On Morning Joe, Kudlow falsely asserted that Democrats want to "rais[e] taxes across the board"
SUMMARY: On Morning Joe, Larry Kudlow asserted that "on the campaign trail, Democrats trashing this economy, talking about raising taxes across the board are totally, utterly missing the boat here." In fact, the leading Democratic candidates for president have all proposed economic plans that include some tax cuts.
On the November 2 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, CNBC host Larry Kudlow discussed the state of the economy and asserted that "on the campaign trail, Democrats trashing this economy, talking about raising taxes across the board are totally, utterly missing the boat here." In fact, the three Democratic presidential candidates leading in polls -- former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC), Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), and Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) -- have all proposed economic plans that include some tax cuts.
As Media Matters for America has documented, Edwards' plan contains specific provisions to provide tax cuts for low- and middle-income Americans by:
- Expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) for single adults and reducing the "marriage penalty" for 3 million families.
- Creating a tax credit that would match savings up to $500 a year for families earning up to $75,000, money "that could be used for retirement, college education, buying a home, investing in a small business or during a financial or medical emergency."
- Expanding the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit to pay up to 50 percent of child care expenses up to $5,000 and making it partially for lower-income working families.
In a speech on economic policy on October 8, Clinton addressed reducing the tax burden on middle-income families. Clinton outlined tax policies that would include middle-class tax cuts, stating:
For middle class Americans, I will extend the tax cuts including the child tax credit, the marriage penalty relief, and lower income tax rates that they currently pay. And I will reform something called the Alternative Minimum Tax, the AMT, to make sure it doesn't hit middle class families with higher tax rates. It was never intended to do that. I will also expand the Earned Income Tax Credit to help families that are struggling to join the middle class. And I will be providing tax credits to help small businesses pay for health care.
Obama's plan for "Fighting Poverty" includes provisions to expand the EITC and the child tax credit. In addition, Obama's "Tax Fairness Plan" would:
- Create a refundable " 'Making Work Pay' tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 for working family" that would provide "relief to American families who face the regressive payroll tax system."
- Create a refundable universal mortgage tax credit to make the mortgage tax deduction available to homeowners who do not itemize their taxes.
- Eliminate income taxes for all seniors who earn less than $50,000 a year. According to his plan, this would "provide immediate relief to 22 million American seniors who will not need to file an income tax return, and will eliminate any income tax for nearly seven million seniors at a savings of roughly $1,400 each year."
- The plan also states: "Obama will also eliminate the capital gains taxation of start-up businesses" and "reduc[e] the self-employment tax for small business."
From the November 2 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:
SCARBOROUGH: Well, Larry, what's driving our economy now? If we have a horrible housing sector, usually when the housing sector goes belly up, that means the economy follows. What is driving this economy? Why do we have 4 percent growth? Why do we have lower unemployment rates than we had throughout the Clinton presidency? What's driving our economy right now when we hear so much bad news day in and day out?
KUDLOW: You have very strong businesses, Joe. Businesses are the backbone of the economy. I'm sorry the Democrats hate businesses, and I'm sorry that [Rep.] Charlie Rangel [D-NY] wants to raise taxes on businesses, but the great reality is you can't have a job without a business to create that job, and you can't have a business unless you have capital to fund the business.
So here the Democrats want to raise taxes on capital, they want to raise taxes on businesses. They say they're for the middle class, but the reality is, middle-class workers need businesses, and they need investment. That's what's driving this economy and has been for many, many years. You know, Joe, this is a 25-year story. This is a 25-year story going back to the early 1980s.
SCARBOROUGH: Started back in 1980 -- started back in 1983 -- 1982, 1983.
KUDLOW: Yup.
SCARBOROUGH: Larry, let me ask you this. With this news, positive economic news and hearing you talk, it sounds like this time next year -- I have this prediction: This time next year, the candidates are not going to be talking about Iraq. I think the key issue in the presidential campaign next year is going to be taxes -- who's going to cut taxes, and who's going raise taxes.
KUDLOW: It may well be. I think you're on to it, Joe. I think that the key issue is going to be the economy, and the key issue inside the economy is going to be taxes. I would add to that, Joe, the homeland security against global terror attacks against the United States. One of the things that's never talked about at all in addition to the economy is the fact that we have not been hit in six years, Joe.
That is an unbelievable thing, and it is a great grace not to have been hit in six years, but also, government policies that really strengthened our homeland defenses. And that's why I think you're right, Iraq itself, per se, alone is not going to be the dominant issue. It's going to be safety and security on the one side and economy and taxes on the other. And on the campaign trail, Democrats trashing this economy, talking about raising taxes across the board are totally, utterly missing the boat here. Americans don't want to lose their money. They want to keep it for themselves, so they can invest it, start little companies, start these little businesses, keep the jobs going, and keep the prosperity going. That's what they want.
SCARBOROUGH: All right. Larry Kudlow, thank you so much.
The FAIR TAX is the only way to go.
The Dems economic plan is just a lot of hocus pocus.
Hocus pocus, perfect J - well stated!
Expecting tax cuts to pay for free-market health care costs that increase at 6 times the rate of inflation is my idea of hocus pocus.
Bingo, Pete!
Jeter, explain the FAIR tax. If you are talking about a flat tax, I would disagree because it isn't as fair as it claims, at least every version I've ever heard discussed. A flat tax does more to shift the tax burden to the middle class than any other tax plan out there, and many proponents think a flat tax should also exclude businesses (which is why the big shift to the middle class). We do need a simpler tax code, I won't argue that the quickest way to reduce government is to shrink the IRS, but we need some form of progressive code to account for the fact that most taxes benefit businesses 1st, the wealthy 2nd. Perhaps if we eliminated all deductions, I could stomach letting getting businesses a break as long as I know the wealthy can't claim any more deductions than I can. Know what I'm saying?
"I won't argue that the quickest way to reduce government is to shrink the IRS, but we need some form of progressive code to account for the fact that most taxes benefit businesses 1st, the wealthy 2nd"
Yeah...how about the one that is NEVER mentioned? If I had the opportunity to propose a better tax system I would say: eliminate ALL taxes except the sales tax and tariffs on imports...at all levels-local, state, and federal. Then rate the sales tax at a higher percentage based on how much is spent at the retail level.
And no, I couldn't propose a percentage...it takes someone better at math than I am, but just as an example for discussion let's say:
Spend up to $10,000 - tax rate is 5%; $10,001 to $250,000 - tax rate is 8%; $250,001 to $1,000,000 - tax rate is 10%; over $1,000,000 - tax rate is 15%
And then work to a formula that splits the taxes between the states and the Feds...or the states could have one tax rate and the Feds their own.
If you eliminate all other taxes you put more money to spend in everyone's pockets and if you then tax by the amount spent you have your progressive tax.
And under such a system you could even propose no taxes on some low sum of money spent if it seemed necessary to help protect the poor.
Our current tax system seems essentially unfair to me beyond just the percentage of the taxes. If the government taxes the raw materials; then taxes the finished goods; then taxes them again at the retail selling source...and those finished goods are paid for with money that has been taxed at the income tax level, how many times does that work out to?
And no amount of naysaying will negate the FACT that, ulitimately, it's the retail buyer that pays ALL of those taxes.
Hello, fresh fish. reeled you in!
Taxing on what you buy is the biggest fraud of all, because most of the wealthy never spend what the middle class spends - why? Because they get to buy in bulk. Buying in bulk ensures you will always pay less for something than the lone wolf will pay. Total BS argument.
Buying in bulk ensures you will always pay less for something than the lone wolf will pay. Total BS argument."
I think you need to work on your reading comprehension skills. My proposal has nothing to do with how much you pay for "something"...it has to do with how much the bill is in TOTAL.
If you buy in bulk and the amount for each item is less, but the TOTAL cost is over, say, $10,000 or whatever, then you would pay a higher tax rate.
How many $15,000,000 houses to the rich buy in "bulk" anyway?
If and only if every subsidy and other tax relief, as you call it was eliminated, from the business cash pool could this remotely make any sense.
It makes these types of supposed libertarian moves moot when the biggest recipient of redistributed income goes to the wealthiest of us.
And what used to be considered prosperity for the people of a successful company, have turned into places where "worker productivity" really means paying your people less of the profits that the co. makes.
So, thank god you trickle downers are there to grow the economy. Its like having a fat man on your street next door to the family whose children are malnurished and the bloated citizens think that his neighbors are fine because the average weight of the community is on par with "established standards of health"
Targeted tax cuts, tax credits for this one and that one, raise them on this group, but not that one.........come on, that little cute tax weave and dodge is just code for > Watch your wallet!
So much better to have the borrow and spend Republicans in charge. Your grandchildren can figure out how to take care of your debt, right?
I vote for neither thank you.
Nothing like burying your head in the sand
Then we have no one to vote for.
If the choice is tax and spend, or borrow and spend, I would vote for neither and vote elsewhere.
But, Tommy, as a citizen, it looks like its going to be one or the other (borrow or tax and spend), which one is least offensive to you? I know that's not a good question, but which is more responsible in your eyes?
Don't force Tommy to face reality, he can't handle it.
Under alot of these "cuts" and "credits", people will end up getting more back than they paid in. Some already do.
That's not really a "tax cut."
It's redistribution of wealth, something the federal government has no business doing.
MMFA is really reaching with some of these articles.
We could save a trillion or so by just leaving Iraq...
We must set the bar on this issue instead of letting taxes-are-the-devil repubs set it.
It is NOT a take "hike" if you close a loophole, forcing people and companies to pay the tax they were meant to pay, not the tax they figured out how to pay.
2nd, cut defense spending. Stop closing bases in the US when you can close them around the world first. Our Navy and Air Force are capable enough to whoop some rear anywhere in the world on very short notice.
That saves enough to get health care access for everyone, and to cut taxes on the non-rich.
The Democrats are being only a little less disingenuous than the Republicans. Neither party, and no candidate, has faced up to the fact that the huge debts the Bush administration has run up over the past six years are going to have to be paid for. So far, nobody's come up with anything that will do that except some kind of an increase in taxes. "Flat" taxes aren't flat; "fair" taxes aren't fair. In particular, the so-called Fair Tax has some other issues -- talk about incentive for fraud and expanding the underground economy! It's bad enough already, thank you.
No, the government cannot run forever on a Visa card. Yes, we can make the government smaller, but by the time it's small enough to drown in Grover Norquist's bathtub, someone else will already have figured that out and we'll be paying taxes to Putin or Chavez or some local warlord.
Anyone remember the I think 1990 elections or so when Bruce Babbit during a debate stood up and said "I'm standing up for higher taxes because how are we supposed to pay for all this..." I voted for the guy. Nobody wants taxes, everybody wants services. You can't have both, and there is absolutely no reasonable, mature adult debate about any of this--politicians on both sides of the aisle pander simply to people's desire never to spend money on anything but themselves, and don't try to explain to people how income must equal outgo. Visa mentality indeed.
Everybody wants the services, but they want the taxes to pay for them to apply only to people earning more money than they are.
... or less than they are. That knife cuts both ways, Oscar.
Why quibble over taxes? It's a distraction from the bigger injustice that has CEOs pulling in salaries 500 times greater than the average member of the most productive workforce in the world. As if executives are 500 times more productive than the people who make companies profitable.
More money can be put back into the economy by putting more money back into peoples pockets through requiring employers to pay a living wage and provide healthcare. It's a virtuous cycle.
Neccessitous men are not free men.
roundhouse , if any of those workers have the desire, they can make 500 times as much by simply starting their own company and appointing themselves CEO.Why do you hate America and freedom?
I've herd Thom Hartman say this a few times: there is a small number of people who are CEO's and on the boards of directors for the fortune 500 companies. They rotate around on these boards giving each other enormous salaries and golden parachutes, while the shareholders are powerless to change anything. They loot the bank accounts of these companies while showing profits by cooking the books or cutting corners by outsourcing jobs and eliminating benefits and pensions. But they are the hard working, successful members of our economy who cannot be burdened by higher taxes.
The whole thing is a joke and we are the butt of it. All we need is stronger government oversight, honest taxes, and real criminal consequences for white collar crimes and we would see a true golden age, not a gilded age.
It would be good to see government use the legal authority it has, instead of solely using the taxpayers treasury, to institute the kind of progressive change that honors labor and protects society.
Hartman is great. I recently heard him talk about getting politically active in a refreshing way. When contacting your representatives, he says that instead of griping about bad votes we should communicate that we'll have their back when they vote as a Progressive.
It makes sense. Despite the sense of political cynicism cultivated by the radical minority of Republicans, our politicians still derive their power from the consent of the governed.
"what you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me." Let so-called Christians create a tax code with this as it's basis.
Sounds good.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Ya Kudlow the CEO with the Golden Parachute, with the gouging salary, Kudlow has his finger on the pulse of American Voters.
Ya Kudlow and Scarborough know what is going to be the voting issue a year from now, right! They are begining the drum beat in hopes, prayers that Iraq and the economy will not be the issue, and tax breaks on the corporations, and super rich will not be an issue!!
They are dreaming of what Americans will believe after spending the past 20 years lying to Americans! Their lies have come home to roost, they want to change the subject and use the same old reliable rhetoric to get what they want no matter who it hurts!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Again, MMFA are lying. If everyone's taxes are raised, so what if Edwards plans to give some people their money back if the lose more of their money OVERALL.
Edwards plan says nothing about the % of each income tax rates, only capital gains tax. The increase in Capital Gains tax will hurt people who invest in pensions, and 401ks, and most of the people at the bottom don't end up paying taxes anyway. He WILL also increase the taxes for just about everyone else as well.
New data released by the IRS offers interesting insights into the distributional spread of the federal income tax burden. The new data shows that the top-earning 25% of taxpayers (AGI over $62,068) earned 67.5% of the nation's income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86%). The top 1% of taxpayers (AGI over $364,657) earned approximately 21.2% of the nation's income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 39.4% of all federal income taxes. That means the top 1% of tax returns paid about the same amount of federal individual income taxes as the bottom 95% of tax returns.What this means is that President Bush wasn't lying when he said his tax cuts would lower the burden on middle and lower class tax payers. In fact, after the tax cuts were enacted the bottom 10% were taken off of the rolls all together - for you libs that means they don't pay taxes at all. So much for helping the rich at the expense of the poor.Gosh, your argument started to make sense until I got to the second or third word.
Your capital gains argument would be so much more effective in a bizarro world where contributions to pensions and retirement accounts were subject to capital gains taxes. Since they aren't in the USA, your argument is idiotic.
My question to you is, do you really believe the falsehoods you routinely post here, or are you intentionally lying for some alterior motive?
Oh, it's imtentional. Have you visited his blog?
In fact, after the tax cuts were enacted the bottom 10% were taken off of the rolls all together - for you libs that means they don't pay taxes at all. - CopiousDissent
No, that isn't the case. They simply aren't required to pay INCOME tax. They still pay a disproportionate percentage of their income on many other, more regressive, taxes. That's the reason for the graduated income tax. It makes allowance for costs of living including shelter, food, clothing, heating, education, other taxes and other unavoidable expenses. In other words, the income tax is applied to disposable income of which there is virtually none in the lower economic levels. Therefore there is virtually no income tax.
That's the problem of looking at only a very small portion of the picture the way you do. It tends to present a very warped picture of reality. The way you do.
"The top 1% of taxpayers (AGI over $364,657) earned approximately 21.2% of the nation's income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 39.4% of all federal income taxes."
Compliantconsent, I realize that the word "taxes" set you off into some sort of a seizure, and all you can see is the victimizing of the rich.
But what is your personal opinion on the matter of 1% of taxpayers having 21.2% of the money? Do you think, historically, that this kind of wealth concentration has proven to be healthy for societies?If so, what do you consider to be a the best example of this working really well?
Actually, the source I read says that the top 1% owns 38% of the nation's wealth. The top 10% controls 71% of the wealth. The bottom 40% own less than 1% of the nation's wealth.
Fun Fact: The concentration of wealth in the top economic groups is at its highest levels since immediately before the Great Depression.
Oh, yeah, the highest income groups is really getting gouged by our tax system. It's a crying shame how much they suffer.
BillJ, your numbers might be the right ones, I didn't check it out.Because it doesn't matter,The important part is we have to save that small minority of super-wealthy people that have all of the money from being taxed too much.
Luckily, we have a load of conservative suckers looking out for them. Yikes!
The bottom 40% own less than 1% of the nation's wealth.
The bottom 40% need to work harder and make better choices. This is America - the land of opportunity; I'm sure that 40% would be reduced if that happened. I was on a jobsite a week ago with some day laborers who earned $6.67/hr. The owner came by and wanted to hire them permanently for $10/hr. with health benefits. Both said "yes" and were told when and where to show up to complete the paperwork and start working. Both were a no-show; no call, no show, no job. Should the gov't step in because these guys made a poor decision? And why is it that lower income people always seem to have enough money for beer and cigarettes? Sorry, that's just a pet peeve of mine....
Oh yeah, the highest income groups is really getting gouged by our tax system. It's a crying shame how much they suffer.
So now it's the gov't's job to distribute suffering? Show me that in the Constitution!
So you want to believe that 4 out of every 10 Americans are lazy and stupid? Ok, if that makes you feel better, go for it. That 40% includes those at the poverty line and below, but they are a small part of it. The upper levels of that 40% would most certainly be put into the middle class.
It's just difficult for a family to provide for themselves, put their kids through school, meet medical expenses, try to provide something for retirement and also accumulate substantial wealth. The American system, especially since the 1980s, makes it easier for those with wealth to accumulate more wealth. That is why the wealth gap has been growing at increasing rates. It has nothing to do with the industriousness of the wealthy as opposed to those at lower income levels.
Did I say anything about the government distributing suffering? Or was that a product of your overactive imagination? My point was that the costs of government should be met by its citizens proportionally to their ability to contribute. The wealthy are falling short of that standard. I was simply pointing out that they aren't being gouged as they claim they are.
Your little anecdote was completely irrelevant.