I've been wondering how it is that raising taxes during a recession got to be a progressive line in the sand. Isn't it a good thing - all else equal - that the tax cuts will be extended temporarily?
Yes, of course, in the set of all stimulus measures, lower taxes on the rich are relatively inefficient. So, if raising taxes on the rich would enable some other, more efficient stimulus it would be a good thing. But is that the case? I see no evidence for it. If raising taxes on the rich will simply reduce the deficit, why should this be a progressive line in the sand? The deficit is too small. On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 7:20 AM, Max Sawicky <[email protected]> wrote: > The House is blameless. They voted for the bill. > What else could they do. The problem is in the > Senate and the White House, the latter apparently > negotiating the deal (extend all the rate cuts > temporarily, extend unemployment benes, who > knows what else) as we speak. > > > > On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 11:56 PM, michael perelman < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Inadvertent Insights from the Wall Street Journal >> >> The Wall Street Journal reports: "The House approved legislation >> Thursday that would extend current tax rates on income up to $250,000 >> while allowing taxes on higher earnings to rise, a largely symbolic >> vote that pointed to divisions among Democrats in the waning days of >> their dominance on Capitol Hill. The bill passed 234-188, but 20 >> Democrats opposed it -- mostly lawmakers who lost on Election Day and >> who agree with Republicans that it is bad policy to let any tax rates >> rise amid a fragile economy." >> >> Hook, Janet 2010. "Tax-Cut Vote Shows Democratic Divide: House Passes >> Extension Excluding Higher Incomes, a Largely Symbolic Effort >> Reflecting Unhappiness With White House." Wall Street Journal (3 >> December): p. A 5 >> >> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703377504575650901731419966.html?mod=ITP_pageone_1 >> >> >> Are we to believe that giving tax breaks to the super-rich will do >> wonders for the economy, or that the people are clamoring to give aid >> to those worthies. >> >> What about this Democratic divide? That only a few right-wing >> Democrats remain in the House; that the remaining Democrats generally >> oppose Obama and yet get elected. Their vote was largely symbolic >> because most of them know that Obama will cave and they can get credit >> for supporting the little guys who make less than a quarter million >> dollars a year. Then they can go about cutting benefits for the real >> little guys. >> >> >> -- >> Michael Perelman >> Economics Department >> California State University >> Chico, CA >> 95929 >> >> 530 898 5321 >> fax 530 898 5901 >> http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com >> _______________________________________________ >> pen-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l >> > > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > > -- Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org [email protected] Attend a "South of the Border" Screening on Human Rights Day http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/southofobama/search
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
