A wall-streeter says tax the wealthy archived

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/24/more-chips-for-tax-reform/

[...]So I’m all for raising rates as President Obama has proposed. But in a divided government, compromise is needed, and happily there are other chips that can be put on the table as we bargain over how to raise the needed revenue from the wealthy.

He's not just a Wall Streeter, he's a born and bred Democrat who has been in Obama's pocket from the git go-and his wife . . . isn't exactly a centrist either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Rattner

Another limousine liberal.

What has he proposed as far as spending cuts to match his tax increases? Because we know taxing isn't the issue (tax the 1% 100% doesn't solve anything), the problem is spending too much.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2010/12/30/rattner-settles-with-cuomo/

And not exactly a shining angel either.

He sure took care of himself when he had a chance!

Back in the day, when I put on an extra 10 pounds, I could get rid of it through excercise OR diet ... You reach a certain point in the road where you need excercise AND diet ... See where I'm going with this?

I'm trying to picture him being in anyone's "pocket."

JLD, as you noted, Rattner does not address the question of how to cut spending. That wasn't the topic of the piece.

We can talk about spending cuts, if you like. But for now, we're talking about raising taxes on the wealthy. There are two fundamental questions about taxing the wealthy: WHY and HOW.

The WHY seems pretty obvious. The lower income strata don't have the money to kick in more for taxes. (You've noticed that, right?) The wealthy do.

The HOW is a tricky question. I think Rattner's points are good. Basically, he says that no one way is the right way. We have to do them all in moderation. Moderation will help get them put into law. A long list of ways of taxing will make the revenue substantial.

We should all agree that the government should be cutting spending and also increasing revenues.

We should all agree on the topic of this thread. The topic is how to raise tax revenue from the wealthy. If you come here with a recipe, that's off topic. If you come in here and say we have to cut spending, that's off topic, too.

Should we listen to a guy who settled for millions of dollars of fines for pension fund kickbacks to line his own pockets? Sure, he can afford to pay a little more, after costing the regular joes just how many millions more dollars?

This is someone we should give a seconds thought on how to FIX the problem? HE WAS THE PROBLEM!

Not that jld cares much for Warren Buffet, but he had an editorial in the Times today too:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/26/opinion/buffett-a-minimum-tax-for-the-wealthy.html?ref=opinion

johnlockedema said:

Should we listen to a guy who settled for millions of dollars of fines for pension fund kickbacks to line his own pockets? Sure, he can afford to pay a little more, after costing the regular joes just how many millions more dollars?

This is someone we should give a seconds thought on how to FIX the problem? HE WAS THE PROBLEM!

Mark this down as the day JLD joined the 99%.

Occupy MOL!

ridski said:

johnlockedema said:

Should we listen to a guy who settled for millions of dollars of fines for pension fund kickbacks to line his own pockets? Sure, he can afford to pay a little more, after costing the regular joes just how many millions more dollars?

This is someone we should give a seconds thought on how to FIX the problem? HE WAS THE PROBLEM!

Mark this down as the day JLD joined the 99%.

Occupy MOL!

johnlockedema said:

What has he proposed as far as spending cuts to match his tax increases? Because we know taxing isn't the issue (tax the 1% 100% doesn't solve anything), the problem is spending too much.

Austerity models do not address unemployment. Until we put people back to work we shouldn't be cutting spending. When the economy improves then we should focus on cutting the deficit.

Republicans like high unemployment. Keeps their labor costs down.

The same Buffet who takes a ridiculously small salary to dodge taxes? That Buffet? :-D

johnlockedema said:

Should we listen to a guy who [blah blah blah]?

I don't know. Should we? What do we think of his ideas? Are they good or bad?

johnlockedema said:

The same Buffet who takes a ridiculously small salary to dodge taxes? That Buffet? :-D

He is maximizing his wealth, as we all should try to do. He bemoans that this is possible and legal, but while it's possible and legal, he'd be foolish not to take advantage. How many of us remit more taxes than we owe?

Read his piece. He points out that tax rates don't determine whether an investment is good or bad.

I did read his piece. It hasn't a word about fixing the problem of government spending being reined in.

So we should listen to a pension fund cheat, a hedge funder whose taken advantage of the carried interest scam, and someone who's been in Obama's back pocket-as a Wall Streeter?

He's the problem, not the solution.

And taxing 250K earners isn't the problem either.

It's the runaway train of spending.

It's borrowing almost half the money the US spends every year.

Would that work in the Reingold household for long?

johnlockedema said:

The same Buffet who takes a ridiculously small salary to dodge taxes? That Buffet? :-D

If he wrote a bigger check to the IRS simply because he feels like it, would that solve our economic woes?

The one thing I knew Romney was going to do (it was hard to tell because he switched positions on so many issues) was cut taxes for the most wealthy people in America. Well, America didn't buy that the problem with our system is that wealthy people are paying too much in taxes and need further reductions, and that such reductions will create jobs and more wealth for middle class people.

A plurality of voters heard the Romney message and rejected it. This is why Romney lost (not the bat-sh*t crazy stuff about Bengazi). Oh yes, and hiring as VP a man who is committed to destroying "entitlement" programs that everyone and their grandmother depends on didn't help either.

You should read the Buffet piece. He makes excellent points about the current hysteria in extremely wealthy circles about raising the marginal rate four points.

johnlockedema said:

I did read his piece. It hasn't a word about fixing the problem of government spending being reined in.

So we should listen to a pension fund cheat, a hedge funder whose taken advantage of the carried interest scam, and someone who's been in Obama's back pocket-as a Wall Streeter?

He's the problem, not the solution.

And taxing 250K earners isn't the problem either.

It's the runaway train of spending.

It's borrowing almost half the money the US spends every year.

Would that work in the Reingold household for long?

Where were you in the Bush administration? Cheering for an administration that didn't budget two wars and created the most foolishly wasteful "entitlement" program (Medicare Part D) in the history of all such programs?

When there's a deep recession, tax receipts fall and therefore budget deficits happen.

Where do you want to cut spending, jld? The defense department has had money thrown at it for a couple of decades now. Tom Rick thinks the people who run defense don't even think about budgets. Wouldn't that be a good place to start?

John, it pains me to say this, but I really do suspect that your talk of the 'runaway train of spending'' might be b.s.
The deficit and the borrowing are largely caused by the bursting of the housing bubble and the subsequent economic recession. Government spending has not changed considerably as a proportion of gdp since 2007, when the deficit was just over 1%.

johnlockedema said:

I did read his piece. It hasn't a word about fixing the problem of government spending being reined in.

So we should listen to a pension fund cheat, a hedge funder whose taken advantage of the carried interest scam, and someone who's been in Obama's back pocket-as a Wall Streeter?

He's the problem, not the solution.

And taxing 250K earners isn't the problem either.

It's the runaway train of spending.

It's borrowing almost half the money the US spends every year.

Would that work in the Reingold household for long?

Read this very slowly, please.

It is perfectly legitimate to write about how to take one step without mentioning another step, even if you agree the second step is entirely necessary. Not writing about the importance of spending cuts does not mean you oppose spending cuts.

As for the question of whom we should listen to, I say we should listen to ideas, not people. What do you think of the ideas posed in the Rattner and Buffett pieces?

gibb: "Where were you in the Bush administration? Cheering for an administration that didn't budget two wars and created the most foolishly wasteful "entitlement" program (Medicare Part D) in the history of all such programs?"
Please add that the money to provide the Bush Tax Cuts had to be borrowed. The budget surplus that Bush originally used to justify the tax cuts was history by that time.

Tom_Reingold said:

johnlockedema said:

I did read his piece. It hasn't a word about fixing the problem of government spending being reined in.

So we should listen to a pension fund cheat, a hedge funder whose taken advantage of the carried interest scam, and someone who's been in Obama's back pocket-as a Wall Streeter?

He's the problem, not the solution.

And taxing 250K earners isn't the problem either.

It's the runaway train of spending.

It's borrowing almost half the money the US spends every year.

Would that work in the Reingold household for long?

Read this very slowly, please.

It is perfectly legitimate to write about how to take one step without mentioning another step, even if you agree the second step is entirely necessary. Not writing about the importance of spending cuts does not mean you oppose spending cuts.

As for the question of whom we should listen to, I say we should listen to ideas, not people. What do you think of the ideas posed in the Rattner and Buffett pieces?

First Tom, read this slowly yourself.

Obama promised (although he didn't deliver) to halve the deficit.

That means (as he meant it, on the annual deficits) spending less-because there is no way to tax people enough to raise, say, $600 billion per year by raising taxes.

Since Obama is in favor of doing this, why aren't you?

Should really big earners like the crook Rattner pay more? Yes, really big earners. (Of course, why a man who got pension funds to invest with him by paying them kickbacks is being paid attention to-after all, he was complicit in cheating the people expecting pensions-is beyond me. Oops, he's a good buddy of Obama).

And again and again, if the top 1% paid 100% of their earnings in taxes it DOESN'T FIX THE PROBLEM FOLKS!

Actually, it does. But it's a stupid idea that no one has ever proposed.

johnlockedema said:

What has he proposed as far as spending cuts to match his tax increases? Because we know taxing isn't the issue (tax the 1% 100% doesn't solve anything), the problem is spending too much.

Who said that it is necessary for spending cuts to match tax increases? Now, matching spending cuts to tax DECREASES makes some sense, but that isn't what we are talking about here. They are two different things and two mechanisms to improve the balance of the budget, but needn't be tied to each other. (Except, perhaps, politically?)

sac said:

johnlockedema said:

What has he proposed as far as spending cuts to match his tax increases? Because we know taxing isn't the issue (tax the 1% 100% doesn't solve anything), the problem is spending too much.

Who said that it is necessary for spending cuts to match tax increases? Now, matching spending cuts to tax DECREASES makes some sense, but that isn't what we are talking about here. They are two different things and two mechanisms to improve the balance of the budget, but needn't be tied to each other. (Except, perhaps, politically?)

We're looking at, what, a 1.2 trillion dollar deficit this year. Obama promised and ran on halving that. He knows that is unsustainable, unless we want to be Greece.

So Obama wants to reduce 600 billion/year. Without spending decreases, do you think taxing the rich will solve that?

Nope.

Who gets the bill? All of those 53% of us who pay taxes. The 47%, who don't, well we know how they voted.

johnlockedema said:

Who gets the bill? All of those 53% of us who pay taxes. The 47%, who don't, well we know how they voted.

Leaving aside how nonsensical the "47%" label is ...

Anybody who bothers to read a newspaper knows where a lot of the "47%" live, and who they are, and how they may have voted. Hint - you're uninformed if you believe they all voted for Obama.

May I request that these stupid, uninformed, unsourced, and borderline you-know-what arguments not be used on MOL? I'd like to think that the discussions here could be conducted on a higher level. Thanks in advance.

May I request you pay attention to the facts, and not drink from the Kool Aid fountain? It causes shrinking of the brain.

And why is the fact that 47% of federal filers pay zero federal income tax nonsensical to you? Because it interferes with the myth of earners failing to pay their fair share? You and I already pay for the 47% who do not, correct?

johnlockedema said:

May I request you pay attention to the facts, and not drink from the Kool Aid fountain? It causes shrinking of the brain.

And why is the fact that 47% of federal filers pay zero federal income tax nonsensical to you? Because it interferes with the myth of earners failing to pay their fair share? You and I already pay for the 47% who do not, correct?

You really didn't read what I wrote, you spotted some terms and wrote your non-responsive response.

But, one hint to help you figure it out - in your post which I previously quoted, you wrote about "the 47% who don't" pay taxes.

And then you realized that you were wrong, so you qualified your statement in your reply. So, you proved my point.

johnlockedema said:

Without spending decreases, do you think taxing the rich will solve that?

I didn't say that. I just said that there is no logical reason that tax increases should be MATCHED by spending decreases. Tax increases might be greater or less than spending decreases ... but claiming a need for them to MATCH is purely political and doesn't necessarily represent what is economically best for the nation.

Tom,

Why only the wealthy/high income folk?

TomR