Intro: "The much-vaunted Republican pledge not to raise any taxes is crumbling. Today 34 Senate Republicans voted to end the special tax breaks for ethanol."
Portrait, Robert Reich, 08/16/09. (photo: Perian Flaherty)
Republican Right Shows Signs of Desperation
17 June 11
The growing desperation of the Don't-Raise-Taxes-on-the-Rich crowd.
he much-vaunted Republican pledge not to raise any taxes is crumbling. Today 34 Senate Republicans voted to end the special tax breaks for ethanol.
According to no-tax-increase purists like Grover Norquist, this is tantamount to a tax increase.
The truth is, Republicans are divided between those who want to bring down the budget deficit and those who want to shrink government. Ending a special tax subsidy helps reduce the deficit but doesn't necessarily shrink government. That's why Norquist and his followers have insisted any such tax increase – including even the closing of tax loopholes – be directly linked to a corresponding tax cut.
In order to save face on today's vote, Norquist says renegade Republicans will still be considered to have adhered to the pledge if they vote in favor of an amendment offered by Senator Jim DeMint to eliminate the estate tax. Talk about grasping at straws. DeMint's amendment isn't even up for a vote.
In short, the no-tax pledge is evaporating in the fresh air of reality.
What are anti-tax Republicans to do now?
For one, continue to distort the arguments of those who believe corporations and the rich should pay more taxes.
For example, in the lead op-ed piece in today's Wall Street Journal, Cato Institute fellow Alan Reynolds claims a higher marginal tax on the super rich will bring in less revenue.
Reynolds uses my tax proposal from last February as his red herring. "Memo to Robert Reich," he declares, "The income tax brought in less revenue when the highest rate was 70 percent to 91 percent [between 1950 and 1980] than it did when the highest rate was 28 percent."
Reynolds bends the facts to make his case, picking and choosing among years.
In truth, the most important variable explaining the rise and fall of tax revenues as percent of GDP has been the business cycle, not the effective tax rate. In periods when the economy is growing briskly, tax revenues have risen as a percent of GDP, regardless of effective rates; in downturns, revenues have fallen.
Reynolds also distorts my proposal, implying that the bracket on which I call for a 70 percent tax is the same as in today's tax code. Wrong. My proposed 70 percent rate would apply only to incomes over $15 million.
$15 million, Alan!
Under my proposal, incomes between $5 million and $15 million would be subjected to a 60 percent rate, and incomes between $500,000 and $5 million to a 50 percent rate.
Importantly, my proposal calls for a substantial rate reduction for families with incomes under $100,000. (Conveniently, Reynolds fails to mention this.)
Reynolds entirely ignores my central argument, which is that rather than depress economic growth, higher taxes on the rich correlate with higher growth. During almost three decades spanning 1951 to 1980, when the top rate was between 70 percent and 91 percent, average annual growth in the American economy was 3.7 percent.
Between 1983 and the start of the Great Recession, when the top rate dropped to between 35 percent and 39 percent, average growth was 3 percent.
How to explain this? Easy.
Since the early 1980s, a larger and larger share of total income has gone to the top (the richest 1 percent of Americans got 10 percent of total income in 1980, and get over 20 percent now). That's left the vast middle class with insufficient purchasing power to boost the economy - without going deep into debt.
Lower tax rates on the rich - including lower capital gains rates - have exacerbated this regressive trend.
Finally, having misread the facts, distorted my proposal, and ignored my argument, Reynolds fails to rebut my conclusion that raising middle class purchasing power by lowering their tax rates while raising the rates at the top will help spur growth, to the benefit of all. Top earners will do better with a smaller share of a more rapidly- growing economy a larger share of a slower-growing one.
If I were a cynic, I'd say the Republican right is showing signs of desperation.
Robert Reich is Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. He has served in three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. He has written thirteen books, including "The Work of Nations," "Locked in the Cabinet," "Supercapitalism" and his latest book, "AFTERSHOCK: The Next Economy and America's Future." His 'Marketplace' commentaries can be found on publicradio.com and iTunes.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
 19 May 2012
|
 18 May 2012
|
 18 May 2012
|
 19 May 2012
|
 20 May 2012
|
 19 May 2012
|
 19 May 2012
|
 20 May 2012
|
|
21 May 2012
|
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
You are correct. If only it was truly left up to the people.
News Flash!! A poll of every single American shows that they will support a tax increase on the wealthy by a 65% majority. Democratic leaders issued a statement saying they doubts that Americans will support any tax increases at this time. Republicans announced that any tax increase, especially on the wealthy will result in massive job loss. However, in light of this poll they would consider increasing taxes on the unemployed, including the disabled, the elderly, and of course children. Democrats responded that they are pleased to hear that Republicans are finally realizing that we can solve deficit crisis by increasing revenues.
During low economic times, the low end brackets creep down each year, while the high end brackets creep up.
Put the whole thing in reverse during good economic times.
The see-saw tax rates will approach an equilibrium over time. Only during times of low regulation that will cause the economy to swing violently from boom to bust will the see-saw rise and fall rapidly.
This gives the 'Republican Right Wing kiss up to the rich' voters an incentive to behave and get their way, while allowing our economy to both reward and help.
Any righties out there willing to meet half way on this road?
All I said was that we put in place a process to handle economic ups and downs. I would really like to hear a substansive criticism instead of calling a plan fascist because it give the righties what they want, but puts limits on it. Those limits prevent them from hurting our economic future.
The states responsibility does not lie in planning an economy. Regulation is not a tool of central planning, rather it serves as a counter balance to all the potential excesses of Capitalism.
That help you out?
I applaud any politician who works to end corn-ethanol fuel subsidies!
RSS feed for comments to this post.