Today in Ridiculous Republican Amendments
So how does a typical day go for the weak Republican minority in the House? Let's look at July 8th and 9th. Here's a list of completely unhelpful amendments proposed by Republicans that were soundly rejected. Most of them are half-baked homages to conservative dogma (i.e. cutting programs indiscriminately), and they were clearly not written based on their practical effects.
· Rejected: cut aid and global aid funding by $1 billion (Buyer, R-IN)
· Rejected: cut Peace Corps funding by $77 million (Stearns, R-FLA)
· Rejected: cut foreign aid by a half billion (Culberson, R-TX)
· Rejected: four separate Republican motions to adjourn on July 8th
· Rejected: cut FDA employee salaries by $373 million (Broun, R-GA)
· Rejected: cut discretionary spending in Ag appropriations bill by 5% (Blackburn, R-TN)
Somebody should tell these guys they need some new ideas. Just saying 'cut this and cut that' can end up directly causing a lot of suffering. Republican Jeff Flake proposed a few amendments to chisel away funding to specific programs, like an environmental cleanup project in Maryland, which tells me there is a chance that the project could be porky. But to call for hammering a billion dollars out of global aid, or $373 million from FDA employees really shows you how a lot of Republicans just want to cut something and don't care enough to cut carefully.
you know, Carl, I think you have an interesting tact here that you should update on a weekly basis--a collection of all rejected Republican amendments that are designed specifically to block or poison or slow down the process of governing.
This needs more sunlight.
July 14, 2009 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like the idea- I actually thought about doing the same thing shortly after I posted this. There's so much dirt waiting to be dug up in the amendment process
July 14, 2009 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
So then what do you guys propose cutting?
July 14, 2009 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
They to cutting people's income, by taxing anyone who earns more than they do.
July 14, 2009 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm all for cutting your wages, Lalo... you appear not to be suffering nearly enough. Otherwise you'd change your tune right away.
July 14, 2009 10:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really? I think he's just being practical. Why tax someone more than their fair share of the national income?
July 15, 2009 12:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why tax someone more than their fair share of the national income?
Because we can or of necessity?
It was already that way once in my lifetime. Which means it can happen again. But for the moment things are decidely in the opposite way.
July 15, 2009 4:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
The percentage of taxes paid by the rich keeps going up and up. They are paying much more than their share of the total national income.
You want to take the top rates back to 70+% and have the rich pay even more?
July 15, 2009 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
July 15, 2009 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which facts did I have incorrect? What I meant to say (and apologies if you misinterpreted), is that the top 1% of filers (in 2006) earned 22% of the total nation's income but paid 40% of the total tax bill. The top half earn 88% of the income and pay 97% of the taxes. The bottom half earn 12% but only pay 3% of the taxes.
Unfortunately (or fortunately?) I am not in the top 1%.
I wasn't talking about the top marginal rate. I was talking about the percentage of the total tax bill paid relative to the percentage of the total national income that they generate. The trend is that they continue to pay a much greater percentage of the overall nation's tax bill.
July 15, 2009 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Got a link?
July 15, 2009 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Link to what? The data I quoted? It's all on the IRS website. www.irs.gov/taxstats
July 15, 2009 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you find a link that supports your contention, I'd be glad to look at it. If what you say is true in the face of the decreasing Top marginal income tax rates, that indicates that those top earners have been getting richer at a greater rate than the earners in the lower tiers of income. A so called wealth transfer has been taking place from the less affluent to the affluent. You just made a case for transferring some of the largesse back to the lower income groups by raising taxes on the upper tier. Nice try.
July 15, 2009 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why are you too lazy to go to the IRS website and analyze the data? It's right here. http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=96981,00.html
And it does not mean as you suggest that the rich are just getting richer. Look at the Treasury's study of income mobility. This study shows that 58% of filers who were in the poorest income group in 1996 moved into a higher category by 2005. And 5% made it into the highest category. And the richest 1% experienced an absolute decline in their income.
http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/hp673.htm
The decline in the top marginal rate wasn't the only thing changing over the past several years. The intermediate brackets also had lowering rates. So there were a lot of moving variables. You can't simplify things and say that the rich paying a larger share when their marginal rate is going down means that they're getting richer. That's just incomplete analysis. You'd have to also look at the changes in the other rate breakpoints. You'd also have to look at the deductions, credits, etc. To use your words, "nice try".
July 15, 2009 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not lazy, I'm just not going to research your claims for you. Again, if you can point to the specific statistics you claim, I'll be happy to look at them. So why don't you cite those studies you're privy to that include all those other "pointbreaks" that will clarify your argument? Movement up from the lowest quintile is the easiest group to transition out of. I don't think the median income decreasing for the top 1/100 of a percent of taxpayers says anything about what the top 5% of taxpayers experienced over the same time period. The 'statistics' in your linked report don't support your contention. Try again?
July 15, 2009 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I sent you the IRS website link. If you choose to ignore it, that's your business. The spreadsheet is pretty self-explanatory.
And I wasn't the one that brought up the "rich getting richer" fallacy. That was you. But since you asked about the top 5%, you'll see in the report that their median income actually fell 6.8%.
When the "poor" and the "rich" are composed of different people over time that I don't view that as the rich getting richer. Some of the poor people are moving up and the rich are moving down.
July 15, 2009 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
You must be talking about some link I'm not privy to. One of your links takes me to a page with a bunch of other links and the other takes me to a one page report with a dysfunctional link at the bottom. Care to supply the actual link to the page you're referring to?
July 15, 2009 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=96981,00.html
The above IRS link takes you to a page. And then you need to click on another link under "All Returns: Selected Income and Tax Items" and click on 2006. It will open up the spreadsheet. You can see in the spreadsheet that the top 1% of filers (in 2006) earned 22% of the total nation's income but paid 40% of the total tax bill. The top half earn 88% of the income and pay 97% of the taxes. The bottom half earn 12% but only pay 3% of the taxes.
July 15, 2009 9:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
So how does the data from one year, 2006 prove anything about your original premise for this ridiculous exchange?
I'm getting tired of trying to get a straight answer here. See you tomorrow? Have a good night.
July 15, 2009 11:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you look at the other years you will see the same thing. And the trend is increasing. In 1996, for example, the top half of filers in the country earned 95% of the taxable income and paid 97% of the total taxes. So over that 10 year span, they earned less of the overall nation's income but paid the same amount of the nation's taxes.
July 16, 2009 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
MCB you're only talking about income taxes and therefore are misleading anyone who takes your wingnut talking points seriously.
If you want to live in a banana republic run by by the rich, for the rich, and the benefit of the rich, where the rest of the populous is dirt poor and to be used and abused at your discretion to increase your wealth then please, by all means, move to one.
July 15, 2009 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you include payroll taxes it doesn't move the needle enough. My argument still holds.
Your idea to move to 91% top rates when the economy is flat on its back would be a disaster but it also wouldn't be enough. In 2006 (the last year of IRS data available), people making over $500,000 in annual taxable income didn't have enough gross income such that if you taxed ALL of it (ie 100% effective rate) you'd still just take in only about $1 trillion in revenue. And in the next couple years we won't be seeing the income levels people enjoyed in 2006. So even taking all their money won't be enough to pay for the $1 trillion in annual average deficits the CBO is projecting every year through 2019.
July 15, 2009 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
By using language like "taking it all" you do not seem to understand the term "top marginal rate". By including only income and payroll taxes you don't seem understand tax policy at all. Better to use total percentage of income paid for all taxes. The wealthiest among us don't pay anywhere near what everyone else pays using that metric.
Kowtowing to the "plight" of the rich has wrecked the country. It's time we stopped propping up their desire to financialize every transaction in America so the "investor class" can have a cut.
July 15, 2009 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understand perfectly well what the marginal rate is. My point is that raising the marginal rate to 90+% won't balance our budget deficit. You'd have to raise the rich's effective rate to 100% to raise enough to balance the budget. Obviously that's not a reality.
And if you want to include social security, estate and other taxes, then the rich still pay more than their fair share. Show me some data that disproves my point if you still disagree.
July 15, 2009 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
You think it's not 'fairness' when the rich pay higher tax rates. I think its not 'fairness' when people born into poverty are practically guaranteed to die in poverty. It's not fair when you have a 10% chance of getting a college education if you were born into a poor family, and an 80% chance if you were born into a rich family. It's not fair that poor people die earlier and can't afford health insurance to detect diseases like cancer early. How can you ignore all of the tragedies that come from the unfairness of being born into poverty, all to preserve 'fairness' in the tax bracket?
July 15, 2009 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not ignoring those tragedies. But I don't see how increasing the share of taxes paid by the rich will fix this.
The study done by the Treasury in 2007 shows that income mobility in this country is not as bad as people make it out to be.
http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/hp673.htm
July 15, 2009 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bullshit. The rich don't pay anywhere near their fair share for what they derive from living in the USA. Of course taxing them at 91% or even 100% top marginal tax rate won't balance the budget.
You can complain about the share of income taxes paid by the wealthiest 1% but the fact is thanks to bad tax policy and horrible laws like the bankruptcy bill they now have most of the wealth.
You let me know when congress cracks down on tax evasion in the Caymans, ends payday lending scams against the poor, rescinds the disgusting bankruptcy bill, and stops bank and credit card fee bilking of their customers and maybe I'll sympathize with ya. Until then the playing field in this country is tilted so far to the wealthy your Tax Foundation talking points ring very hollow.
July 15, 2009 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
These aren't talking points - just quoting data from www.irs.gov
Sorry if you don't like it. But I don't see why anyone should be a different tax rate than somebody else. If you generate X% of the country's income, you should pay X% of the country's tax bill
July 15, 2009 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
You and Steve Forbes. We didn't elect Steve Forbes.
July 15, 2009 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
How is that relevant? Whether or not Forbes won an election doesn't mean that people didn't agree with his flat tax ideas. I think people thought he was too one-dimensional to be president. But that doesn't mean he had bad tax ideas
July 15, 2009 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
The flat tax was his only idea, hence the one dimensional candidate was roundly rejected. His big idea didn't fly because it's even more regressive than what we have now. You need a new nickname Bill. Middleclass doesn't fit you. What percentage of annual income do you think each of the 5 quintiles pays in taxes each year? And I mean all taxes, sales, excise, income, state, payroll etc.? The 3 bottom rungs are barely hanging on in this country these days Bill. And you're complaining about what amounts to a tidbit more from your discretionary income?
July 15, 2009 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Show me some data and stop referring to Steve Forbes. It's a terrible argument. There's a million other reasons why people didn't vote for him. Rather than ask me what percentages I think they pay, please show me.
July 15, 2009 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't have time to do your homework for you Bill. It's disingenuous to argue that those at the very top carry most of the tax load in this country. They don't.
July 15, 2009 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're going to make the claim but with no data to support it? That's pathetic.
July 15, 2009 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's plenty of evidence to be had Bill. You know it, I know it, educate yourself. I'm not going to waste my time arguing with another wingnut. You lost, get used to it.
July 15, 2009 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's plenty of evidence but you can't show me any? At least I showed data to back up my claim.
Show me the data that includes all of your various taxes. It still will show that the rich's percentage of total taxes paid is larger than their percentage of income that they generate. Including payroll, excise, estate tax et al won't change the conclusion.
July 15, 2009 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think a flat tax is a silly idea, but if we're going to consider one, let's apply it across the board. Sales tax, gasoline tax, cigarette tax, alcohol tax, cell phone surcharges, hunting and fishing licenses, highway tolls--anything the government collects money for, put it on a sliding scale, based on income. If you're willing to consider that, I'll take you seriously. Otherwise, you're being disingenuous.
July 15, 2009 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
How would you actually implement a sliding scale for a consumption tax? Are they going to ask me at the register when I go to pay for my beer how much money I make so they can calculate my tax?
Questions:
1) What if I don't smoke? You want me to pay the same amount of tax as somebody else pays on their cigarettes each week? (Assuming we have equal incomes). I have to pay a cigarette tax even though I don't smoke?
2) Or if I choose not to be a spendthrift and don't buy a second car, big screen TV, etc - do I have to pay the same sales taxes as somebody who buys a lot of luxury items?
3) Lets say I make a lot more money than someone else. We both pay 15% tax on our incomes under a flat tax. You want a sliding scale based on income to calculate our alcohol tax? What if I buy one bottle of wine every week and the poor person buys a case? We are supposed to each pay an equal amount of liquor tax even though the poor person drinks a lot more than me?
Please shed some more details around your proposal.
July 15, 2009 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sales tax, and every tax or surcharge, would be calculated as a percentage of income. So, .00001 percent or whatever. Whenever you buy something, you pay that percent of your income in sales tax. I'll leave it to the imaginary math geniuses to figure out the imaginary formulas, since it's a ridiculous idea--sort of like the flat income tax.
July 15, 2009 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is a flat tax ridiculous? If you generate 1% of the nation's income then you should pay 1% of the nation's taxes. That's easy to calculate. I still can't figure out how you'd implement a sliding scale sales tax. I gave you 3 examples but you chose not to address them.
July 15, 2009 10:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh and how about we move back up to the 91% top marginal income tax rate we had under Eisenhower for a decade or two? It'd get us out from underneath the $11 trillion dollar nat'l debt Republicans have run up since St. Ronnie took office and it'd have the added benefit of sending unpatriotic billionaire ideologues offshore looking for another country to screw up and pledge allegiance to.
July 15, 2009 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Geeeeeeeeez, are you telling me with a straight face that there actually are repubs in the House of Representatives. Ha!!!
Well, let's see. When they were in power they just worked 2 or 3 days a week if I recall correctly. Ha!
July 15, 2009 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink