LockeColeMA wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Allegory wrote:
He said that we should tax the top 2% under the Clinton rates, which is not internally contradictory to anything he has said within the article.
Actually, he didn't. He said "Simply taxing the wealthiest 2% of Americans at the same rates they were taxed before the Bush tax cuts could reduce the national deficit by $700 billion over the next 10 years."
It's about word association. He's deliberately using a slightly different phrase to describe two things. He talks about returning to the "Clinton tax rates", but then in the very next sentence shifts to talking about "rates before the Bush tax cuts". You do that to create a disconnect between the two things. In this case, he's specifically avoiding having to explicitly say that we're returning to the Clinton tax rates, but only for people earning 2%.
So your argument is not that his logic is wrong, it's not that he incorrectly compared the two, it's that he is referring to two different tax rates but only gives an example of how it would help if we taxed the top 2%? And ignores that the Clinton tax rates affected everyone?
His logic is wrong because the supporting evidence he uses (that times were better under the Clinton tax rates) doesn't support the action he's proposing (raising tax rates on just the top 2%). How much more clear do I need to be?
Quote:
... but isn't the plan on the table for only changing the tax rates on the top 2%? So... why would he debate the other 98% if that's not even what's being suggested?
No. That's what the Democrats want to do. Here's the thing. By default, if no action is taken, the Bush tax cuts expire and every single person's taxes go up. Or, they can extend the Bush tax cuts and no one's taxes will go up. Those are the two simplest actions. Extend the existing law, or don't extend it.
What the Dems want to do instead is create a new law which sets the tax rates at today's levels for everyone, but puts the top 2% back to Clinton level taxes. That's a whole different law they are proposing. How you somehow view this as the only thing on the table is beyond me. Media manipulation I guess. We could propose any other combination of taxes. We could lower taxes even further. Raise them for middle class, but not working class. Randomly set new tax levels. Any other combination is just as legitimate of a suggestion as the one the Dems are trying to push. All of them would require completely new legislation be written.
The only two default states which don't require new legislation is to extend the existing rates, or not extend them. Any and everything else is "new law" and is no more the "only thing being discussed" as anything else we could come up with.
Quote:
Quote:
Point 2 is flawed because if our goal is deficit reduction why not focus on less spending? And if the only way to do it is raising taxes, why raise taxes in a way which only nets you 700B, when you could, with less effort net 3.2T? This is doubly relevant if one has already claimed that it was the "Clinton era tax rates" which will save us, since said easier action would put *everyone* back at the Clinton era tax rates.
I could think of two reasons for this:
1. The proposal on the table from the Obama administration is for the top 2% to be taxed at the previous rate. Why would he debate something Congress won't even vote on?
Because, as I pointed out above, any other proposal is just as valid. It's kinda bizarre that you seem to think that the only options available to us are the ones that the Obama administration wants. And it's amusing to me that you don't even blink an eye at the fact that of all the possible alternative tax laws which could be passed, this random rich guy just happens to name the one the Obama administration wants as the best solution? Do you think he really examined the tax laws and all possible alternatives and came up with that himself? Or do you think maybe he's just supporting a proposal for political reasons? Silly me, I'm going to go with the latter.
Quote:
2. Exactly as Jophiel said, you're looking at it as one way or the other. Perhaps, just perhaps, the Obama administration or the Democrats realized that taxing everyone, while increasing money for the government, would hamper economic development and/or **** off voters right before elections? I mean, that's completely obvious... and the only way you seem to avoid saying it is by demanding an all-or-nothing approach.
And as I responded earlier, there is nothing in the op-ed which makes this point. Had he presented some rational as to why the 70B/year is significant enough to be worth raising taxes on the top 2%, but the 310B/year we'd get from raising taxes on everyone isn't, there would at least be an honest starting point to debate the issue. But he didn't. Instead, he played a semantic bait and switch game.
He speaks in absolutes in the op-ed. He says that we can reduce the deficit by raising taxes on the top 2%. He says that we were better off under the Clinton tax rates. But he doesn't say that we only need some of the deficit reduction, or that we only needed some of the Clinton tax rates. But that's exactly what he's proposing. The supporting arguments don't support the propose action.
Quote:
Also, if you're going for maximum effect, wouldn't increase taxes and reduce spending? Not that I would suggest that, but you said we shouldn't let the taxes expire, then go on about how if we do, we should do it for everyone. Why not take a little benefit where you can with no risk rather than getting a lot more for a huge potential for trouble?
I didn't say we should do it for everyone. I said that if he believes we should return to the Clinton tax rates "at a minimum", then he is proposing we do it for everyone, since those were the tax rates under Clinton. I said that it's strange that he says that, but then doesn't propose that we do what he just said we should do. What part of "Clinton tax rates were higher for everyone" don't you get?
