If numbers could persuade me that raising that rate injured job creation, I would reconsider my belief that the wealthy should pay more — because job creation is issue one. On the other hand, if the record established that raising the top marginal rate did not in any way injure investment and job creation, then those who have been unalterably opposed should be forced to reconsider their views as well. Analysis trumps ideology.

And we now have the analysis — a fascinating report just issued by the Congressional Research Service. The CRS is a nonpartisan entity that produces academic quality research to answer tough policy questions; its reports are put through a process of rigorous analysis before they are released. The bottom-line conclusion of the CRS report is this, and I quote:

“The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”

Eliot Spitzer: Raising taxes on the wealthy won’t disrupt job creation

Watch Eliot Spitzer and Bill Maher talk about the right-wing media bubble tonight at 8E/5P on Current TV.

On tax cuts: Reagan lied, Bush lied; should Mitt be believed?


One of the great mysteries in Mitt Romney’s campaign has been how to pay for the $4.8 trillion that would be lost from the 20 percent cuts he proposes in tax rates. Romney himself insists the plan is revenue neutral. Yet to fill the gap, he suggested only one idea Tuesday night: No one could write off more than $25,000 in tax deductions or credits. So let’s do the math — and we’ll get our number of the day: $4.1 trillion.
That’s how much the rate cuts would cost, even with that limit on write-offs. The Washington Post calculated that his cap on deductions would raise only about $730 billion. That doesn’t even come close to covering what he needs, to make this plan “revenue neutral.”
But then again, we’ve seen this kind of math before — from other Republicans.
Ronald Reagan said he would close the deficit by cutting taxes — and the deficit went up.
George W. Bush said he would close the deficit by cutting taxes — and the deficit went up.
Now Mitt Romney says he will close the deficit by cutting taxes. What do you think would happen to the deficit if Romney got to implement his plan?

On tax cuts: Reagan lied, Bush lied; should Mitt be believed?

One of the great mysteries in Mitt Romney’s campaign has been how to pay for the $4.8 trillion that would be lost from the 20 percent cuts he proposes in tax rates. Romney himself insists the plan is revenue neutral. Yet to fill the gap, he suggested only one idea Tuesday night: No one could write off more than $25,000 in tax deductions or credits. So let’s do the math — and we’ll get our number of the day: $4.1 trillion.

That’s how much the rate cuts would cost, even with that limit on write-offs. The Washington Post calculated that his cap on deductions would raise only about $730 billion. That doesn’t even come close to covering what he needs, to make this plan “revenue neutral.”

But then again, we’ve seen this kind of math before — from other Republicans.

Ronald Reagan said he would close the deficit by cutting taxes — and the deficit went up.

George W. Bush said he would close the deficit by cutting taxes — and the deficit went up.

Now Mitt Romney says he will close the deficit by cutting taxes. What do you think would happen to the deficit if Romney got to implement his plan?

At today’s Clinton Global Initiative Annual Meeting, Hillary Clinton stressed the need for greater taxation of the wealthy in order to spur growth. Read our blog for more: http://bit.ly/QdTTV4

At today’s Clinton Global Initiative Annual Meeting, Hillary Clinton stressed the need for greater taxation of the wealthy in order to spur growth. Read our blog for more: http://bit.ly/QdTTV4

cheatsheet:sunfoundation:


Putting Romney’s tax returns in presidential context

The controversy over what’s hiding in Mitt Romney’s unreleased tax returns continues.  But even without the missing filings, putting his 2010 and 2011 tax numbers in context is strikingly informative. It dramatically shows what an outlier Romney is on a few basic tax and income dimensions.

cheatsheet:sunfoundation:

Putting Romney’s tax returns in presidential context

The controversy over what’s hiding in Mitt Romney’s unreleased tax returns continues.  But even without the missing filings, putting his 2010 and 2011 tax numbers in context is strikingly informative. It dramatically shows what an outlier Romney is on a few basic tax and income dimensions.

Obamacare is a Tax Cut for the Middle Class (via Center for American Progress)

Obamacare is a Tax Cut for the Middle Class (via Center for American Progress)

romney2012:

EMANUEL: Romney Camp Thinks It’s Better To Be Attacked Than To Release Taxes

ABC’s This Week - July 15th, 2012

“He has released only one year - to the McCain campaign he released 23 years. And hes telling the American people ‘i’m not going to give you what i’ve given John McCain’s people in 2008.’ And when he gave them 23 years, John McCain’s people looked at it and said ‘lets go with Sarah Palin.’ 

pantslessprogressive:

“Now you may say that this simply reflects divided government. But while there are many instances of divided government on that chart — the 104th Congress, for instance, when Newt Gingrich and his Republican revolutionaries faced off against President Bill Clinton and still managed to pass 333 public laws — there’s no session of Congress with such a poor record of productivity.” - Ezra Klein
Klein also points out that, while Congress is still in session, “the 112th is three-quarters done, and it’s not yet half as productive as the next least-productive congress.”
13 reasons why this is the worst Congress ever

pantslessprogressive:

Now you may say that this simply reflects divided government. But while there are many instances of divided government on that chart — the 104th Congress, for instance, when Newt Gingrich and his Republican revolutionaries faced off against President Bill Clinton and still managed to pass 333 public laws — there’s no session of Congress with such a poor record of productivity.” - Ezra Klein

Klein also points out that, while Congress is still in session, “the 112th is three-quarters done, and it’s not yet half as productive as the next least-productive congress.”

13 reasons why this is the worst Congress ever