Free Markets, Free People

House votes to keep current tax rate

Dear media, the House vote last night – which sends the bill to President Obama for his signature – wasn’t an $801 billion tax cut bill, as the NYT headline blares. Certainly there are tax cuts in it, but not to the tune of $801 billion. Nor did "millionaires" get a “tax cut. “

All that happened is the House voted to maintain the current income tax rate for everyone. Nothing changes. No one gets "more" in terms of tax savings than they do right now and have gotten for most of a decade.  Well, except, perhaps, those who don’t pay any taxes into the system.  They may get more in the way of a “refundable credit”.

So quit spinning this as something it isn’t.  There is no permanent tax rate.  They aren’t “Bush era tax cuts”.  They’re the current tax rate. Period.

Keeping that rate doesn’t "cost" the government one red cent, because they never had the money to begin with. Pretending that somehow anticipated revenue from an increase in taxes is somehow a "cost" is a perversion of the English language as well as a misuse of an economic term.

Quit it.

Thank you.



13 Responses to House votes to keep current tax rate

  • To:  MCQ
    From:  MSM

    RE:  Quit It

    You sir, obviously, do not employ the several layers of editors we use to specifically check and render judgements, backed by years of extensive formal training in the various journalim institutions of this Country.
    If you did, you would understand our nuanced approach.

    Oh, and so’s your old mother.


    The MSM

  • Bruce, I agree with your premise wholeheartedly, but have one quibble…
    The payroll tax cut is actually a cut.  It’s roughly equivalent to Bush-era “send everyone a $300 check!” stimulus, but it is an actual [though temporary] cut from current rates.  One that I happily welcome.

  • While it bothers me that MiniTru can’t get it right when reporting something this simple, I’m otherwise rather happy to see them report – COMPLAIN – that The Dear Golfer just passed a tax cut for the rich.  As far as I’m concerned, they can keep repeating this misinformation until election day in ’12; it’ll be great to eat popcorn and watch the dems try to explain it.

    • Obama seems to be polling poorly even with liberals and Democrats.  I think that he has found himself in a position that perhaps even Carter did not– disliked by both sides to an almost equal degree.  The right dislikes him for his left wing agenda and policies, and the left is angry at what they perceive to be a series of rank betrayals, starting with Gitmo and ending with the extension of the Bush era tax breaks.  He seems, to me, to be in over his head politically to a degree that I did not expect.  He will not need a second term; the next two years will probably feel like six.  We may be looking at a train wreck of historical proportions if he does not get himself ready for what’s coming.

    • Remember, Doc, that these are the same group who, year after year, call an less-than-desired rise in some agency’s budget a “cut”.

      • I know, but the beauty of it is that they are having to openly reverse themselves on literally years of policy and they can’t hide it.  They’ve had to go from “Bush’s tax cuts were only for the rich!” and “Tax cuts do nothing to help the economy!” to “We’ve gotta give tax cuts to keep the economy afloat!”

        It’s as rich as watching them try jump from pronouncing that A-stan was “the good war” to “We gotta get out of A-stan NOW!” to “Oh, we’re sending more troops ‘cuz we’ve just gotta win in A-stan!”

        Even libs can’t swallow these things, and even the most apathetic “independent” can’t help but notice that The Dear Golfer isn’t exactly principled in his positions.  “Say… didn’t he say just the opposite a few months ago?  And I thought that Bush’s tax cuts were only for rich fat cats, so why are we giving MORE tax cuts???”

  • From a budgetary perspective they’re reductions in revenue, though.  Bush and Obama budgets assumed the lapse of the cuts,* so w/ their extension actual revenue will fall below projected revenue.
    * I have no idea if that reliance was reasonable in light of practice or required by law.

    • Not in any budgetary process I’ve been a part of. “Anticipated” revenue can’t be a “cost” because it isn’t something you have. Budgets deal with reality. It may be something you can base your future budget projections on, but again, they’re projections based in anticipated revenue. When what is anticipated changes, budget projections are adjusted to reflect that reality. But it doesn’t “cost” a dime.

  • Well, except, perhaps, those who don’t pay any taxes into the system.  They may get more in the way of a “refundable credit”.

    They actually get less.  The payroll tax cut was supposed to offset the lapse of the Make Work Pay credit, but for a large segment of taxpayers (1/3 is the number I see bandied about, though I don’t know if that’s right) the credit was more valuable than the payroll cut and will wind up paying more in tax as a result.

  • So what are the capital gains tax rates for 2011 ?