Common sense tax prescriptions

The good people at Next New Deal are releasing a series of articles that explain in easy-to-understand terms the kinds of policies the Obama administration ought to pursue in its second term in order to restore prosperity and shrink the gap between haves and have nots.

Yesterday, in one of the better ones, Mark Schmitt spells out three principles for restoring progressive taxation that are worth your time to consider.

“Our current tax system is a toxic legacy of the George W. Bush years. It loomed over Obama’s first four years, bearing deficits that limited the scope of economic stimulus, drove inequality to astonishing levels, and led directly to the debt limit showdown of the summer of 2011 that forced us into even more dangerous policies. President Obama’s second term offers a long overdue opportunity to restore the promise of progressive taxation and revenues that are adequate to our long-term economic priorities. It requires both short-term and long-term action.

The greatest failure of the tax system is not that it’s too complicated or inefficient or that there are too many “special-interest loopholes,” as House Speaker John Boehner put it on the day after the election. It’s that it doesn’t raise enough money and it encourages all sorts of manipulation because of the differential rates for investment income and income from work. These are not things that developed over time, as if by some natural process – they are the product of specific decisions made in 2001 and 2003 by Republican-controlled Congresses that used the budget reconciliation process to avoid any bipartisan compromise.

Here are some principles that the administration should hold to in restoring adequate and progressive taxation….”

Read the rest of the article by clicking here.

8 Comments

  1. Frank Burns

    November 20, 2012 at 8:43 am

    I knew it, the left has been licking its chops on imposing a carbon tax using the pretext that it will eliminate the imaginary problem of global warming. I noticed that the good people at the Next New Deal had no comment on cutting spending. What kind of a deal is that? They want to keep spending at high levels and increase our taxes. This is a definate no go. This proposal is hereby rejected as not being practical or fair to the middle class.

  2. david esmay

    November 20, 2012 at 9:59 am

    Those high spending levels are left overs from the reign of George the Dullard. The only thing imaginary, Frank, is the relevance of your comments. The cuts will come from the repug welfare for the wealthy, corporate subsidies, and defense.

  3. James

    November 20, 2012 at 10:14 am

  4. Alex

    November 20, 2012 at 11:14 am

    As usual david, you don’t have a clue about what you’re talking about. Welfare spending was $ 450 billion all the way back to 2008, and now under Obama has almost doubled to $800 billion dollars.Just food stamps alone are larger than your number. Just check out the US spending charts, it will amaze you.

  5. david esmay

    November 20, 2012 at 1:17 pm

    Alex, you just can’t stop lying and obfuscating facts, it’s a disease of epidemic proportions on the right. unemployment/ welfare/mandatory spending combined for 328 billion in 2008, 571 billion in 2011, mostly due to massive job losses caused by the recession.

  6. gregflynn

    November 20, 2012 at 1:47 pm

    The “US spending charts” referred to by Alex/Doug are not actual US spending charts. It is approximated data filtered on a conservative website to cast government spending in the worst possible light. It uses an extremely broad definition of “welfare” that includes budget items that fit no normal definition of “welfare”. Numbers for state and local components in recent years are “Guesstimated” (sic), not even budgeted. It is a cynical manipulation of numbers for political effect.

  7. Frank Burns

    November 21, 2012 at 8:44 am

    If Obama wants to restore the tax levels of Clinton, then he should also reduce the size of the federal governnment to when Clinton was in office. That means a $500 Billion cut, right now. http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveforbes/2012/11/20/president-obama-clinton-prosperity-requires-clinton-sized-government/

  8. david esmay

    November 21, 2012 at 11:38 am

    What was that massive expansion Frank the Troll? Why it was Bush’s Homeland Security and Defense expenditures to pay for his two unfunded wars. George the Dullard expanded government 115% during his reign, he’s right up there with big government Ronnie.