Bill Maher Says “Taxes Are Too High” – Washington Times

By Cheryl K. Chumley

Liberal HBO “Real Time” host Bill Maher says he may leave California, due to the state’s high tax rate.

“Liberals,” he said, during a recent broadcast,” you could actually lose me.”

He made the comments during a panel discussion of current Capitol Hill budget policy that included the participation of MSNBC Rachel Maddow, who blasted Rep. Paul Ryan’s proposal as beneficial to the rich.

“The Ryan budget is a document that says the big problems in American right now are that rich people do not have enough money. They need relief from confiscatory tax rate,” she said, Newsbusters reports.

Mr. Maher answered: “You know what? Rich people — I’m sure you’d agree with this — actually do pay the freight in this country.”

Mr. Maher then cited statistics that California millionaires pay nearly 40 percent to the federal government and another near 15 percent to the state.

“I just want to say liberals — you could actually lose me. It’s outrageous what we’re paying — over 50 percent. I’m willing to pay my share, but yeah, it’s ridiculous,” he said, Newsbusters reports.

via Bill Maher threatens to leave California — due to high taxes – Washington Times.

 

Grady’s Comments:

Taxes are tragically one of the most divisive topics in our nations political hemisphere,  and there is more that the populist portion of this nation would agree on than there is for them to disagree on, if there is an honest discussion. Paying taxes is no fun, but investing in society can do great things! Unless of course if you don’t like the internet, interstate highways, etc… I mean, most people take advantage of, and seem to enjoy a lot that public investment has wrought. There is plenty of disagreement to be had, but there is a disconcertingly dishonest narrative, for the most part, that Democrats want TONS of taxes, and Republicans want 0% (ZERO) taxes… People in either party want a government that has basic functionality, and that isn’t free. Due to a toxic environment for debate and discussion I sadly think that people’s understanding of what it takes to have a government that works is very skewed. In polling people repeatedly show that they don’t know what is most expensive, and they don’t know what benefits they receive from paying taxes. And when people don’t realize they they are a part of the problem things can get ugly… It’s like dating someone who thinks that they are low maintenance  but they very clearly to everyone else are high maintenance… Why won’t their friends just say something?!!

Now, with all of that said – there is little disagreement from as far as I can tell that people almost across the board want a simpler, more flat tax code. And if rates are to be staggered the majority of people in polling that I’ve seen have said that they think that those with more should pay higher rates (Adam Smith himself thought this was best) – but there is a limit to this approach, and I think that popular opinion on this is also changing. I think that we are going to find our selves in the near future with a voting populous that wants an even flatter tax code, and they might call for more people to pay. This however will be increasingly hard to achieve with growing income disparity breaking barriers at increasing speeds.

At the end of the day I agree with Bill’s comments. I think that there are a lot of people with a lot of money who pay too much in taxes. However, there are a number of people who don’t pay near as much in taxes, in terms of their rate especially, and it’s a real problem not just because of simple fairness, but because of the side-affects of having such an imbalanced society. Our convoluted tax code allows for those who don’t work to pay half of the rate of those who do work (ie: capitol gains, and the carried interest), and that’s before they add in deductions which could dwindle those rates into oblivion with the right tax lawyers/ninjas.

As this is somewhat of a confusing conversation with so many contrasting stories about people who do and don’t pay taxes we simply need to recognize that our tax system is broken, and from there move towards a system where work should be incentivized. If you hear people talk about the “1%” take note of what they’re saying, and then consider that the real problem in having that stereotype continually repeated is that we are lumping together some people who do pay taxes, and some people who don’t. I want to talk about it, but I want to Really talk about it – it’s just not simple. Most of the people who don’t “pay their fair share” (pay a normalish rate) have so much money that they don’t look like the other 99% of the top 1%… We are talking about very few people, but a LOT of money. When a millionaire like Bill Maher (who is quite liberal) talks about paying too much in taxes he is getting at a very real problem that is very confusing to the public, because when it comes to paying taxes it’s a game, and if you’re reading this you are probably losing…

Fiscal Cliff Blame Game (part 2)

I posted recently about polling on the Fiscal Cliff, and who voters were most likely to hold responsible if there were to be a negative outcome. Well, the polling showed a heavy lean towards the blame being placed on congressional Republicans, and newer polling shows that the gap has virtually closed. This is all of
Of course this is all according to polling, and since I have a hard time believing that the numbers closed as much as the polls would indicate I would imagine that one of them is wrong.

Another point of interest, assuming that this polling is somewhat accurate is the gap between the parties willingness to compromise. I wish that compromise wasn’t such a dirty word…

Fiscal Cliff Blame Game Polling, and Historical Tax Rates vs Economic Prosperity

Public opinion is often not the most accurate predictor of truth or fairness in my opinion (see civil rights), however public opinion matters in a democracy. I first want to show a chart that I came across which tells a story that people seem to not recognize in a public consciousness. Over the last century the highest tax rate has change significantly many times, but the actual marginal rate that the people categorized as members of those highest tax brackets haven’t necessarily changed quite so much, mostly due to loopholes in the tax code. This chart however tells a story of the economy in relation to those high end tax rates changing, and I’m posting it to say that speaking of higher taxes doesn’t kill the economy as it is said to, but there is undoubtably a threshold, and we must approach this conversation with an understanding of nuance.

With this chart out of the way, and the debate over taxes still raging let’s examine public opinion of who people seem to hold most responsible.

So, it seems that in political terms that the President has an upper hand right now, but the before they start to do some kind of victory dance we should also note that people still seem to believe that they won’t make a deal…

I share, to a degree, some level of skepticism over whether or not they’ll pass a deal (even if that means after January 1st), but I tend to believe that we are witnessing theatrics. I think that as our nation is so polarized the people expect a fight, and anyone not seeming to put up a fight risks losing support from their base. I might be overly naive, but I really hope this is the case…

-Grady

From All Sides, Fiscal Plans Fall Far Short of What’s Needed – Steve Rattner

From All Sides, Fiscal Plans Fall Far Short of What’s Needed.

Well, long story short, I agree with Mr. Rattner again. I think that he’s right that neither side has had a sufficient plan, but that doesn’t make their proposals equal (that would be just too convenient for the Ralph Nader’s of the world, who I actually do like). I think that in the middle of these debates it would have been wonderful to watch real reforms take place. Let’s look at it from a health stand point, as if our nation was a human body – we are having a very hard time trying to stop the bleeding from our wounds after having fallen on our face in a drunken stupor, but we don’t seem willing to stop the drinking that is causing our wounds inside and outside of our body… Does that make senses? We have a broken system, and it can’t get better until we have a discerning decision making body that wants to live and thrive. I have plugged this group multiple times before, but maybe it takes some outside ideas to get things working again, and I think No Labels might be our 12 step program… If for no other reason I encourage you to check out their plans for reform that would help us move forward, especially their plan to Make Congress Work.

– Grady

From All Sides, Fiscal Plans Fall Far Short of What’s Needed

DECEMBER 3, 2012

Originally published in the New York Times

We don’t yet know whether our economy will take the icy plunge off the fiscal cliff, but do we know this: At present course and speed, any budget deal that emerges from the intense brinkmanship now under way would fall short of every sensible ambition for fiscal reform.

Forget about balancing the budget. Forget about paying down any of the government’s $11 trillion of obligations (the debt owed to the public). Nor will the package currently being discussed achieve the minimal target of centrist deficit hawks (myself among them), that of stabilizing the rate in which the national debt is growing in relation to the economy.

Battered by four years of trillion-dollar-plus deficits, this “debt-to-G.D.P.” ratio has climbed from 36 percent in 2007 to 73 percent at present. Halting its rise would require at least $4 trillion of revenue increases and spending reductions (including the nearly $1 trillion of savings enacted last year) over the next decade.

President Obama has put on the table a package that should be commended for its willingness to both increase taxes on the wealthy and at least dent the mushrooming costs of entitlement programs, most importantly Medicare.

But “scored” fairly, the Obama plan would contribute about $3 trillion to lower projected deficits, at least $1 trillion short of what’s needed.

The Republicans are much further from the mark, having not yet even put forward a formal plan. However, none of the intimations from their leaders suggest that their plan will exceed the White House’s in size.

While the Republicans have importantly conceded on the need for tax increases, they’ve vociferously objected to Mr. Obama’s proposed $1.6 trillion in added revenue as excessive. On Sunday, the House speaker, John A. Boehner, said that he would support around $800 billion of new revenue over the next decade, similar to what he offered during budget negotiations with Mr. Obama in July.

And on the spending side, while criticizing Mr. Obama’s proposals as too timid, the policy changes that the Republicans have endorsed – such as raising the Medicare retirement age and slowing cost-of-living increases for Social Security – fall well short of Mr. Obama’s.

Both sides appear more interested in reaching an understanding that avoids the cliff than in achieving the full range of necessary reforms.

And forget about the huge overhaul of our Rube Goldberg tax system and government spending priorities dreamed about by fiscal reformers. What’s likely to emerge will be better described as tweaks, and maybe not so many of those.

The bible of deficit hawks – the report of the Simpson-Bowles commission – now feels quaint, with its talk about rewriting the tax code to eliminate loopholes and lower rates, not to mention its call to revamp federal spending to emphasize investment programs that will aid American competitiveness and growth.

Perhaps a surge of courage will inspire Congress and the White House to embrace more sweeping change.

But the brutal process of stabilizing America’s fiscal problem is so charged with political peril, for Congress and the White House alike, that the willingness to go big and to go bold seems likely only to diminish as the cliff steadily approaches.

Home | Bio | Articles | Media | Blog | Overhaul | Contact | Media Requests

© Steven Rattner 2012

Millionaires Meet with Grover Norquist – YouTube

Millionaires meet with Grover Norquist – YouTube.

This is the kind of debate that I love to watch. Grover is definitely teamed up on in this video, but being the voice of this movement that doesn’t often have to answer for it’s self I I’m kind of ok with that. Hearing him defend himself does help me to appreciate what he is doing, but I still find that his influence has had a net negative impact on our government and our people. What do you think about this?

What Changes To Expect On Taxes – “More Chips for Tax Reform” by Steve Rattner

More Chips for Tax Reform.

I am tempted to write a lot about this article, but I’m going to limit myself. I appreciate that this column addresses that there are many sides of taxation. The biggest debate between Republicans and Democrats on revenue (tax money) increases to close the deficit/debt is whether we should raise rates (possibly not addressing loopholes), or only closing loopholes and not changing any rates. And the battle over the rates is a battle over the rates of a very small portion of people . The Republicans have been suggesting closing tax loopholes to raise revenue, but my biggest question is which loopholes they would close and who would be affected. The Democrats have mostly been suggesting a raise in rates because they don’t think that closing loopholes in our dysfunctional congress is very feasible. I tend to be very skeptical that closing loopholes alone would raise the levels of revenue (probably around 1.2 trillion dollars) that we would necessarily need.

I was very glad to hear Mr. Rattner highlight a few of the main loopholes that have caused room for debate on tax fairness for the extraordinarily wealthy: capital gains/dividends, and the carried interest loophole. I posted the other day about Obama’s Tax Plan (via Steve Rattner) and here is an image to visualize that a little bit before you read the article:

I hope you enjoy the article.

-Grady

More Chips For Tax Reform

NOVEMBER 25, 2012

Originally published in the New York Times

Almost lost in the tug of war over whether the top income tax rate should be 35 percent or 39.6 percent is another consequential tax issue: the proper rate for capital gains and dividends.

It was the absurdly low rate on those forms of income – just 15 percent – that yielded Mitt Romney’s embarrassingly small tax payments. And that’s what also led to Warren E. Buffett’s lament that his tax rate was lower than his secretary’s.

So as we scurry around looking for new revenue to help address the yawning budget deficit, let’s zero in on this special preference.

President Obama has proposed much of the needed adjustment, including eliminating the special treatment of dividends and raising the tax on capital gains to 20 percent for the rich.

Personally, I would go further and raise the capital gains rate to 28 percent, right where it was during the strong recovery of Bill Clinton’s first term, and grab hold of a total of $300 billion of new revenues over the next decade.

Inevitably, a chorus of outrage would greet any such increase. Capital investment would be severely impaired! Some of the wealthy might decamp from America! With a new 3.8 percent Medicare tax on unearned income about to take effect, this would exacerbate the disincentives for investment!

Put me down as skeptical about such dire forecasts. During my 30 years on Wall Street, taxes on “unearned income” have bounced up and down with regularity, and I’ve never detected any change in the appetite for hard work and accumulating wealth on the part of myself or any of my fellow capitalists.

Remember also that corporate leaders have pretty much convinced policy makers of both parties that business taxes should be reformed to allow them to compete more effectively around the globe. Providing this relief makes sense, but since the benefits would flow to shareholders, this is yet another argument for higher taxes on dividends.

Increased revenues, meaning higher taxes, will be a central element of any successful long-term budget plan, and President Obama is right to insist that the wealthy – the slice of America that has come through the recession in by far the best financial health – should provide those funds.

Here’s the math: We need at least $4 trillion of long-term deficit reduction, with a substantial portion – on the order of $1.2 trillion – coming from new revenues.

That means other veins belonging to the wealthy will need to be tapped. Raising the tax rates for American households with incomes above $250,000 per year, as President Obama has proposed, would certainly be a productive and welcome step.

But viable alternative measures are available. At a minimum, we need to implement the “Buffett Rule,” the concept that Americans making more than $1 million a year should pay at least 30 percent of their income in taxes. This wouldn’t raise a huge amount of money – between $47 billion and $160 billion depending on what else is done to rates – but it would reinforce the responsibility of the wealthy to pay their fair share.

The New York Times

Sources: Treasury Department; Tax Policy Center; Joint Committee on Taxation

Another important step toward tax fairness would be to address the indefensibly low 15 percent tax rate on the famous “carried interest,” the fee received by private equity and certain hedge fund investors.

As a beneficiary of the carried interest loophole, I’ve seen firsthand the lack of any difference between the work involved in generating a carried interest and the work done by millions of other professionals who are taxed at the full 35 percent rate.

Another productive area for raising revenue would be limiting deductions available to the wealthy. The highest-income Americans don’t need tax-free health insurance, mortgage interest deductions or deferred taxation on retirement funds.

Mitt Romney himself proposed an efficient and effective approach: just limit the total amount of deductions. Even excluding charitable deductions from this limitation – as I would personally advocate – capping deductions at $25,000 would raise large amounts of revenue, an estimated $885 billion over the next 10 years.

While Mr. Romney called for applying the limitation to all Americans, a fairer approach would be to impose it only on the wealthiest.

These types of tax changes would have the ancillary benefit of defusing a specious argument that conservatives love to make: that raising the top rates on ordinary income would hurt small business.

Certainly no small business can claim to be damaged by a higher rate on dividends or capital gains or by the proprietor’s losing some tax deductions.

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.

Home | Bio | Articles | Media | Blog | Overhaul | Contact | Media Requests

C-SPAN: Full Vice Presidential Debate with Gov. Palin and Sen. Biden

C-SPAN: Full Vice Presidential Debate with Gov. Palin and Sen. Biden.

;

;

;

Sarah: “Hey, can I call you Joe?”

Joe: “You can call me Joe.”

Sarah: “Okay good, thanks.”

;

The time has come… I love this time, when caring about what’s going on doesn’t make me completely bothersome to my friends 🙂

Tonight the the Vice-Presidential debate, and I think that there are a few things to point out to those who seem to have short memories.

4 years ago Sarah Palin was said to have losed the Vice-Presidential debate to Joe Biden by the main stream media, but the McCain-Palin ticket was wildly happy with her performance… She spoke simply, and a lot of people liked what she had to say. I personally am glad that she was not ever given a real chance to be the President of this country, but I love hearing her as a part of the debate. As a governor she helped fight a lot of big oil companies on behalf of the people… People forget that.

On the flip side, Joe Biden does seem to say and to things that can very easily become a laugh line, but he is no joke… Vice-President Biden is incredibly smart, and practiced in what he’s doing. As the Chairman on the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations he knows a lot about this world that we live in. Not to mention, the gaffes that he has made have been pretty honest mistakes for the most part… I haven’t seen too many “Freudian” slips of the tongue about him believing something other than what he claims to believe. He has done things like asked a man who sat in a wheelchair to stand and be recognized .. He dropped the F-Bomb in a microphone after the Affordable Care Act was passed (I actually kind of liked seeing him genuinely excited, we never see stuff like that from political figures).

And as for Paul Ryan, he has shown himself to be a formidable fighter and contender, but he also seems to be pretty deceptive and dishonest to me… I’m disappointed in how he’s campaigned since being selected, and I don’t want him to be the Vice-President. However, I am glad that he can be a spearhead to start conversation about actual changes that need to be made, and hopefully he can be that spearhead.

I think that underestimating either the Vice-President or Congressman Ryan would be unwise, but to get excited for tonight’s debate I’m going to have to watch the debate between then Senator Biden, and Governor Palin… Please join me 🙂

The First Presidential Debate of 2012 (Complete) Romney vs.Obama – 10/3/2012 University of Denver

Presidential Debate 2012 (Complete) Romney vs.Obama – 10/3/2012 – Elections 2012.

Here is the full debate, and I’m going to put my quick thoughts below (so that I don’t spoil anything if you want to make up your own mind), but I’ll post some more thorough thoughts later.

Full Debate

OK, so far all of the analysis that I’ve heard tonight is that people feel that Mitt Romney got the best of this debate. On a personal note I don’t necessarily agree, but I understand how that might be true when speaking about the electorate. I think that this is going to be surprising to many because of the views that people have about these 2 people and their person-ability (and on that note I think that Obama looked much more comfortable but that Mitt looked more engaged, as he looked the President in the face almost the entire time that he wasn’t speaking). However, this isn’t all that surprising as this debate was about domestic issues (aka: The Economy), and considering the fact that this debate was almost entirely about President Obama’s record (because the voters know at least something about it), and the roles will likely flip in the coming debate (particularly in the foreign policy debate).

I think that the topics that we will likely hear more about over the coming days will be much of the same:

• Medicare – Romney supports the voucher approach, and Obama doesn’t
• Taxes – they both need to define more clearly what they want on personal and corporate rates
• Military – (this may be wishful thinking) They didn’t talk too much about this, and it mostly seemed like a preview of the Foreign Policy debate when they did

I would love to hear more specifics about each of these things however. I want to hear about Romney’s plans to close loopholes, but I’m in suport of that. And I want to hear Obama defend the Affordable Care Act, as it still seems mysterious in a lot of ways (although I support so much of it), and I want to hear them both define their approach their plans for foreign policy from this point forward (even though I feel like I understand the President’s approach so far). I would also appreciate a more cooperative conversation about regulation, but I think that’s pretty wishful thinking.

I took some notes, and I’m going to watch this video again, and consolidate my notes so I can make a few more observations about what took place tonight. Please feel free to let me know what you thought about this debate if you have an opinion, I would love to hear from you.

-Grady

The Election Breakdown By “The Issues”

So as much as I love to talk about swing states I think that breaking down the election by “issues” is very important, because they can be barometers for why people vote as they do, which is kind of the whole point of voting (having purpose and reasons). So here we go, these polls are from Politico & George Washington University:

“Pushing” Your Notifications on Me

I love watching the push notifications roll in on my phone, side by side, and see just how different they always are… If I had to pick here I’d go with CNN for sure, but they aren’t perfect.