White House to Allow Tax Cuts for Wealthy to Expire

Source: Wall Street Journal

WASHINGTON—Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said the Obama administration will allow tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans to expire on schedule despite calls from a small but increasingly vocal group of Democrats to delay any tax increases.

Mr. Geithner said the White House will allow taxes on top earners to increase on Jan. 1, 2011, as part of an effort to help bring down the mounting budget deficit. He said the White House still plans to extend tax cuts for middle- and lower-income Americans and expects to undertake a broader tax overhaul next year.

"We believe it is appropriate to let those tax cuts that go to the most fortunate expire," Mr. Geithner said at a breakfast with reporters, hosted by the Christian Science Monitor.

<...>

Mr. Geithner said there is "still some uncertainty about how strong the recovery is going to be," which may be impacting spending decisions by businesses and individuals. But he discounted that as a reason to extend the Bush-era tax cuts for top earners, saying most private forecasts show moderate economic growth and increasing public confidence in the recovery.






Read more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703467304575383131306753688.html

"I just can't make it on the $40 million a year in corporate payola I get for spouting Republicon propaganda. Have compassion. Puh-lease. More more more more tax cuts for rich republicons. (smirk)."

- Rush DraftDodger Limbaugh (R - Overpaid Chickenhawk SpokesModel)

So are the massive amounts of Viagra.
He needs to save some coin.

nt

Weird pic, BTW. An anal cyst smoking a cigar.

Actually, I don't mind an occasional stogie now and then, myself.

But of course that's no reflection on my diet.

.....cigar smokers wanna puke.

Just say yes!

nt

It's got a cigar in its mouth.

<sigh> Expect more diatribes about how letting these taxes expire is punishing the "productive" people of society, the ones who create jobs, etc., etc. (We're talking about the productive people, not you wage-earners.) :eyes:

With all the tax cuts with which the rich have been blessed in recent years, you'd think we wouldn't have such high unemployment now, Mr. Limbaugh -- unless your theory doesn't hold water. If the rich are supposed to restore our economy with buckets of money that make jobs, why didn't they PREVENT the recession with those same buckets of money and KEEP jobs? Oh, that's right -- because that's not what the rich do when all the money and power accumulate in their direction.

with the same on-message, lock-step, Frank Luntz vocabulary precision as the Republicans do! When will the White House and the DNC catch on to this?

As a former corporate advertising person now comm professor teaching advertising, I will give my take on why "with the same on-message, lock-step, Frank Luntz vocabulary precision as the Republicans do! When will the White House and the DNC catch on to this?"

This is the type of thing a corporate marketing person does. They do focus groups, market research, and then they formulate a market strategy. There is an entire sequence of events that goes into an advertising campaign. It isn't just entered into in one stage. As you say, "lock step."

The republicans are the party of big business. They are run by big business. So that's what they do--sell their position via the current advertising techniques.

Democrats, despite their sell-out proclivities, really are not run by big corporations, so they don't do things like employ research people like Luntz within the overall umbrella of a larger, overall advertising objective.

Yes, Democrats do marketing research. It is just done a different way. It's more a scattershot approach and not part of a larger, overall objective.

Good point!

that we ought to adopt it? Surely a coordinated marketing campaign doesn't just work on Republicans.

his dad owned the hotel in warm springs years and years ago.

uneducated guess and say Olds.

Loved the way that hotel appeared in one of the tv versions I'd seen recently.

he died a few years ago. His daddy was shot and killed at that hotel. There are still bullet holes in the lobby if I remember the story correctly. That guy and his wife named their only daughter Eleanor after the first lady. Of course, the first lady didn't usually come to warm springs with him. I think a lot of his affair with Lucy Mercer took place there. My friend would go over to the little white house and change the oil, etc. on his car.

Another nonsensical Murdoch article that believes in the dictatorship-inspired Unitary Executive.

CONGRESS will need to fix the currently expiring law to re-do the tax tables so that those with incomes below a certain threshold will maintain their cuts while those with highest incomes have their bracket go back up to 39% (it should be 70% or higher IMHO).

he can decide whether a bill extending the tax cuts will become law (notwithstanding the very long shot of having his veto overturned).

As for extending them for everyone else, he's at the mercy of Congress to get the ball rolling.

Except during the a lame duck period before Congressional adjournment (if that happens before the 10 day period for approving is up), he doesn't even have to sign it for it to become law anyway.

See Article 1, Sect. 7 of the holy American document. ;)

He has the authority to stop legislation he doesn't approve.

Did you read the article? What the hell does this part of the article mean?



The "White House" can do no such thing because no such law exists that separates out these 2 types of income ranges. This is Unitary Executive nonsense.

Congress must get their asses in gear right now to create the provisions that would replace the current expiring law and then get that passed. This has nothing to do with the White House as no such thing exists for the White House to do anything with.

This country has dumbed down so and so has DU.

It is teevee "news" sloppy talk. They do it all the time. They don't mean that he can literally do it by edict. They mean that he is using the bully pulpit to propose it and will attempt to get Congress to enact it.

Congress--and even if he could, he's not a dictator.

:eyes:


Oh, never mind. I suppose expecting folks to tell the truth, even when it's not convenient is unrealistic.

the meme that a Democratic President is totally at the mercy of a Democratic Congress is a DU joke.

A WAshington D.C. insiders joke:

Q. What constitutes a quorum of Congress?

A. the President and the head of the Senate Finance Committee.


Neither joke leaves me in peals of laughter, but at least the second one is based in reality.

"As for extending them for everyone else, he's at the mercy of Congress to get the ball rolling."

Decaf - try it.

stop legislation. those are 2 different things. He can veto, pocket veto and jawbone, period. Congress can override. Unlikely, but certainly not unknown.

"stopping legislation" and "vetoing legislation".

the override method?

Sorry, Hosnon, you made a statement that was wrong, as a matter of both law and fact. You make yourself seem less credible by trying to justify your original statements, rather tha acknowledging that or simply letting it go.

Besides, you're the one who created the distinction by saying:

"The President can veto the bill. He has the authority to stop legislation he doesn't approve." I merely agreed with your first statement and disagreed with your second (and incorrect) statement.

Up-subthread.

I can't believe we're discussing this, to be honest. I generally don't assume, as you appear to have done, that my DU audience is comprised of morons.

President Obama can veto any legislation that extends the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. Congress has the power to override that veto, but it is extremely unlikely. If President Obama wants the Bush tax cuts extended for everyone but the wealthy, he can propose legislation via a legislator, or, wait on Congress to act on its own.

The article is not as inaccurate as has been claimed here. Obama can stop the extension if he so chooses (subject to an override).

My guess would be Ben Nelson for starters. Any other nominees?

Give me a break---these richies have sucked off the public teat getting all the benefits of BushCo's anti-regulation, anti- tax-the-rich, register-your-business-offshore policies for 8 years. The result is the subprime mortgage mess, the Wall St. bailouts, the Main St. economy and BP blowouts and major job loss.

Now it will impede the US recovery to make them pay their fair share? :crazy: :puke:

Actually, making them pay their fair share after their wild and crazy free ride for 8 years would SPUR the economy.

..........that in the Senate there are probably 20-25 true liberals and in the House probably 100. It's not hard to figure out who they are.

members, so that's easy.

Problem is, ultimately, on any given piece of legislation, they can only vote yea or nay. So, in the end, every piece of legislation can be held hostage by even one possible supporter, whether it's for the Cornhusker amendment or the Stupak anti-choice amendment or all the Baucus and Collins amendments, as with the health "care" bill, or the Scott Brown Massachusetts banks amendments, as with the finref bill.

is also a "Democratic" culprit.

<snip> Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) disputed the argument that raising taxes on the wealthy could hurt the economy.

“One of the most robust periods of economic growth was prior to the Bush tax cuts,” he said.

He said large federal deficits, which would be addressed by tax increases, have caused people to lose confidence in the economy. <snip>

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/110251-tax-hikes-may-wait

Remember, I am just a little person...I only have one little 'ol jet.

done better.

:scared:

She has two yachts.

She laid off thousands of American workers and shipped their jobs overseas while she was at HP.

She's voted in 8 of 23 elections since 2000.

And she wants to be the next United States Senator from the great state of California.

She's running against Barbara Boxer. She shouldn't have a chance in hell, but who the fuck knows anymore.

She hasn't been quite as annoyingly ubiquitous as Queen Meg on local media.

Boxer's my prime donation target this year, along with Jerry and some other deserving progressive candidates- I sent Grayson a little last night, but I can't keep up with all the requests coming in.

END THE WARS --

a tax increase by democrats - It is an injustice that needs to be allowed to run its filthy, dirty, ugly course and die!

Just another slimy Republican imbalance favoring only the rich and their corporations by these same elitist republicans and their greedy, selfish, piggish ideology!!

Good call.

How unusual that they're showing some common sense! :applause:

Of the many . . . MANY lunatic crimes by the Bewsh Administration, this legal wealth transfer had to rank in the Turdly Top Three (only bested by allowing torture and starting occupations of sovereign nations for . . . well, really, for no good reason whatsoever).

I often criticize him, but this is a great move - financially and politically. The rich got theirs for years (the upper 5% of earners spend 30% of consumer spending!) - and hey, we are told we MUST get that deficit down. No better way. Now let's stop the wars, rebuild infrastructure and disassemble the national security state and we are on our way back to prosperity.

you before year's end lol!! Steinbrenner clan at the funeral: "it's a shame he had to go, but.....":evilgrin:

Any competent estate planner would have set it up for a modest amount went to his wife (and when she dies will result in estate tax) however the lions share will bypass her and go directly to intended final beneficaries.

Then again if you have an estate that big you can certainly pay for a very good estate planner.

Generally speaking though a father dying and leaving money to his CHILDREN (but not grandchildren) instead of his wife won't trigger gen skipping tax.

So the guy has a $5 billion estate. He leaves a "modest" amount to his wife. The rest (99%) to his children. That 99% has no skipped his generation of estate tax and won't be taxed again until his children die.

estate planning advice on message boards is not always wise. Well, taking estage planning advice given on message boards is not always wise. Ditto legal advice and investing advice. And taking medical advice given on message boards can be suicidal.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

first place

the antidote to skillful lying is skillful truth-telling, not paralysis.

Democrats must never allow what Republicans might say guide their actions (or inaction). No matter what Democrats do or don't do, Republicans will say something awful, true or not. that's just a given. Democrats just must do better in the propaganda wars--assuming they want to, of course. Sometimes, it's convenient for Democrats to blame Republicans for an outcome both Parties really wanted.

and also, their oil rigs.

K&R.

:bounce:

WTF!!! Is that because it is being done by OBAMA?

:sarcasm:

Their heads might explode.

Very interesting. Thanks for sharing RedCloud.

THANKS!

Damn them, damn them all to HELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




:sarcasm:

Late in the game, but I'm liking where this turn of the administration is going.

As you know, House does have majority rule, but Senate does not. However, per the rules the Senate has made for itself, you need a 2/3 vote to change a Senate rule. So, not only would you need a 2/3 majority, but not a single one of the 2/3 could break ranks.

IOW, both Parties in the Senate voted for the current rules, including the 60% fillibuster rule and the 2/3 change rule, bc both parties want things exactly as they are. Now, figure out why both parties like the rules just as they are.

Hint: It has to do with incumbents being re-elected--and American voters standing for gridlock--and everything else D.C. foists on them.

Be fun listening to the Republicans whine about why the deficit should be allowed to balloon in order to allow people who don't need the money to live have an extension of this tax cut at the same time they're whining about extending unemployment benefits due to 'deficit' concerns. (worst grammar ever - lol)

when he first got into office - it would have helped with the deficit reduction that he's paid lip service to to appease Republicans.

but it wouldn't have been pragmatic, I suppose - it could have led to our loss of congress this November...

of course we could very well lose it anyway

.... the obvious correct course of action. Tax cuts to the poor are stimulative, tax cut to the rich are useless.

:thumbsup: BIG k/r

:thumbsup:

from them. Oh, wait. Merkan jobs have ALREADY dried up with the Richie Rich's tax cuts.

Never mind.

NT!

Oh, I see. The WSJ. Thought I recognized the talking point.

Indeed.

If something costs X amount and you tell everyone that something will be on sale for >X for a certain amount of time, when the time is up and X again =X, does that mean the cost of that thing has gone up?... or just that the sale is over?

as being temporary? So what's the problem with letting them expire?

It might be different if they had achieved what we were told they were to acheive.... but they clearly didn't, or if they had any effect it was negligible.

that letting the (temorary) tax cuts expire was "the greatest tax increas in history." I wonder if he knows how stupid he is?

WSJ spinning it in their words, but we all know that those cuts really will expire. Me likee!

Anyone with their eyes open knows that great wealth in this country does not come from luck or good fortune. I look at these taxes on the top earners as "sin taxes," frankly.

my yacht dumped sewage in Boston harbor. Or my plane...well, you get the picture.

If there is any moment to tell Rahm to STFU, this is the time. We need these tax cuts to die, and die ASAP!

It's not an increase
They need to stop saying that
They're ending a government give away to the rich

Reverse Reaganomics, and the economy will love you for it.

:applause:

Well, it's only coffee, but it's the thought, eh?

One for the workin' person.

RWer told me that a couple days ago.

See, if wealthy people have to pay higher taxes, they'll go bankrupt just because they inherit money. And them they won't be ableb to invest in business to make more money and that will hurt the economy and all of us that rely on the wealthy for our jobs.

The math was a little fuzzy but it all seemed to make sense to him. :eyes:

To paraphrase the only man to coach two teams to the playoffs for the first time, never win a playoff game, then have those teams meet in the Superbowl, where his first team beat his second.

"Well, I don't know, I'll have to ask the Captain."

"I certainly hope so. I simply can't afford to miss another episode of "Barnacle Bill's Adventures in the San Diego Bay" as he describes how intense scrapping those little devils off of the bottom of the yacht is while it is moored at the dock."

"Well, I'm sure the Professor will have the radio fixed by then, dahling."

"Heavens, I didn't know the radio wasn't working again! Did we run out of coconut milk to power the batteries again?"

"Well, I'll ask Ginger if she has shaken any fresh coconut milk this morning, dear."

"I'm flustered now, Livy. I'm going to have to lay down and take a nap. My pulse is rising and my forehead is clammy."

"Oh, Thurston."

So glad someone is finally standing up to the "most fortunate."

I don't know if I'm ready for the four-alarm whining that will take place.

...with the expression, right??? ;-)

Please don't make me go into greater detail than I all ready have!

pinky swear Geitner.

I'll believe it if i see it on Jan. 2, 2011.

Spine? Anyone got an extra spine for the White House?

Fuck yeah!

I am just barely affected by it, but even so. If I can get by with the old Clinton era rates restored, then
people who make a million or more dollars a year can certainly do the same.

This is really gonna make the Republicans call Obama names. :spray:

Maybe there is hope yet.

It's more like a tax reversion.

Bush's tax cuts only served to collect more money in the portfolios of the wealthiest Americans.

Concentrating huge quantities of money in a few people was a contributing factor in the economic collapse.

The way to get the economy moving again is to break up holdings of the wealthy few and get that money circulating in the economy again.

Obama done good!

They were just bush* rewarding his base. Fuck them all! Tax the fucking rich until they are hurting just like everyone else.

+1

stupid, insane, irrational, and moronic tax cuts the day he took office. They created no new jobs, they saved none. The only thing those cuts did was to fatten the bank accounts of the wealthy.

Like they needed fattening. yeah. right.

thanks!

congress will cave, and vote to extend bush tax cuts, and he will sign the bill saying, "We couldn't get the cuts for the middle class unless we extended the cuts on the wealthy. We have no Republican support," bullcrap.

What happened to reconciliation?? passed very flawed health care bill that way...could have passed the public option that way...but, congress followed obama's negotiation instead of listening to the people.

I'll bet a dollar to a donut the rich get their way. They always do, and Obama won't veto an extension of the tax cuts to the wealthy. Election year, you know, and the Dems need those corporate donors who run the oligarchy that this democracy has devolved into.

"tax relief". It was good while it lasted but it's over now. Heh.

I don't recall the economy going into the tank after that, but maybe I lived in the bizarro world in the 90s where the economy was booming?

then they won't GIVE the rest of us jobs.

"deficit neutral," the Republicans' newly discovered mantra, that curiously applies to anything that might help middle-class Americans, yet doesn't apply to war spending or tax cuts for the rich,

been critical of our President, I will cheer when he and or the Dems do the right thing.

Kudos!!!!

-P

Welcome to the real world...

actually happens" or words to that effect.

Well, my sentiments exactly. Not wasting my cheers OR jeers anymore until I see what actually happens. Sounds good, but so did scores of things said during the health "care" reform process.

...and add the expiration of tax cuts, to the long list of initiatives that Republicans and the corporate media will try to overturn through the 2010 elections as they try to re-package Bush administration ideas as Tea Party populism. Is there any difference between the Tea Party agenda, and what Bush Co was selling?

Then I would certainly not complain about this. I do not complain about the higher marginal rates as they are. Make more, pay relatively more - it makes sense. Besides which, you're probably making a lot more than $200,000 if that is your taxable income.

With particular regard to the estate tax, as has been noted, 2010 is, for the very rich, "a good year to die" because for those who die this year there is no estate tax.

This happened because of the chicanery of the Republican Congress and the Bush Administration which gradually stepped the estate tax down to zero for 2010. This got some press recently when George Steinbrenner died because, although he was worth a few billion, his estate will pay nothing.

However, this was done as a temporary measure with the assurance that Congress would act again--and this temporary legislation expires at the end of the year. If a rich person dies December 31, 2010 his estate pays nothing. If the same rich person hangs on another 24 hours, and dies January 1, 2011--unless Congress acts in the mean time- then after subtracting the exemptions which eliminate this tax from most people, his estate will pay 55% of the remainder as federal inheritance tax.

Obviously rich people have plenty of incentive to pressure Congress to act.

But doing any tax change in the present political climate is difficult.

It was, of course, highly irresponsible of Congress to try to eliminate the estate tax, and to in fact eliminate it for the year 2010, but it was a Republican Congress, who assumed that with there self-declared majority for a generation that they would be able to make the tax cuts permanent when they expired.

It obviously hasn't worked out that way.

If there is no action the old rates go back into effect in 2011.

The Republicans have been fighting tooth and nail to stop the Democratic agenda--any Democratic agenda however sensible.

They haven't been thinking very far ahead. After all, if the Democrats don't have the strength, numbers and guts to push through most of their own agenda, they still, I CERTAINLY HOPE, have more than enough sway to stop the Republicans from the utter irresponsibility of renewing the Bush tax cuts.

True, if some measures are not taken slightly higher rates will go back into effect for the relatively less well off as well, although not with regard to the estate tax from which those of even moderate means would remain exempted.

The direct tax costs to those of moderate income is, however, minor compared with the burdens that will be (rightfully) reimposed upon the super rich if nothing is done, and in this context doing nothing and letting the old tax rates kick back in is--although not perfect-in general terms the fiscally responsible, and absolutely and certainly the right thing to do.

So, in the context of shilling the public with "tax cuts" all politicians, including Obama have to play the game because most do not understand what is at stake and everybody wants to individually pay fewer taxes, and the Republicans have beaten this horse to death to where that is all that most people see. I remember one voter of very moderate means who, when it was calculated out for him (in 2004) that the bush tax cuts meant his take home pay would be increased by about 25 cents with each weekly pay check decided that was worth supporting because that 25 cents adds up--never mind that the tax breaks for the super rich under the same legislation were phenomenal (and phenomenally irresponsible) with result that that quarter saved on his paycheck was necessarily going to be wiped out a thousand times over from the necessarily inflationary effect of deficit spending.

So Obama ia trying to play the political perceptions game. All politicians are trying to play the political perceptions game. But if nothing happens with regard to taxes, the old tax laws go back into effect. I could criticize those old tax laws myself, but given the political realities of today letting them go back into effect is a vast improvement--and one that the Republicans want to avoid at all cost.

My tax rate will go from 10% to 15%, I'm also going to get married and we will have to deal with the marriage penalty too.

It would be nice if they would have kept the tax cuts for the non wealthy instead of scrapping all of them.

I'm already preparing for it.

Imagine that.

I'm nowhere near wealthy. I think the most effective move I can make is to start contributing to a 401k again.