and of course cutting down on tax breaks is equivalent in all pragmatic senses to raising the tax rate.
one would only pretend there is a difference for some sort of rhetorical asinine purpose.
In theory I would agree with this, in practice I would disagree.
“Tax breaks” are often meant to target a certain group and or behavior in order to get that “Break”. Tax rates typically have a far broader effect.
You could have a tax break that gives everyone the opportunity to take the interest they pay for loans on 10 million dollar or more yachts. This “tax break” could be taken and open to anyone in any tax bracket. However in almost every case the only people it is feasible for to take advantage of that tax break would be those in the top .1%.
That being said I’m 100% for eliminating as many tax breaks and deductions as possible. IOW bring the effective tax rate one pays on ones income return closer to that of the actual tax rate.
OTOH I’m also for a lower tax rate.
A person making 10 million a year income should have an effective tax rate very close to the highest bracket, not 30% below that. However same goes for someone who is in the 15% bracket.
Of course this means a complete reworking of the tax code, removing of all deductions for every bracket and a rework of the brackets themselves.
I typically give Jon Stewart a pass because he is supposed to be a comedy show. But at the point you start quoting numbers, tax rates and comparisons to wealth, percentage of wealth…well you’ve stopped doing comedy and entered right into the frey of political news show.
He misrepresented the facts worse than any other show I’ve seen and I’d guess the majority of the audience walked away thinking it was a completely “Fair and balanced” analysis.
He needs to either stick to comedy or quite doing what he claims all the other serious news shows are doing to ruin politics.
I would love to see Stewart and CC take on spending as the problem. But that will never happen.
It’s not funny, but focusing on the actual problem would be “Oh ten years from now we will only have racked up $13,300,000,000,000 instead of $14,000,000,000,000”
****He misrepresented the facts worse than any other show I’ve seen and I’d guess the majority of the audience walked away thinking it was a completely “Fair and balanced” analysis.
You keep saying that without actually saying what he misrepresented.
I typically give Jon Stewart a pass because he is supposed to be a comedy show. But at the point you start quoting numbers, tax rates and comparisons to wealth, percentage of wealth…well you’ve stopped doing comedy and entered right into the frey of political news show.
He misrepresented the facts worse than any other show I’ve seen and I’d guess the majority of the audience walked away thinking it was a completely “Fair and balanced” analysis.
He needs to either stick to comedy or quite doing what he claims all the other serious news shows are doing to ruin politics.
pretty sure steward has had many little bits were spending was taken on as a problem too.
as homework, go find one!
I would love to see Stewart and CC take on spending as the problem. But that will never happen.
It’s not funny, but focusing on the actual problem would be “Oh ten years from now we will only have racked up $13,300,000,000,000 instead of $14,000,000,000,000”
actually the right has Dennis Miller who is quite funny and gives Stewart a run for his money as an intellectual comic.
True. Dennis Miller is funny.
Bill Maher. Ball’s back in your court!
Jon Stewart = funny, but Maher is so full of arrogant, condescending, loathing, for those who disagree with him that he just seems too angry, too serious, to be funny...used to be funny though. I think he's demonstrating what I've talked about with guys at work, and that is oldsterism; as you age, you just suffer less lightly those who you deem fools.
You keep saying that without actually saying what he misrepresente
Well, to start with he compared taking half of the WEALTH of the bottom 50% to that which would be raised by increasing the tax rate to the Clinton era levels over 10 years. This was in response to the call for having the tax rate on the bottom 50% raised to the point where they were paying some amount.
So in the end the comparison of an amount of 700B raised over 10 years from income tax was compared to that of half of the current wealth of the bottom 50%. I’m not sure how you can confuse and misrepresent an issue more than that.
This was of course purposefully done to show in some twisted way that the rich are not paying enough and the poor are paying too much in some way.
I typically give Jon Stewart a pass because he is supposed to be a comedy show. But at the point you start quoting numbers, tax rates and comparisons to wealth, percentage of wealth…well you’ve stopped doing comedy and entered right into the frey of political news show.
He misrepresented the facts worse than any other show I’ve seen and I’d guess the majority of the audience walked away thinking it was a completely “Fair and balanced” analysis.
He needs to either stick to comedy or quite doing what he claims all the other serious news shows are doing to ruin politics.
~Matt
How in the hell did a thread in the LR about taxes and rich folk make it to the 18th post before Matt weighed in? Matt, old dog, you are slipping. Trying to get Matt to budge an inch on tax policy is like trying to get my rottweiler to budge off a pork chop. Of course, eventually my rottie will roll over satisfied and drift off to slumber, Matt probably just goes for a bike ride, wondering how someone, somewhere wants to make life harder on the Koch brothers. Well, not on Matt’s watch!!!
I’ve given up engaging on this subject, because as Churchill said a fanatic is someone who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject. Good luck to all.
I’ve given up engaging on this subject, because as Churchill said a fanatic is someone who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject. Good luck to all.
Interesting, because in all our conversations I don’t remember you changing your mind.
I don’t plan on changing my mind because no one has laid down a plausible argument to do so. That being said I can’t think of anyone on this forum that is willing to try any number of ideas and approaches to go in the direction I think we need to go.
I’ve agreed to any number of approaches even tax increases under certain circumstances and conditions.
Unlike many on the left and right I just want the problems fixed. A step in the right direction is a step in the right direction.
Show me your approach FIXES the problem and just doesn’t kick it down the road or worsen the situation and I might consider it.
Claiming “We need to get more money from the rich so we can spend more…because we’ve spent so much in the past we have to continue to spend…because we have a big debt and lots of things to spend money on”, is not a solution.
I was referring to the 700B dollar comment of taking half the bottom 50% wealth, which of course has nothing to do with income tax.
In realty raising the income tax rate on the top 1% by 4.1% raises 70B a year. Raising taxes on the bottom 50% by 6.5% raises the same amount of income.** **Raising taxes on the 25-50% group by the same amount as the top 1% raises the same 70B a year.
I was referring to the 700B dollar comment of taking half the bottom 50% wealth, which of course has nothing to do with income tax.
In realty raising the income tax rate on the top 1% by 4.1% raises 70B a year. Raising taxes on the bottom 50% by 6.5% raises the same amount of income.** **Raising taxes on the 25-50% group by the same amount as the top 1% raises the same 70B a year.
~Matt
Maybe it’s a matter of semantics, but I think the confusion here is that misrepresent isn’t really the best word; I would use the word mislead instead. (Yes, I realize they have extremely similar definitions so, like I said, maybe it’s just semantics.) I don’t think the facts themselves were misrepresented–he said exactly where he got both numbers from. I could be wrong, but I think, Matt, that what you’re saying is that he was misleading the audience by redirecting the focus of the conversation on how little wealth the bottom 50% of Americans actually control rather than focusing on if they pay their fair share of taxes.
Now, where are you getting the numbers you posted here?
DId you even get the major point of Stewart’s piece? It was primarily about Republicans decrying what they perceive and portray as class warfare, when they are guilty of the same. Republicans are constantly accusing Democrats of playing class warfare, yet they do the same when it suits their position. (And it’s not that Democrats aren’t hypocritical in their rhetoric too…) The piece was only secondarily about actual tax policy.
You probably agree with Stewart’s point about the ridiculousness of the rhetoric, but true to your M.O., you’ll take a secondary and minor issue, blow it out of proportion, and argue it to death.