, it's true, as I wrote in last week's column, that government spending has run amok under President Bush and taxpayers are now being forced to pay over $500 billion a year in interest on the government debt. But the better way to balance the budget -- remember that quaint phrase? -- is to gradually reduce government spending.
Too much attention has been focused on Obama's proposal. That includes letting the scheduled 2011 tax rate hikes occur, boosting taxes on what the Tax Foundation calculates to be 50 percent of small business income, and even doling out money to Americans who pay no income taxes.
These reveal what a President Obama would like to do. The reality, though, is that Congress, not the president, writes tax laws.
Capitol Hill boasts scores of self-important committee chairmen who have their own ideas, guard their influence zealously (Ted Stevens once was one of them), and are unlikely to acquiesce to the precise policy prescriptions of a mere president. Just ask President Clinton what happened to all those sweeping proposals in the
1992 Democratic Party platform once it landed in a theoretically sympathetic Congress.
Though the specifics may not match Obama's campaign promises, his fellow Democrats do seem to agree that some sort of tax hikes are necessary.
Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank has already been saying that "there should be tax increases" after the election. Look for his colleagues to push through increases in the rates for income taxes, capital gains, and dividends, regardless of their effects on jobs and the stock market.
President Bush's veto threats and opposition from a Republican Senate minority have thwarted some tax hikes in the recent past, including a cigarette tax increase and a windfallprofits tax" on oil companies -- an especially odd idea now that oil prices have plummeted from $145 to around $63 a barrel.
If the Democrats sweep the White House and the Senate, those limits will disappear. This has given McCain his best argument for being elected, which isn't saying much: vote for me if you want divided government.
McCain now says that he will "maintain" the current income tax rates and oppose the automatic 2011 income tax hikes. But the Arizona senator's problem on taxes is that he's wishy-washy in a way that George W. Bush, for all of his flaws, was not.
On Internet taxes alone, in two of four votes I tabulated for a Technology Voter Guide in 2006, McCain voted in the pro-tax direction.
The broader scorecard from Americans for Tax Reform shows that McCain voted against the 2001 Bush tax cuts, against a permanent repeal of the death tax, and against the subsequent 2003 acceleration of the tax cuts. Those were arguably the three most important tax-related votes in the last decade.
Unfortunately, even though the economic picture is darkening, we're left with a less-than-inspiring choice of major party presidential candidates. Unless they learn from the mistakes that Hoover and Roosevelt made, a likely recession could turn into something worse.
Declan McCullagh is the chief political correspondent for CNET. He previously was Wired's Washington bureau chief and a reporter for Time.com and Time magazine in Washington, D.C. He has taught journalism, public policy, and First Amendment law. He is an occasional programmer, avid analog and digital photographer, and lives in the San Francisco Bay area. His e-mail address is declan.mccullagh@cnet.com
By Declan McCullagh
Copyright 2009 CBS. All rights reserved. As October surprises in politics go, it wasn't much of one. But this month's appearance of Joe the Plumber, coupled with a YouTube clip featuring a younger Barack Obama talking about "redistributive" measures, have injected taxes into the presidential campaign's last month.
If we're entering a recession of unknown scope and duration, as seems to be the case, this would be the worst time to raise taxes. Unfortunately, both Barack Obama and John McCain have less-than-stellar records on this point.
The next president and Congress should take a lesson from their predecessors' failed policies during the Great Depression. That's when President Hoover signed into law the Revenue Act of 1932, which ended the low-tax policies of the 1920s with the largest peacetime tax hike in the history of the country.
The Revenue Act hiked corporate income taxes, doubled the estate tax, and raised the top personal income tax rate to 63 percent. Wartime excise taxes were revived, and new taxes were slapped on gasoline, tires, cars, telephones, bank checks, electricity, toiletries, jewelry, stock transfers, and so on.
That was followed by President Roosevelt endorsing a further increase in the top income tax rate, which reached 79 percent in 1936. Other new taxes that sprouted in that decade include a tax on dividends, a capital stock tax, liquor taxes, and the Social Security payroll tax. Roosevelt claimed
that forcible wealth redistribution was "the American thing to do."
Well, we know how that particular exercise in patriotism worked. During the Great Depression, the stock market fell by 90 percent, the economy contracted by 30.5 percent, and unemployment reached 24.9 percent.
To be sure, tax hikes alone didn't account for that decade's misery. Four years ago, a pair of UCLA economists calculated that other New Deal policies probably played the largest role in prolonging the Great Depression by seven years.
But higher taxes are nevertheless a sure way to delay a recovery. In times of economic strain, reducing taxes will stimulate healthy economic activity. Raising them will reduce disposable income, shrink spending, and lead to a contraction in economic activity -- precisely what politicians claim they don't want to do. It's also no way to create jobs.
Yes, it's true, as I wrote in last week's column, that government spending has run amok under President Bush and taxpayers are now being forced to pay over $500 billion a year in interest on the government debt. But the better way to balance the budget -- remember that quaint phrase? -- is to gradually reduce government spending.
Too much attention has been focused on Obama's proposal. That includes letting the scheduled 2011 tax rate hikes occur, boosting taxes on what the Tax Foundation calculates to be 50 percent of small business income, and even doling out money to Americans who pay no income taxes.
These reveal what a President Obama would like to do. The reality, though, is that Congress, not the president, writes tax laws.
Capitol Hill boasts scores of self-important committee chairmen who have their own ideas, guard their influence zealously (Ted Stevens once was one of them), and are unlikely to acquiesce to the precise policy prescriptions of a mere president. Just ask President Clinton what happened to all those sweeping proposals in the
1992 Democratic Party platform once it landed in a theoretically sympathetic Congress.
Though the specifics may not match Obama's campaign promises, his fellow Democrats do seem to agree that some sort of tax hikes are necessary.
Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank has already been saying that "there should be tax increases" after the election. Look for his colleagues to push through increases in the rates for income taxes, capital gains, and dividends, regardless of their effects on jobs and the stock market.
President Bush's veto threats and opposition from a Republican Senate minority have thwarted some tax hikes in the recent past, including a cigarette tax increase and a windfallprofits tax" on oil companies -- an especially odd idea now that oil prices have plummeted from $145 to around $63 a barrel.
If the Democrats sweep the White House and the Senate, those limits will disappear. This has given McCain his best argument for being elected, which isn't saying much: vote for me if you want divided government.
McCain now says that he will "maintain" the current income tax rates and oppose the automatic 2011 income tax hikes. But the Arizona senator's problem on taxes is that he's wishy-washy in a way that George W. Bush, for all of his flaws, was not.
On Internet taxes alone, in two of four votes I tabulated for a Technology Voter Guide in 2006, McCain voted in the pro-tax direction.
The broader scorecard from Americans for Tax Reform shows that McCain voted against the 2001 Bush tax cuts, against a permanent repeal of the death tax, and against the subsequent 2003 acceleration of the tax cuts. Those were arguably the three most important tax-related votes in the last decade.
Unfortunately, even though the economic picture is darkening, we're left with a less-than-inspiring choice of major party presidential candidates. Unless they learn from the mistakes that Hoover and Roosevelt made, a likely recession could turn into something worse.
Declan McCullagh is the chief political correspondent for CNET. He previously was Wired's Washington bureau chief and a reporter for Time.com and Time magazine in Washington, D.C. He has taught journalism, public policy, and First Amendment law. He is an occasional programmer, avid analog and digital photographer, and lives in the San Francisco Bay area. His e-mail address is declan.mccullagh@cnet.com
By Declan McCullagh
Popular in Politics
- Obama forgets to salute while boarding Marine One Play Video
- The Ted Cruz conundrum
- Petraeus biographer regrets affair
- As summer approaches, sequestration threatens holiday fun
- IRS' Lerner was asked to resign, refused: GOP Sen. 197 Comments
- GOP Rep.: Obama elected because of Reagan's immigration reforms 76 Comments
- Obama prom pictures surface
- Is President Obama ending the war on terror?
[Posted by Machineguy at 07:04 PM : Oct 29, 2008]
for many businesses the highest cost of doing business is payroll costs ... and the fact is that the cost of labor in the us of a is sky high compared to many other parts of the world. this has little to do with taxes and will not be solved easily by cutting them ... even if you removed them completely.
the sucking sound is not due to taxes ... it''s due to the high cost of labor in the geographies where the jobs are exported from ... and what is/was the efficient means of production and transportation worldwide that allows for cheaper production ... everywhere else.
for wealth redistribution.]
[Posted by smclimans at 12:38 PM : Oct 30, 2008]
according to who?
I am not even bringing into it the effect of thousands of small businesses shutting down and the remaining large industries being driven overseas.
The facts speak for themselves. This country does best when its budget is in balance, and that means the wealthy must pay their fair share. "Trickle down" economics do not work because rich people don''t leak. Fair and progressive taxes, coupled with responsible spending, *does* work. It is American, and it is fair. So quit yer whining, McCullagh!
What you forgot to mention is that the government has THREE branches. The Supreme Court is now primarily conservative and can only be balanced by a more moderate federal and legislative branch. I take Obama on his word and will hold him to the challenge of running a bipartisan federal branch. Also it will take a united Federal and Legislative branch to clean up the mess the Bush administration created economically and the to correct the evisceration of environmental laws and protections.
The massive tax increase from 35% to almost 70% in 1930 was a prime reason for the great depression, along with the same type of restrictive tarrifs that you folks are so fond of proposing.
So when you don''t get the money from the "rich" and the corporations you will have to tax the next level of "rich" (a word that will come to have a very fluid meaning) i.e. the middle class.
The economy creates wealth - governments drain wealth. If you want a greater distribution of the wealth improve opportunities to start new businesses, encourage investment in existing business, encourage profit.
But then that Profit is a bad word - isn''t it?
Obviously the writer of the above statement knows nothing about US History. America began in 1776 or 1783 if you are counting from the British recognizing end of the Revolutionary War or even 1787 if you count from the Ratification of the Constitution. Income tax came in as a permanent fixture in 1913. Before that, the main source of government income was import duties.
What has distinguished the US from many other countries has been the emphasis on individual achievement rather than collectivism. That is why at one stage it had 60% of the world''s wealth and printed 60% of its books.
A mass redistribution of wealth will me a dampening of individual achievement and joining the enforced mediocrity of several other countries.
Posted by Machineguy
We should have raised taxes on the rich even more to pay for the invasions and occupations. And the actual recipients of your entitlement programs are the rich corporations who pay little to no income tax. And the wealthy CEOs who have taken so much of the money out of society. The bank bailout was an entitlement program as was the Republicans letting the energy companies write our energy policy. That''s pretty much how it works in a fascist country.
They have given our hard earned tax money to the rich who run the war profiteering and oil companies.