Bill Kristol Sez "It Won't Kill The Country" To Raise Taxes On Millionaires

[ABM]

http://www.salon.com/2012/11/11/sunday_best_gop_open_to_raising_taxes/

Shocker! Influential conservative says the GOP should be willing to raise taxes on millionaires and billionaires.

With the election over, the hot new thing that all the cool kids on the Sunday political chat shows were talking about today was the looming fiscal cliff and what Congress should do about it — and you’ll be surprised by one recommendation.

The tax increases and government spending cuts set to go into effect early next year are so massive that they could plunge the economy back into recession, unless Congress figures out a less painful way to reduce the deficit. The argument has so far broken down along the predictable partisan lines that we’ve seen in countless congressional battles over the past few years. Democrats want a balance of spending cuts and tax increases, while Republicans insist on zero tax increases, and maybe not even a dime in new revenue increases of any kind.

But just as the election has chastened Republicans on immigration, it may be doing the same thing on taxes. Bill Kristol, the editor of the Weekly Standard and one of the most prominent establishment conservative voices in Washington, threw the door wide open to tax hikes as part of fiscal cliff negotiations today. “It won’t kill the country if we raise taxes a little bit on millionaires … It really won’t, I don’t think. I don’t really understand why Republicans don’t take Obama’s offer,” he said on “Fox News Sunday.”

He continued: “Really? The Republican Party is going to fall on its sword to defend a bunch of millionaires, half of whom voted Democratic and half of whom live in Hollywood and are hostile?” It’s a remarkable statement, coming from Kristol.

Kristol has often clashed with Tea Party conservatives, but certainly holds the almost religious devotion to tax cuts that is the bedrock principle of the modern Republican Party. It’s the one thing that unites Ronald Reagan’s “three-legged stool” of the conservative coalition — free marketeers, social conservatives and national security hawks. Even more dramatic than Sean Hannity’s immigration shift, Bill Kristol’s shift on taxes suggests the party (or at least some leaders in it) have been shaken to their core by the election. While immigration is one of many important second-tier issues , taxes are the issue to the GOP, so compromising here is a much bigger deal. “At current velocity some Republicans will be calling for carbon tax and single payer health care by end of the year,” the New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza quipped on Twitter in regards to Kristol’s remark.

If Kristol’s remarks represent a nascent shift in the party (it’s too early to tell at the moment), then it certainly bodes well for fiscal cliff negotiations and the future of the country, which will need tax cuts to deal with the deficit. One thing’s for sure, Kristol will likely be getting an angry phone call later today from Grover Norquist, the enforcer of the party’s anti-tax orthodoxy..................

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

Get right out of town!

 

[ABM]

Get right out of town!

Hey, virtually everyone loves Robin Hood...............right?

 

[julius]

What is the comparison between the cuts that will happen if they "go off the cliff" vs the cuts they'd potentially be proposing?

 

[blazerboy30]

We need to stop with the hyperbole and classware for a minute and be realistic about the situation.

Why raise taxes on the "rich"? Just out of spite and principle? Or to try to balance the budget?

If you answered to "balance the budget", then you need to be realistic about the impact it will have on the deficit. Do the math and show yourself that this isn't a tax revenue problem, but a massive spending problem.

Let's not use the majority to infringe on the minority's rights just out of spite and "principle", deciding that they already have "enough".

 

[julius]

wait...how is this infringing on their rights!?

 

[blazerboy30]

wait...how is this infringing on their rights!?

Do you have a right to decide how much they should have? Should they be able to tell you how much is "enough" for you?

 

[Denny Crane]

wait...how is this infringing on their rights!?

Property rights.

 

[julius]

Do you have a right to decide how much they should have? Should they be able to tell you how much is "enough" for you?

If thats the case, then I want to have everything i own. it's my right! No one can tell me how much I should be able to have!

 

[blazerboy30]

If thats the case, then I want to have everything i own. it's my right! No one can tell me how much I should be able to have!

I agree.

Which is why a flat tax makes sense. We all get to vote on what we're comfortable with, not what we think somebody else should be comfortable with.

 

[maxiep]

It's interesting to see the people who wish to move forward on principle and those that wish to pander.

 

[MARIS61]

Rates on the top earners in Ike's day were 91%. So anything below 91% can't really be considered a tax "raise".

No coincidence that America peaked in the early 60's, as far as standard of living and positive standing in the view of the world.

 

[ABM]

No coincidence that America peaked in the early 60's, as far as standard of living and positive standing in the view of the world.

You would be correct, Sir.

http://www.inplainsite.org/what_happened_when_the_praying.html

 

[OSUBlazerfan]

Rates on the top earners in Ike's day were 91%. So anything below 91% can't really be considered a tax "raise".

No coincidence that America peaked in the early 60's, as far as standard of living and positive standing in the view of the world.

I wanted to check on this because i didnt believe it, but Maris you are right, and in '44 it was 94%....

I've always been conservative on this but seeing this data is pretty startling. How exactly were we going to pay for two wars without raising taxes??? My ideology is shifting from that one post...damn...

EDIT

But then i read this:

http://almostclassical.blogspot.com/2011/03/90-tax-rate-myth.html

hmmm

 

[blazerboy30]

I wanted to check on this because i didnt believe it, but Maris you are right, and in '44 it was 94%....

I've always been conservative on this but seeing this data is pretty startling. How exactly were we going to pay for two wars without raising taxes??? My ideology is shifting from that one post...damn...

EDIT

But then i read this:

http://almostclassical.blogspot.com/2011/03/90-tax-rate-myth.html

hmmm

I suggest you do some research on the types of tax breaks that were awarded back in those days. Additionally, do more research on the total effective tax burden for various percentiles of earners. Looking at top tax brackets is completely meaningless. State taxes have changed, social security rates have changed, medicare, sales taxes, gas taxes, etc, etc, etc.

 

[MARIS61]

I wanted to check on this because i didnt believe it, but Maris you are right, and in '44 it was 94%....

I've always been conservative on this but seeing this data is pretty startling. How exactly were we going to pay for two wars without raising taxes??? My ideology is shifting from that one post...damn...

EDIT

But then i read this:

http://almostclassical.blogspot.com/2011/03/90-tax-rate-myth.html

hmmm

Here's a good post from your link:

TomMercerOctober 18, 2012 12:18 AM

Hey Andy,

When the rich dude has '90% of his food taken', it doesn't disappear. It gets spent by the gov instead of him. So instead of viewing him as a 'job creator', he's just another consumer. He may consume other peoples' labor (time/skill/effort) in creating a corporation to earn him profits, but he's not a job creator. The market demand creates jobs. Not entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs just chase demand and buy labor in order to earn even more revenue and make profit. Entrepreneurs do not create jobs unless the demand permits them to profit. They are not responsible for job creation. It's a side effect of profit-seeking.

You and all libertarians confuse that taxes are not just 'taken'. They are not burned under the Capitol in a Pagan Orgy. They are just respent by the gov't, which again, creates jobs, and multiplies as the dollar flies around the economy. If the government destroyed each dollar it taxed, your viewpoint (shared by millions of misguided Americans) might be valid (even then, it would deflate the currency still around, so it probably wouldn't be valid). But it's not. The government spending money is a much more effective job creator and employer than rich entrepreneurs spending the same money. The question is, how can you spend a dollar that it will fly around the economy the most times. If you leave it with a rich man, he won't spend it unless there's already a good economy in which he can get a great return. But the government isn't interested in ROI for themselves, they're looking for biggest multiplier effect they can find. The latter is much more likely to move economies toward fuller deployment of capital so supply can meet demand, and fuller utilization (higher employment) can be realized.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_multiplier

One thing that liberals and conservatives will disagree on, is whether the government spending creates demand. I think it depends on how they spend it, but I can prove to you it creates demand.

Indulge in the following thought experiment: imagine the US gov't printed money, took in war bonds, and spent all the money exactly how it did to build tanks, planes, ammunition, etc during WWII. Now imagine that instead of fighting a war, we just sent thousands of men, planes, bombs, tanks, etc to the bottom of the ocean, or out into space on a one-way trip to the sun.

Now, realize the economic effect is 100% exactly the same whether those planes/tanks/bombs/men fought a war or were sunk or fired into the sun.

 

[Denny Crane]

As maxiep pointed out... If there really is a multiplier for govt. spending, the govt. should take all the money, period, and spend it.

It didn't work out for any nation that tried it.

 

[ABM]

Here's a good post from your link:

Classic Marxism:

From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.

 

[ABM]

...

 

[barfo]

As maxiep pointed out... If there really is a multiplier for govt. spending, the govt. should take all the money, period, and spend it.

It didn't work out for any nation that tried it.

Yes, taking things to extremes doesn't work well. Everything doesn't have to be either black or white.
There is a multiplier >1 in certain circumstances. In other circumstances, the multiplier is <1.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Yes, taking things to extremes doesn't work well. Everything doesn't have to be either black or white.
There is a multiplier >1 in certain circumstances. In other circumstances, the multiplier is <1.

barfo

That's just not right.

If it were, and not even going to extremes here, then Obama's stimulus would have worked as he predicted, the summer of recovery in 2010 would have been an actual summer of recovery, unemployment would never have been at 10%+, etc.

How many times do you see your hypothesis proven wrong by experiment and observed results before you agree with the science?

 

[blazerboy30]

That's just not right.

If it were, and not even going to extremes here, then Obama's stimulus would have worked as he predicted, the summer of recovery in 2010 would have been an actual summer of recovery, unemployment would never have been at 10%+, etc.

How many times do you see your hypothesis proven wrong by experiment and observed results before you agree with the science?

Clearly for some people, $16T with a sagging economy still isn't enough evidence that the government "multiplier" doesn't work.

 

[Denny Crane]

Clearly for some people, $16T with a sagging economy still isn't enough evidence that the government "multiplier" doesn't work.

The $16T is important because it masks how the govt. spending chokes the economy. With $1T+ in money borrowed from China, our GDP is $1T+ higher.

 

[BrianFromWA]

look, I can buy it a little bit if you say you need to go into debt to dig out...but last time I checked interest on that debt was somewhere around 400B a year. When you're bringing in between 2.5T and 3T in tax revenue, that's a hefty chunk to just flush down the drain.

 

[barfo]

That's just not right.

If it were, and not even going to extremes here, then Obama's stimulus would have worked as he predicted, the summer of recovery in 2010 would have been an actual summer of recovery, unemployment would never have been at 10%+, etc.

Sorry, none of that contradicts or disproves my statement.

How many times do you see your hypothesis proven wrong by experiment and observed results before you agree with the science?

How many times do you see your post shown to be a strawman before you address the point?

Let's say I have a huge pile of cash just sitting around. Let's say the government takes it from me, and gives it to poor people, who spend it all on beer, cigarettes, and porn. Are not the economic effects of that transaction overwhelmingly greater than 1?

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

I don't have to "contradict your statement" to prove you're wrong. You pretty much admit this by trying to fabricate a scenario that you think might show a multiplier of 1+.

The amount of cash sitting around in safes or peoples' mattresses is insignificant. More likely, the cash you've saved is in a bank account, and the bank puts your money to use by issuing loans.

There is some cost in having someone drive a dump truck over to your house to haul away your cash and then for some other number of govt. workers to divvy up your cash. In the end you're minus the cash, as well. To boot, all the things you listed aren't assets - they're literally shit. You've turned cash into shit and flushed it down the toilet. Literally.

Even your guy Obama gets it that tax cuts are the real stimulus. He's proposing extending the Bush cuts, has spent the SS trust fund on them, in February proposed to cut the corporate tax rate from 35% to 28%, and so on. Why? It cuts out the middleman.

 

[barfo]

To boot, all the things you listed aren't assets - they're literally shit. You've turned cash into shit and flushed it down the toilet. Literally.

You crap beer, cigarettes, and porn? Your diet must be strange.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

You crap beer, cigarettes, and porn? Your diet must be strange.

barfo

The porn you watched went where? Can you sell it to someone else at a profit (or loss)?

The cigarettes. Maybe if you haven't smoked them all the way down you might find a homeless person who'd want the butts.

Beer? OK, maybe not shit, but certainly piss.

 

[magnifier661]

You crap beer, cigarettes, and porn? Your diet must be strange.

barfo

No that's more of a liberal approach.

 

[barfo]

The porn you watched went where? Can you sell it to someone else at a profit (or loss)?

The cigarettes. Maybe if you haven't smoked them all the way down you might find a homeless person who'd want the butts.

Beer? OK, maybe not shit, but certainly piss.

What difference does any of that make? Buying assets isn't the point. There's a reason why the population is known as "consumers".

The point is that the money spent on beer at the 7-11 is then used to pay the clerk at the 7-11, who then buys more beer with the money, and receives another paycheck, and buys more beer with the money, and so on. Essentially, the clerk receives a lifetime income, and a lifetime supply of beer, because of that first purchase.

barfo