Comments on: Why tax hikes need to be way off the table

By: Bottom-lining the debt deal « The Greenroom

Bottom-lining the debt deal « The Greenroom — Mon, 01 Aug 2011 21:16:26 +0000

[…] address taxes, I’ve got bad news for everybody (or at least everybody who doesn’t think a non-WWII record level of revenues as a percentage of GDP in 2021 is a bad idea) on that front. Any attempt to either extend any part of the Bush tax rates beyond […]

By: steveegg

steveegg — Mon, 01 Aug 2011 21:11:11 +0000

In reply to J. Strupp. They're not taking my calls either :-)

By: No Runny Eggs » Blog Archive » Bottom-lining the debt deal

No Runny Eggs » Blog Archive » Bottom-lining the debt deal — Mon, 01 Aug 2011 21:09:48 +0000

By: J. Strupp

J. Strupp — Mon, 01 Aug 2011 19:16:16 +0000

Shit Steve, sounds like they could use some real wage growth. Maybe you could put in a good word with the “job creators”.

By: steveegg

steveegg — Mon, 01 Aug 2011 18:16:45 +0000

In reply to J. Strupp. You mean the "poor"? After all, the bottom third of wage-earners have a net negative total federal tax liability, and the bottom half have a net negative income tax liability.

By: J. Strupp

J. Strupp — Mon, 01 Aug 2011 18:05:15 +0000

I have no problem with 20%+ tax revenues as long as the increase in tax revenues is primarily generated from the segment of society who have benefitted disproportionally from the financialization and deregulation of the American economy over the past 30 years. Doing so would have have little effect on growth and employment.

By: Shoebox

Shoebox — Mon, 01 Aug 2011 12:04:06 +0000

Tax increases are guaranteed if this bill passes. The baseline has the bush tax cuts expiring. Any attempt to reinstate them will be viewed as “new spending” or an increase in the shortfall which would require something in return…this debate should always have been about the amount of real spending…whether discussed that way or not, that is the issue.