October 25, 2007
Dems Are Out of Touch on Taxes (John Feehery)
Earlier this year, The Tax Foundation released a poll about the attitudes that Americans have towards the tax code. It found that a majority of U.S. adults believe the federal tax code is complex, that the federal income taxes they pay are "too high," and that the federal tax system needs major changes or a complete overhaul. It also found that just one in 10 (10 percent) say they are willing to pay higher taxes to eliminate 2007's projected $244 billion federal budget deficit.
The American people aren’t necessarily convinced that they need more tax cuts, although they do believe that they pay too much in taxes. But they sure as heck don’t want their taxes increased.
Leading Democrats don’t see it that way. They believe that the American people are desperate to have a tax increase. Democratic proposals abound, some of which have already been voted on. Some leaders want a war tax. Some want to sharply increase the gas tax to curtail energy use. Others have voted to sharply increase the cigarette tax to curtail smoking (and to pay for children’s healthcare). There was an $8 billion tax increase in the energy bill to stop those evil oil companies from profiting from oil exploration. Don’t forget the billion-dollar tax increase that was included in a small-business bill or the nearly $8 billion dollar tax increase in a Farm Nutrition and Bioenergy bill. A helpful list from the House Ways and Means Committee minority staff shows that the Democratic majority has voted to raise taxes by nearly $100 billion in the first 10 months of this session of Congress.
The ravenous tax-raisers were just getting warmed up. Later today, panel Chairman Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) is expected to introduce legislation that will increase taxes by a trillion dollars.
That is likely to get the attention of most taxpayers who actually pay taxes. This will not just hit the rich. It will hit everybody.
When you successfully attack a problem, the public give you little credit. Nobody is talking about the prescription drug problem, because the Congress created a popular program that is now running pretty smoothly. And few put taxes at the top of the agenda, because the Bush administration has done a good job of giving tax relief to the American people.
This has been problematic for Republicans because they get political juice when taxes top the agenda. Well, thankfully, the Democrats are doing all they can to put the subject back at the top of the agenda. Nothing angers voters more than the idea of paying more of their own hard-earned tax dollars to pay for wasteful, inefficient and stupid Washington spending.
The best thing the Republicans have going for them is the Democrats.
26 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
I agree, the Democrats haven't got a clue how this is going to be perceived when gas, housing, insurance and food have gone up so much. Since the government is not a profit based operation they could reduce services or give relief in other ways. With the Democrats they won't be satisfied until everyone in America is a government serf.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — October 25, 2007 @ 11:45 am
By themselves, the Democrats don't offer anything of value: they are wrong on taxes, the Islamic threat, funding defense, foreign policy, everything! It's only when the Republicans get careless or corrupt enough, that the Democrats look as an acceptable alternative. They never really are, especially while controlled by the radical left wingers.
Comment by Igor R. — October 25, 2007 @ 11:55 am
And I suppose NO taxes will EVER be raised in the future to pay for W's blank check/no-limits-credit card spending on Iraq, right?
Poor GOP, no longer can it claim to be the party of fiscal discipline, not after the absolutely atrocious spending priorities it showed when stupidly going along with any and all corrupt GOP campaign contributors
Oh yeah, last I checked, most voters-remember them, the ones who destroyed the GOP in the 2006 elections-not only favor an SCHIP expansion, but also favor tax increases to bring it about
Hey, here's an idea I guarantee that the Administration and GOP will NEVER back, namely, letting those who still back W's completely idiotic decision to invade and occupy Iraq pay for it themselves, and NOT leave the US taxpayers on the hook for the absolutely worst, self-inflicted foreign policy debacle in US history
What, no GOP takers for that idea?
What a surprise
Comment by KingCranky — October 25, 2007 @ 12:20 pm
George W. Bush never vetoed a republican spending bill during his first six years eventhough Ted Steven inserted a 223 million bridge to nowhere. Now he wants to look like he is a fiscal conservative by vetoing Democratic spending bills. Who is he kidding? Oh yeah, I forgot about you John.
Comment by Mike Coleman — October 25, 2007 @ 1:07 pm
This is a group of people, who call themselves Conservative, yet they support tax cuts and outsized spending for many things; especially an elective war of lies.
Their hypocricy knows no bounds.
The American people don't understand the tax code. That is the business of, what are supposed to be, responsible elected officials.
Republicans love to play to those who don't understand the tax code, but don't want their tax money going to "bums on welfare". Those same in the dark people, want and need services from their government. All in all, they don't make the connection.
We who do know one thing. These tax cxuts have been a disaster. Never in the history of this country have we cut taxes in time of war. This administration has bled this country dry, so there is no safety net, as evidenced by Katrina.
In our recent history we know that supply side economics does not work. Their hero Reagan left this country in debt, after he had sold everything to the Asians.
We've also seen the proseperity of the Clinton era, generated by the very best economists and financial men brought on the Clinotn team.
But the cynical GOP still drives it hard at those who don't know.
Comment by Chris Calbi — October 25, 2007 @ 2:06 pm
Chris, Rangel is NOT a responsible public official. Under the guise of cutting AMT he has created a Trojan Horse-type tax increase proposal. Remember, Rangel is a Hillary front man, always has been, so this is Hillary's tax increase. Enjoy!
Comment by Igor R. — October 25, 2007 @ 2:21 pm
Igor, that's pure nonsense.
Rangel is going to shift the tax cuts away from the wealthiest Americans, and put them where they belong. I know that you folks hate that.
I enjoy the give and take with you, but as I've said before, you lose all of your brainpower with your ridiculously outsized hatred of Hillary Clinton. There is something deeply disturbing about that.
Comment by Chris Calbi — October 25, 2007 @ 6:07 pm
Rangel's proposal is dead coming out of the gate. I guess if you propose something as preposterous as he throws out, then something less will seem good to the money grubbing left which continues to waste more and more and hence need more and more to fund their bribes to the have nots for their votes. As usual, rediculous.
Comment by John B — October 25, 2007 @ 6:31 pm
Chris, the Hillary point was actually fairly minor. The point is this is what to expect if the Democrats come to power. More and more "tax the rich", while the "rich" tax base can't support all they want to do. They'll destroy the economy, snare the middle class into the net just like the AMT did, and all to do more, and more, and more spending that is just waste. And don't tell me the war is waste, simply because I've heard it before. The war on poverty is waste (what have we got for the trillions spent?), government development of "fuel alternatives" is waste, government "grants" to cities are waste. The Federal government should be reduced not fed with what Rangel thinks up. Who the hell is he to decide how to spend a trillion dollars?
Comment by Igor R. — October 25, 2007 @ 8:40 pm
Yea, let's all listen to John "The Water Carrier" talk about taxes (nudge nudge). Problem is, John, you have no credibility. You try and lump the tax cuts for the rich in with the "people". The middle class is not buying it Johnny. Bush may have cut your taxes $300 dollars/year but your paying $3000 more per year at the pumps. Do you get it?
Furthermore, John (and his fellow nutball ditto heads) you each owe the government $8000 for the Iraq debacle. I'm sure your grandkids will be proud of your "war sacrifices". Yea John, as usual, that was real shallow.
Comment by Chris in NM — October 26, 2007 @ 1:29 am
RR; can't you (like Igoe) chime in here with some of your crazy-assed tax "wisdom" just for the sake of entertaining us all? We kid you RR.
Comment by Chris in NM — October 26, 2007 @ 1:33 am
Here's some tax wisdom for you Mike. Companies, corporations and sole proprietors simply pass of the cost of taxes to their customers. Eventually you pay it all so keep cheering for more taxes. As far as the crazy posts you have a monopoly on that.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — October 26, 2007 @ 8:33 am
Rangel is the chairman of his committee by way of the Democratic majority in the House. I know you know that. So I don't understand the question.
I'd prefer to debate tax policy all day long, as oppossed to the rancorous discussions about the war and violation of the Constitution. I'm really looking forward to going back to that after the 2008 election.
Tax cuts to the rich simply do not work. you get what we have, which is an economy that is only good for the rich.
Comment by Chris Calbi — October 26, 2007 @ 10:14 am
Chris, I don't believe "the rich" should be paying significantly more, proportionally speaking, than the poor. This is socialism. And Rangel wants more socialism. "From each according to his ability".
Comment by Igor R. — October 26, 2007 @ 12:18 pm
New statistics from the IRS: the top 1% of income earners make 21% of the income and pay 39% of the taxes. How much more "fairness" can this country stand before the investments flow out to other, more hospitable countries?
Comment by Igor R. — October 26, 2007 @ 1:26 pm
RR;
I've read a few of your post and wisdom is not something that I associate with you. Spare me your bs on taxes until you show me a CPA cerification.
Comment by Mike Coleman — October 26, 2007 @ 2:15 pm
Don't you get it Igor? Chis does not get it and never will. You waste your neurons firing. He and his want to take it all from the rich. They never seem to realize that with it gets bad for the rich, it gets geometically worse for the down and out. And as for the middle, last I looked they all seem to be doing fine. Nice cars. Flat screen TV's and ample beer at the tail gate.
And Johnny will wait with Chrissy and see if the middle gets it. They are a lot closer in their thought process to me that you fools out on the Far Left; way past Hillary who is too far out their for most of us. I'm guessing you wear pink underware in sympathy with Code Pink.
Comment by John B — October 26, 2007 @ 3:25 pm
John, well other people read it besides Chris. I also, as a matter of principle, think that not confronting liberals because they will "never get it" is a defeatist strategy. There are certainly more hard-core liberals today than a few decades ago, so something is converting people in THAT direction. While Chris is a reasonably nice guy, he is on the side of evil, and evil needs to be confronted. But the most important reason: I find it entertaining.
Comment by Igor R. — October 26, 2007 @ 4:19 pm
Igor, you are right in your thinking and very closely parallel my thoughts as you outline them. Keep up the good work. I continue to believe that when push comes to shove, we will win, though it is dismally gloomy to watch today.
Comment by John B — October 26, 2007 @ 4:48 pm
Mike Coleman: You can find out all you want on taxes at the IRS. The truth is there for even mushy liberals to view.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — October 26, 2007 @ 7:24 pm
Liberals are harder left and Conservatives are harder right, because in 2000, we were given an appointed, rather than elected President. If the Supreme court appointed honest and intelligent people, they would have understood that they had no mandate, and governed from the middle; at least for some time. Instead they swung radically to the Right. This country is not Radical Right, so a gap opened up that is larger than the 1960's. That's why we are where we're at. this is supposed to be representative government.
Your craxy tax cut policy has created a trillion dollar deficit! I know how sketchy you folks are on the facts. We will leave the next generation with this burden. We even cut taxes in wartime, something that was previously unheard of. Now, all of our debt is owned by a power potentially greater than us. we are more vulnerable, and it shows, then we ever were in history.
I have been in the top wage earning category since the 1980's; through tax cuts and tax increases. I have never felt the difference either way. I've never invested more or less as a result. It simply makes no difference. The thought that by cutting taxes, I will invest more in my business and creat opportunity for those less fortunate is pure nonsense.
Taxes, as with all other issues, is thankfully the destyruction of the GOP. They call Democrats "tax and spend". But in the last eight years they have shown their true policy of "don't tax and spend more. This contributed to their loss in 2006, and is likely to render them irrelevant in 2008.
Comment by Chris Calbi — October 27, 2007 @ 8:58 am
Well … its obvious that Igor, Robert R, John B don't know taxes. Or Tax policy.
Of course all the reasonable cost of doing business are passed on to the consumer; it's an empty argument at best - but in the way it's being used here it is part of the big lie that the rich can't afford to pay more taxes. If they invested more money on jobs and other economy expansive activities they would pay less in tax and fewer taxes. But no!!!! they build MacMansions, buy Maybachs & Vantages, Dorados, fly to spas and otherwise pamper themselves.
Someone has to pay for the war. Bush won't. His money is already off-shore and his pension is probably tax excluable. No, the people who are now unemployed will have to pay these taxes to retire the war debt. This is spo because the new-right (that seeks to repeal the New Deal) blames those they've disenfranchised for being so gullible that they will in turn vote against their own self interest - in the name of restricting abortion, civil rights, gay-bashing, 10 commandments displaying, god-fearing patriotism.
So let's set aside the rhetoric of wing-nuts & moonbats; learn to compromise; governance is the process of compromise. The new-right and the neo-cons are just going to have to get over it. The rest of the New Deal is here to stay and there will be universal health care. Now let's get to the business at hand:
1. Bring jobs back to the US so we can tax the income they produce.
2. Provide tax incentives so employers can compete for the most worthy talent in the pool.
3. That income will be subject to multiple opportunities to be taxed - the company's profits, employees' income, company real estate, capital gains of shareholders, and on & on & on.
4. Therer is no jealosy or envy at work in the tax system, there is only recognition of opportunity, talent and effort and their impact upon horizons of technology.
A steeply graduated tax code with generous credits (not deductions) for investments in new technology and jobs that employ these technologies is the key to an economy that can expand as its population does and not profit beyond the limits of its environment.
Comment by Jonathon Hubbert — October 28, 2007 @ 6:42 pm
There's a lot of interesting points in this thread. There's a reality in the future bills for the reckless spending of the present administration. Mr John B. amusingly states "And as for the middle, last I looked they all seem to be doing fine". Obviously, he hasn't looked for a while or his vision is grossly impaired. The average 2005 income was 4.2 percent more, in real terms, than in 2004. But this increase was almost entirely at the top. One in 500 taxpayers makes more than $1 million, but those taxpayers reported 58 percent of the total income gain, the I.R.S. report, known as Table 1.4, showed. With the shift of the wealth and the ease of the tax burden to the rich, who do you suppose will be held accountable when the wolves come growling at the door?
Comment by andy42302 — October 28, 2007 @ 7:26 pm
Jonathon Hubbert: Your rant and suggestions make no sense, and you're passing yourself off as as expert? When I read statements like yours where you run other posters down while trying to pass yourself off as an expert I have to wonder if you're simply ignorant. You're idiotic suggestion of bringing jobs to the USA won't work for many reasons, the greatest of which is the fear of litigation in this country. Then at the same time you're whining about the alleged rich not paying taxes you talk about offering employers more incentives to hire people. You also state there is no jealousy or envy at work in the tax system. That's all it is. And you started out your statement with the same philosophy by complaining about the rich paying more taxes. If anyone doesn't understand tax policy it's you. You're really not a very bright person, are you?
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — October 29, 2007 @ 8:41 am
John B, historically good triumphed over evil. It's never a straight path though. Very few individuals can change the world, but you have to try. The polarization we have today in this country does one good thing: the liberals are getting less gun-shy about exposing their core values to the world. That's their Achilles heel because eventually sane people will see that what the liberals are selling is madness.
Comment by Igor R. — October 30, 2007 @ 1:27 am
Chris, today big money moves around the world every day. Low taxes on capital gains and dividends means the price of stocks go up, which means that people are more likely to start new companies and go IPO. And it's an economic fact that when taxes on marginal income are prohibitive, people reduce production of marginal income.
Comment by Igor R. — October 30, 2007 @ 1:33 am