Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Study: Gingrich tax plan would worsen deficit

Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:30 PM EST
us, politics, plan, gingrich, newt-gingrich, tax-plan
Stephen Ohlemacher, Associated Press
< PreviousNext >
showing 1 of 3 photos
<p>Republican presidential candidate, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich takes part in the Republican debate, Saturday, Dec. 10, 2011, in Des Moines, Iowa. Attacked as a lifelong Washington insider, newly minted Republican front-runner Newt Gingrich parried criticism from Mitt Romney in campaign debate Saturday night, telling the former Massachusetts governor, "The only reason you didn't become a career politician is because you lost to Teddy Kennedy in 1994." (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall)</p>

Republican presidential candidate, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich takes part in the Republican debate, Saturday, Dec. 10, 2011, in Des Moines, Iowa. Attacked as a lifelong Washington insider, newly minted Republican front-runner Newt Gingrich parried criticism from Mitt Romney in campaign debate Saturday night, telling the former Massachusetts governor, "The only reason you didn't become a career politician is because you lost to Teddy Kennedy in 1994." (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall)

Advertise | AdChoices

WASHINGTON — The tax plan by GOP presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich would provide big tax breaks to the rich and blow a huge hole in the federal budget deficit, according to an independent study released Monday.

The analysis by the Tax Policy Center says households making more than $1 million a year would see their taxes drop by an average of 62 percent. Overall, federal tax revenues would drop by an estimated $850 billion in 2015, a figure that would dramatically worsen the budget deficit unless it is offset by unprecedented spending cuts, the study said.

"The revenue losses are enormous," said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center.

Gingrich proposes an optional 15 percent flat tax on income. Under the plan, taxpayers could stay in the current system, which has a top tax rate of 35 percent on taxable income above $379,150, or switch to the new 15 percent tax. The new tax would apply to income at all levels, but there would be a variety of tax deductions and credits.

Gingrich would eliminate taxes on capital gains, dividends and interest, and reduce the corporate income tax rate from 35 percent to 12.5 percent. The plan would provide a personal deduction of $12,000 for every American, while maintaining the $1,000 per-child tax credit and the Earned Income Tax Credit, which benefits low-income people. Deductions for mortgage interest and charitable donations would also be maintained.

Gingrich campaign spokesman R.C. Hammond disputed the projections on the budget deficit, saying the study doesn't account for the economic and job growth that such a tax system would generate.

The campaign's website says a new flat tax would make it easy for families to file their returns while eliminating taxes that discourage investment.

"An optional flat tax reform will be simple: Tax returns can be done on one sheet of paper," the website says. "Subtract from income a standard deduction and deductions for charity and home ownership, multiply the result by the fixed, single rate of taxation of at most 15 percent, and the process is over."

The analysis comes as the former House speaker has surged to the top of the polls in the race for the Republican nomination for president. Several other candidates have offered variations of the flat tax, including Texas Gov. Rick Perry. Gingrich's chief rival, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, has proposed changes to the tax system that are less sweeping.

Gingrich's plan, however, would make it even more difficult for Congress to reduce the federal budget deficit, which was $1.3 trillion in the budget year that ended in September, according to the study. The issue consumed Capitol Hill for several months in the summer and fall, leading to a deficit reduction plan that both Democrats and Republicans dislike.

No one would get a tax increase under Gingrich's plan because households could stay in the current system or switch to the new one, Williams said. Many lower- and middle-income families would probably stay in the current system because they would save money compared to Gingrich's flat tax, he said.

But for the wealthy, lowering the top tax rate and eliminating taxes on investments would provide a huge windfall, according to the study.

For example, a household making between $40,000 and $50,000 would get an average tax cut of 12.1 percent, while a family making between $200,000 and $500,000 would get a tax cut of 27.3 percent, according to the study.

Households making more than $1 million would see their federal income taxes reduced by an average of $607,000 the study said.

The Tax Policy Center compared taxes on U.S. households under current tax policy, with those imposed under the Gingrich plan. In using current tax policy, the analysis assumes that tax cuts enacted under President George W. Bush — and extended through 2012 by Obama — would be extended.

The Tax Policy Center is a research group formed by two Washington think tanks: the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution. Its researchers regularly testify before Congress on tax policy and its analyses during the 2008 presidential campaign were widely circulated.

© 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Stephen Ohlemacher's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: 2012 US Elections, Election 2012, GOP Primaries, The Conservative Vine, The Newsvine Tea Party
  • Regions: Washington DC
  • Public Discussion (154)
Jump to discussion page: 1 2
CuriousG

Is anyone really surprised by this?

  • 48 votes
#1 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:52 PM EST
BobbyG-420766

Nope - not me... Just more of the same from the Republicans, Robin Hood in reverse - steal from the poor and give to the rich...

  • 35 votes
#1.1 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:55 PM EST
FlyingEnergy

Not really. The GOP is out for the very wealthy. They want to bleed the American people and governments pockets dry. Then they will move to some small country and leave us with nothing but mountains of debt and no money to pay it back with.

Then the Chinese will come and take over. Which at this point I might welcome. At least then we would have national health care and good schools that the people give two sh*#s about.

And bobbyG, it's Robbin the hood.

  • 25 votes
#1.2 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:58 PM EST
LMarcT

And the richer we can make them the better off we'll all be! Let's just bypass the government and tax system altogether! Make your checks out to "Newt Gingrich, c/o the 1%" today!

And to think that roughly 35% of us believe this crap. Wow.

  • 20 votes
#1.3 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 5:40 PM EST
Roxanne2Sweet

No surprise here. Even their own GOP economist under Reagan says the Republicans' Reaganomics is the reason why we have our multi-trillion dollar debt.

The “debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party’s embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don’t matter if they result from tax cuts.”

David Stockman bombshell: How my Republican Party destroyed the American economy.

  • 22 votes
#1.4 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 5:43 PM EST
GaryColumbus

Excuse me but what Republican tax plan in the last 40 years hasn't made the deficit worse?!?

  • 30 votes
#1.5 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 5:44 PM EST
RobPlumley

Bush Tax Cuts.

1 trillion since 2001 to 2010, with 730 million savings for the top 1 % and 350 million for the top 5 %.

Reagan's tax also added over a thirty year period, several trillion dollars in debt due to not being balanced with spending cuts, as well as large increases in military spending.

Got it.

  • 14 votes
#1.6 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 7:00 PM EST
Roxanne2Sweet

Also,

if we taxed the wealthy and corporations at the same rate as they were taxed at decades ago, the entire 14 trillion dollar debt would disappear in a single decade.

But the GOP prefers keeping the tax loopholes in place for their wealthy donors (plus pay for their funding of defense contractors who also fund them) and pay for it all by eliminating Medicare and social security.

  • 16 votes
#1.7 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 7:10 PM EST
Daniel A. Hallo

So what if it does worsen it!
If Newter gets elected and puts his plan in, all they'll do is blame Obama, they always blame someone else.

  • 14 votes
#1.8 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 7:22 PM EST
jumpshotjarrod

Another "trickle down" proposal - same as the old trickle down proposals.

  • 17 votes
#1.9 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 7:51 PM EST
Maxemum

Ron Paul 2012!

  • 2 votes
#1.10 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 8:09 PM EST
Rorschach-558483

Gingrich campaign spokesman R.C. Hammond disputed the projections on the budget deficit, saying the study doesn't account for the economic and job growth that such a tax system would generate.

If thirty years of tax cuts haven't produced "economic and job growth", why would this work now?

Newt -- kindly insert your trickle-down BS where the sun never shines.

  • 15 votes
#1.11 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 8:21 PM EST
CuriousG

Ron Paul 2012!

Nah, not so much.

  • 22 votes
#1.12 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:30 PM EST
mountainmike-1199289

The candidate of choice for the top 1%, top 5%, top 10%. But also the most ethically corrupt to the core. And he's the current front runner of the Republican Party. What does that tell you about the Republican Party?

"the study doesn't account for the economic and job growth that such a tax system would generate."

Good grief!!! What a trillion watt Hoover mega, ultra, turbo suck up to the rich!!!

A Boom in Corporate Profits, a Bust in Jobs, Wages
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2011/07/22/AP-A-boom-in-corporate-profits-a-bust-in-jobs-wages.aspx#page1

Not one shred of factual evidence that trickle down is happening at all. The worst of the worst ratios of corporate profits to jobs/wages ratios in 35 years of research.

Newt is a pompous liar.

  • 13 votes
#1.13 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 10:19 PM EST
jumpshotjarrod

Not one shred of factual evidence that trickle down is happening at all. The worst of the worst ratios of corporate profits to jobs/wages ratios in 35 years of research.

That's the thing; not only is there not one shred of evidence to support Newt's assertion, but all of the evidence points to the exact opposite of Newt's assertion. It's not as if we're discussing neutral data here - Newt's on the diametrically opposed end of the verifiable facts.

  • 11 votes
#1.14 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 10:31 PM EST
Baron Brian

Yeah, more of the same from these clowns: rob the poor, give to the rich---and create a level of income disparity that breeds revolutions (as in armed conflict, specifically civil war).

Go ahead and vote this clown into the White House...NOT!

Obama 2012

  • 10 votes
#1.15 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 11:41 PM EST
Rhazes

So everything that is not wars and police state will be gutted. I don't look forward to finding old and disabled people sifting through my garbage for food and taking dumps in the street. Half the houses on my street are foreclosed and every other day people are knocking on doors asking to mow my lawn or do other things for money.

Home invasions will skyrocket and prostitution will to as people get desperate to feed their familys. Reminds me of Back to the Future when Biff used the book to make all the money trickle up to him.

  • 8 votes
#1.16 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 11:53 PM EST
SAM-496624

jumpshot- Yeah the Obama administration has learned first had what trickle down economics does. The bail outs have negatively affected main street more than anything bush has done. How does it feel to know that your children (at birth) already own uncle Sam 38,000 and 3,000 of that goes to bailouts? Thank you Obama!

    #1.17 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 12:49 AM EST
    follow the money

    not suprised by the Republican saying,

    "deficits Don't Matter" attitude:

    http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=ie7&q=deficits+don%27t+matter+cheney&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&rlz=1I7SNNT_enUS431US431#q=deficits+don't+matter+cheney&hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7SNNT_enUS431US431&prmd=imvns&source=univ&tbm=vid&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=0e3mTpXNLpTciALc_ZicBw&ved=0CE0QqwQ&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=bf7c7b61fc7caf0&biw=1061&bih=459

    • 5 votes
    #1.18 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:23 AM EST
    A Yank in Australia

    SAM ######, have you been listening to Glenn Beck again????? You know that's bad for your IQ pretty soon you will start repeating things like your children (at birth) already own uncle Sam 38,000 and 3,000.....oops there ya go.....now go take your meds and have a lie down, leave the thinking and dealing with actual facts to us big boys and girls.

    • 5 votes
    #1.19 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:55 AM EST
    MartyMoose

    Tax rates are bull@!$%# no matter which party is talking about them. We need tax code reform. The uber rich are already paying about 15%. For some, it's more like 11%.

    And we're not even talking about a lot of money anyway. Most super rich people don't actually have what you would call a salary. If you jacked the rate up to 39% like Obama wants to, or even 49%, it would barely dent the deficit.

    If you closed the loopholes and really taxed the rich, you could actually give major tax cuts to the middle class and just imagine what that would do to the economy if you could put thousands of dollars every year back in the pockets of middle class consumers.

    • 5 votes
    #1.20 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 2:27 AM EST
    A Yank in Australia

    Correct......Moose!!!!!!! No sense discussing the rate, the rate applies to "taxable income" once the accountants and lawyers wash it through all the schemes and loopholes there is very little taxable income.....so the % rate makes little difference as the taxable income has been reduced to zilch....and since they are on Directors Fees or what have you they don't actually make payments or have money taken out of their checks it is all worked out in the trust funds, schemes and loopholes don't you worry about that.

    • 3 votes
    #1.21 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 5:09 AM EST
    dEd Grimley

    This article is massively under-written. Because all Republican tax plans would worsen the deficit. They don't care about the deficit at all. To them, it's merely something on which to attack the Democrats when they're in power, while they make it worse while they're in power.

    They're trying to run an economy that could never increase revenue, because they keep trying to cut taxes for the rich, which not only cuts revenue, it shrinks the economy. Then they cripple the Democrats by riding their asses about the budget while they're in power, and then don't have to bother giving a $%^& about it when they are.

    Then they'll complain about the size and power of government, and expand it when they're in the majority.

    The Democrats suck. The Republicans are just flat out wrong. That's the difference. And there won't ever be a credible 3rd party because too many liberals want too many different things, so they'll have to vote Democrat to get anyone in power, and the conservatives are the opposite, and only want one thing, so any attempt at another party for them would only split that vote.

    We're totally screwed no matter what until we get the money out of politics and get rid of corporate personhood, and we won't get rid of that until we get a less conservative Supreme Court. So just buckle in and vote Democrat for the time being so we don't go any further down the road to outright fascism.

    • 7 votes
    #1.22 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 8:44 AM EST
    GaryColumbus

    Mess with the numbers all you want. Trickle down never worked. In fact it is was and forever will be a complete disaster except for the rich. Talk about a ponsi scheme. Worse than Madoff, Exxon and Abramoff put together. Trickle up could work. The more families with money in their pocket the more demand.

    • 7 votes
    #1.23 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 8:49 AM EST
    Baron Brian

    @MartyMoose,

    Great post!

    I'd go out and buy all sorts of stuff...

    • 1 vote
    #1.24 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 9:35 AM EST
    jumpshotjarrod

    @ SAM

    jumpshot- Yeah the Obama administration has learned first had what trickle down economics does. The bail outs have negatively affected main street more than anything bush has done.

    "The bailouts" (TARP) occurred under the Bush Administration; Obama's first major bill signing was ARRA, which was stimulus.

    But, to your point: The "bailouts" were bullsh*t - but that's what happens when we allow for the creation of such a top heavy system to begin with. Starting with President Reagan, an intentional and stated goal of flooding the "job creators" with an abundance of resources was achieved all the way through the end GWBs Presidency and into Obama's.... to the degree that the whole system was compromised when the plan failed.

    While I can certainly understand the concept that not bailing out the banks could have been better for the system long term, to act as if things would be better right now is ABSURD. Allowing the financial system to crash would have caused at least a decade of total disaster for American citizens; disaster the likes of which none of us have ever seen.

    My biggest gripe with TARP was that we didn't take the opportunity to fundamentally address WHY we ended up in that position to begin with. To this day, we still have lawmakers fighting tooth and nail against the type of regulation that would actually hold our financial sector accountable.

    Back when the economy melted down, we had Republicans blaming Clinton for deregulating the market by repealing pieces of Glass-Steagal, we had Democrats blaming Republicans for their long standing "deregulation" positions, and yet now we've got some of the same lawmakers refusing to acknowledge that deregulation was the primary problem. If people could put their partisan axes away long enough to show even a modicum of objectivity, we'd be much better off for it. It seems the only time lawmakers can find common ground is when their assigning blame. But, when it comes time to address the problem, it's back to the entrenched dogmatic ideology of one's political party.

    • 7 votes
    #1.25 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 10:15 AM EST
    Rorschach-558483

    To this day, we still have lawmakers fighting tooth and nail against the type of regulation that would actually hold our financial sector accountable.

    yep, and every last one of them is a Republican. Coincidence? Probably not.

    • 4 votes
    #1.26 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 10:18 AM EST
    Terry-2167801

    The Republicans keep pushing a Trickle Down Tax Plan in a Trickle Up Economy.

    It can NEVER work the way they claim it does.

    • 5 votes
    #1.27 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 11:55 AM EST
    Tim S.-560036

    I vote that Newt be exempted from having to pay US taxes. Exile him to Somalia.

    • 6 votes
    #1.28 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 12:07 PM EST
    ChambersTameraDeleted
    Charles McKenzie

    "duh". Can these righties be any more useless? Maybe teats-on-a-bull should run for the GOP nomination. I bet it would have better ideas.

    • 2 votes
    #1.30 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:48 PM EST
    SAM-496624

    yank in Australia- 1) I don't listen to Glenn Beck. 2) It's the truth, a 5 year old can do the math for debt to populous. 3) you must not be a "big boy or girl" if you can't do simple division.

    jump- Honestly, I agree with what you said. To be honest though, the entire problem started with LBJ and the "great society." However, the American debt has been held since about the 1700's. If you check my articles, it's one of the few things that i felt obligated to write about. I know i don't have many seeds or articles, but I literally have NO time for this thing with 3 jobs and being a Ph.d student.

    anyways, best wishes!

      #1.31 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:02 AM EST
      A Yank in Australia

      Sam, as a PH.d Student you would know that there is a difference between economics and math......good luck with the degree.

      • 3 votes
      #1.32 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 4:51 AM EST
      SAM-496624

      Not surprised that you'd try to talk about something I didn't mention (economics). I talked about the publicly held debt. If you'd like it in "economic" terms then here it is:

      AD= C+I+G-xp

      c= consumership

      I= Investment

      G= Government spending

      xp= exports

      If you want to look at what the Obama administration has done to increase demand, all they have done was raise government spending. They have not touched consumership or new investments in America. They just spend, spend, spend, spend and spend some more. I guess they believe that the demand fair will come along with her wishing wand and create demand.

      But then again that doesn't account for publicly held debt.

      So lets revert to my last statement, a 5 year old can do the division to get the debt to populous ratio.

      Besides, economics is math, it's a form of being a "bean" counter!

        #1.33 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 9:07 PM EST
        A Yank in Australia

        The President of the US has no more control over demand (or supply) than you or I. There is nothing really lacking on the demand side the problem is that the Republicans have foster the atmosphere that encourages business to manufacture cheap junk in 3rd world countries then bring it back to the US (or Aust) and sell it for exorbitant prices in comparison to the actual cost to produce.

        I note your equation does not include imports, trade deficits, number of jobs established overseas by US or Multi-National companies formally operating in the US. Your equation did not include money wasted by the Defence Dept or money spent on senseless wars. You need to expand your equation to include all of the variables.

        Now the big push by lobbyists on behalf of the Military Industrial Complex is to pass laws or allow loopholes which will allow these business to repatriate their ill-gotten gains TAX FREE, doubling up on the exchange rate, and then taking them back overseas to create jobs (yes they are job creators) in China, India, Pakistan, etc etc etc. Figure the Corporate Tax on that sum and subtract that from the deficit. Capitalism is based on the theory of Supply and Demand or Income against Expenditure.......it's a balance.

        You need to look at the whole picture not one isolated side of the octagon, blame that on one Executive, and use that as a reason to elect the trickle down lackeys of the Military Industrial Complex.

        Get money out of politics and politics out of government that is the root of the problem.

        • 3 votes
        #1.34 - Fri Dec 16, 2011 6:06 AM EST
        Tim S.-560036

        There is nothing really lacking on the demand side the problem is that the Republicans have foster the atmosphere that encourages business to manufacture cheap junk in 3rd world countries then bring it back to the US (or Aust) and sell it for exorbitant prices in comparison to the actual cost to produce.

        Anyone that has read my comments know I am no fan of the current Republicans and their regressive base. But I do support facts and I can't let this comment go unchallenged. Democrats have been as guilty of this as Republicans. Both Presidents and Congress. The xAFTA treaties are the latest example. They allow the free import of goods that undercut domestic production by allowing laxer standards than allowed in the US. This discriminates against the US production and US jobs. It undermines the safety of the world and national security. It undermines the environment by encouraging pollution in other parts of the world as if pollution respects political borders (down right stupidity). And the list goes on. And both parties are just as guilty.

        I agree with every other point you made.

          #1.35 - Sat Dec 17, 2011 2:34 AM EST
          A Yank in Australia

          Agreed, both parties share the blame in this issue over a long period of time.....they are funded by the same businesses that are profiting from this formula. However it is only the Republicans who are publicly supporting giving these businesses the loopholes and tax laws which will allow them to double up their winnings by repatriating the overseas funds, gained at the expense of the US economy, tax free. This must not be allowed or it will just award those business for creating jobs overseas.

          • 3 votes
          #1.36 - Mon Dec 19, 2011 6:28 PM EST
          Tim S.-560036

          I agree.

          • 1 vote
          #1.37 - Mon Dec 19, 2011 8:39 PM EST
          SAM-496624

          Actually the equation is spot on mate! The equation is simply showing aggregate demand and if you haven't heard previous news the demand in America is $hit (was $@!$%#, its getting better). I had no reason to talk about any of the things you listed b/c those were not in the conversation and would require about 5k pages of writing to cover properly. IF you didn't realize consumership in America was almost nil before the "saint Nick" affect.

          As for hating businesses i'm always curious what you work for? A business? Also, the American corporate tax is 35% + bonuses which can drive it up to 38%. I'm sure you'll rant about some tiny number of corps that get breaks from the government for initiatives, but they are minimal. So the money isn't always free, actually majority of the time America is the 2nd most expensive place to do business. To be exact though, in 2015 Mobile, Alabama will be the cheapest place in the world to create and manufacture goods.

            #1.38 - Thu Dec 22, 2011 12:55 AM EST
            A Yank in Australia

            Sam are you jumping ship on the debt and moving over to demand? Which is it debt or demand??????? Oops it's a balance isn't it.

            Enough said.

            Merry Christmas

            • 3 votes
            #1.39 - Thu Dec 22, 2011 5:44 AM EST
            Tim S.-560036

            As for hating businesses i'm always curious what you work for? A business? Also, the American corporate tax is 35% + bonuses which can drive it up to 38%.

            Depends greatly on the size and type of business. Since the effective tax rate for businesses overall is closer to 20%, some are getting large breaks and others are getting screwed. Those getting screwed are typically the small domestic businesses like the local store or restaurant or landscaper or mechanic, etc. You know the ones that hire people and can't offshore their work.

            • 2 votes
            #1.40 - Fri Dec 23, 2011 12:53 PM EST
            Dennis in WA

            Those getting screwed are typically the small domestic businesses like the local store or restaurant or landscaper or mechanic, etc.

            Actually most of the small businesses pay taxes on their business profits under their individual returns as S-corps. Not that they're not getting screwed, mind you!

            If corporations which filed under the corporate tax system all paid corporate income taxes based on their public reporting of profits, their marginal rate could be rather lower than it is now, and the tax burden would be more equitably distributed.

              #1.41 - Fri Dec 23, 2011 1:16 PM EST
              SAM-496624

              yank- actually, you made the assumption that I do not know the difference between economics and math. I showed you the equation for aggregate demand, which i STATED did not answer the question. Obviously, I'm well aware of the difference between math and economics!

                #1.42 - Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:58 PM EST
                Tim S.-560036

                If corporations which filed under the corporate tax system all paid corporate income taxes based on their public reporting of profits, their marginal rate could be rather lower than it is now, and the tax burden would be more equitably distributed.

                I agree and it could raise additional revenues with a significant tax cut to the real small businesses that create the most new jobs.

                  #1.43 - Sun Dec 25, 2011 12:07 AM EST
                  Reply
                  buckeyenut-2225921

                  "The study says federal tax revenues would drop by an estimated $850 billion in 2015 and worsen the budget deficit unless it is offset by unprecedented spending cuts."

                  You mean like spending cuts the "supercommittee" was supposed to find.

                  • 1 vote
                  Reply#2 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 5:00 PM EST
                  Fufu

                  No, the spending cuts required to balance the budget under Gingrich's plan would be something along the lines of 2/3 of ALL government spending.

                  • 11 votes
                  #2.1 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:56 PM EST
                  Randy McMurphy

                  bucknut

                  We got the cuts, but the repubies are afraid of their gnome leader,grover norquist

                  • 9 votes
                  #2.2 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 10:10 PM EST
                  knightofdespair

                  Our country has a broken leg, the republican solution? Cut it off!

                  • 3 votes
                  #2.3 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 10:27 AM EST
                  Reply
                  John Bayner

                  Surprise Surprise Surprise, back to the drawing board Gomer.

                  • 15 votes
                  Reply#3 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 5:03 PM EST
                  Keav

                  You could use the headline:

                  "Republican Presidential Nominee (Insert Name Here)'s tax plan would worsen deficit while significantly benefiting the rich"

                  for all of these geniuses.

                  The Repubs need some mad scientist to splice Gingrich, Perry, Cain and Bachmann into some ultra-candidate, taking all the positives and eliminating their drawbacks.

                  • 15 votes
                  Reply#4 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 5:11 PM EST
                  b dune

                  "Splice ultra candidate"?

                  What would end up with?

                  A fat black womanizer with gray hair who can't remember more then two ideas at one time with boobs?

                  • 11 votes
                  #4.1 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 5:21 PM EST
                  lib50

                  Positives?

                  • 6 votes
                  #4.2 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:50 PM EST
                  Reply
                  Jackie-355788

                  Yes and this is their "ideas man" . How stupid are they?

                  • 12 votes
                  Reply#5 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 5:14 PM EST
                  Brian-497171

                  Well I am just shocked at this!!!!

                  Shocked!

                  You're telling me that greedy little Republican pig of a human being wants to give more free money to rich people at the expense of the rest of the entire nation?

                  He is a self-proclaimed Reaganite, though. He still believes that sating the rich with gobs of free cash will eventually lead to a trickle-down of wealth and prosperity for all. I mean, even though the hard eveidence has supply-side policies as the main reason for the giant chasm we now have between the rich and the rest in America. But hey, maybe 30+ years of this theory isn't enough. Maybe we need another 30 years of "give the rich everything they want", eh?

                  • 14 votes
                  Reply#6 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 5:18 PM EST
                  TheTruthOnly

                  See what I mean! about SM types thought process. <g>

                  • 1 vote
                  #6.1 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 5:23 PM EST
                  Brian-497171

                  Because I don't believe in giving rich people loads of free cash, that makes me a socialist/marxist?

                  WTF?

                  • 14 votes
                  #6.2 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 5:35 PM EST
                  Jackie-355788

                  That thing were the accuse you of being a communist is the oldest rhetoric in Hiltlers Playbook. He did the same thing in Germany in order to get elected into government.

                  • 7 votes
                  #6.3 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 5:57 PM EST
                  follow the money

                  nothing new from newt:

                  http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/12/13/388353/gingrich-1998-tax-plan-rich/

                  • 1 vote
                  #6.4 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 2:51 PM EST
                  Reply
                  TheTruthOnly

                  The truth of the matter is, Newt is a free-market capitalist. Most of the comments here so-far are from socialistic marxists. Either America is going to remain a superpower with a very nice standard of living, even for those who do not contribute to the system, or America will CHANGE into Europe where the standard of living for the poor will detoriate and the RICH will be the ONLY ones with anything nice. America is an opportunity for what you want, NOT a promise to give you what you want. Savvy?

                    Reply#7 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 5:20 PM EST
                    b dune

                    Your "I have my head up Newts azz" t shirt will be in the mail tomorrow!

                    You wrote it just like the home office instructed you!

                    • 22 votes
                    #7.1 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 5:24 PM EST
                    Brian-497171

                    NOT a promise to give you what you want.

                    *Unless you are already rich - then by all means take everything!

                    • 11 votes
                    #7.2 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 5:38 PM EST
                    Jackie-355788

                    Your infamous capitalist Henry Ford gave generously to Hitlers campaign in Germany. National Geographics "The Dawn of Natzi"

                    • 7 votes
                    #7.3 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 5:59 PM EST
                    Chirmly

                    I am sorry TheTruth, your statement is bogus. What Newt is proposing is shackling a market. Granted, the market he wants to torpedo is the government itself. He's saying that gov't should be hobbled such that it can't collect what it needs in order to give handouts to the rich.

                    That's the opposite of the free market.

                    If you want free market, then the tax system would be entirely flat -- there would be NO caps on things like social-security (where the rich currently pay nothing after the first 100k of income -- so if you earn $105k or 10,000,000 per year, you pay the same social security)... There would be no reason to provide tax breaks on things like capital gains or interests on a home and the like. Those are gifts, handouts to make those markets more appealing. There would be no oil subsidies -- quite the opposite, again, of the free-market.

                    • 7 votes
                    #7.4 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:32 PM EST
                    yellowdog-1220329

                    Please explain the tern socialist marxist. I have very limited knowledge of economic systems and always thought that socialism and marxism are very different economic systems that are not compatible to each other. Since you seem to have a great understanding of economics (no doubt a PhD from Fox U.) i'm sure you can enlighten me.

                    • 12 votes
                    #7.5 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:53 PM EST
                    RobPlumley

                    Try doing a little research.

                    • 1 vote
                    #7.6 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 7:01 PM EST
                    yellowdog-1220329

                    I have, but obviously you and TTO haven't. Sorry I left the /s off my post, Now I will state it as plainly as i can. Socialism and Marxism are very different, incompatible economic systems. Trying to describe an economic system as socialist marxist is like trying to breed a sheep and a chicken with each other. The parts just don't fit together.

                    • 12 votes
                    #7.7 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 7:09 PM EST
                    Jackie-355788

                    Yellowdog you know they just pull stuff out of thin air and call it fact. Like putting to things together makes them look intelligent like Newt Romney? They are a laugh and live in their own little worlds they have been programmed like wind up robots with the same talking points.

                    • 6 votes
                    #7.8 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 8:48 PM EST
                    Randy McMurphy

                    Adam Smith is a socialist marxist according "the truth". BTW Newt is not a capitalist and neither are you. A capitalist makes money exclusively from investments, Newt uses his political connections to lobby for Fannie Mae, cajol speaking engagements and writes bad literature, and I don't know where you push a mop...

                    • 6 votes
                    #7.9 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 10:17 PM EST
                    yellowdog-1220329

                    Of course I know that. But isn't it fun to catch them at it?

                    • 5 votes
                    #7.10 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 10:18 PM EST
                    Sam Spade-1094274

                    There is no such thing as a free market.

                    • 5 votes
                    #7.11 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 12:26 AM EST
                    A Yank in Australia

                    The Truth Only.....obviously you don't get out much, been to Europe lately or anyplace outside of New Jersey?????

                    • 3 votes
                    #7.12 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 2:01 AM EST
                    Terry-2167801

                    The poor in most of Europe have a HIGHER standard of living and BETTER Medical Care than the poor in the US have.

                    • 5 votes
                    #7.13 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 5:54 PM EST
                    Reply
                    Peter-2556560

                    I am not surprised, this is why I said Newt's poll ratings will drop when voters know more about him and what he stands for.

                    • 8 votes
                    Reply#8 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 5:29 PM EST
                    knightofdespair

                    Like they have already for every other cockroach they put on the stage, when the lights come on they melt away.

                    • 3 votes
                    #8.1 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 10:46 AM EST
                    Reply
                    Hannibel Lechter

                    Flatulently speaking; " A new independent study says the tax plan by GOP presidential hopeful Newt Gangrene would provide big tax breaks to the rich and blow a huge hole in the federal budget deficit."

                    • 7 votes
                    Reply#9 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 5:32 PM EST
                    Common.Cents

                    Flawed premise.

                    A Deficit occurs when the government spends more than it takes in in revenue. Deficits are a spending problem.

                    Without looking at the full picture, there is no way to predict the deficit.

                    We won't tax our way to prosperity. There will be no prosperity until Americans, including our government, live within our means. This means that we shouldn't spend more than we have.

                    Right now, the government is spending so much, no tax plan could ever close the deficit. Taking everything from the millionaires won't solve the deficit problem. The deficit problem is overspending, not under-taxing.

                    --
                    ¢ommon ¢ents

                    • 2 votes
                    Reply#10 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 5:57 PM EST
                    Brian-497171

                    Guess what? It takes a lot of money to run this country.

                    I don't want to live in a libertarian wasteland, do you?

                    • 18 votes
                    #10.1 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:05 PM EST
                    MJMullinII

                    Right now, the government is spending so much

                    Based on what (other than money going to things you don't like, I mean)?

                    • 10 votes
                    #10.2 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:08 PM EST
                    Ron Christman

                    Meanwhile back at the (Republican) ranch, we'll continue to increase defense spending and gawd forbid we ever pull out of a country that we invaded illegally for no reason whatsoever. Cut everything but the war machine! Is there a right winger who isn't a dumbass?!?!

                    • 11 votes
                    #10.3 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:30 PM EST
                    RobPlumley

                    Deficits also occur when you don't take in sufficient revenue for what is desired.

                    Do some more research.

                    • 6 votes
                    #10.4 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 7:02 PM EST
                    Rickeroo

                    The deficit problem is overspending, not under-taxing

                    This is true to a point, but only addresses the most superficial aspect. I'll add that while the EU taxes the stuffing out of their citizens, they are having a more severe debt issue than we are.

                    So we need to look at the similarities between the US and EU, and address why the EU is worse off. Does the EU not tax their rich enough? Does the EU have more "income disparity"?

                    Just a quick look at human nature tells us the answer as to why the US is lagging behind (but following closely) the EU's debt:

                    1. People look to government to do stuff for them

                    2. Politicians promise "stuff", paid for by the taxpayer

                    3. Avoidance of actual payment is the key, since the people are much less likely to be bribed with their own money, and vote got the candidate that bribes them, if they were forced to pay the bill. Deficits ensue.

                    Culturally, the EU has been practicing steps 1-3 for quite a while longer than the US, which is why they are further in debt.

                    • 1 vote
                    #10.5 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 8:16 PM EST
                    Got_hate?

                    LOL common cents is it?

                    Common cents would solve a family budget problem by the bread winner quiting his job for a lower paying one.

                    THATS THE REPUBLICAN DEBT SOLUTION, cant afford your bills with the job you got? quit and get a worse paying one.

                    Yep that is common sense.

                    DO you guys even think before you comment?

                    • 9 votes
                    #10.6 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:07 PM EST
                    A Yank in Australia

                    Hmmmmm Common Cents (I take it that is a made up name) you state "A Deficit occurs when the government spends more than it takes in in revenue" That would seem to indicate that there is a relationship between spending and revenue, sort of a balance. Like any balance if you put more in one side than the other the scales will tip in that direction.....so despite your claim that the deficit is a spending issue, it is in fact a much a revenue issue as much as it is a spending issue.......funny thing about scales you just can't have it one way. If your spending goes up, like say by starting 2 overseas ground wars, then your revenue must go up as well.....however if at the same time you decrease your revenue then of course you will have not only a deficit but also in this case a lot of young men and women who are dead because the Military Industrial Complex needed another war.

                    There ya go your lesson in economics 101 for today....when you get a grip on that let me know and we will have another lesson.

                    • 2 votes
                    #10.7 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 2:13 AM EST
                    Common.Cents

                    There will never be enough revenue to sustain the spending we have today. Spending will be cut. It's just a matter of whether we look like Greece when the cuts are forced (the Democrat plan), whether we look like Italy or Spain when the cuts are forced (the establishment Republican plan), or whether we look more like Great Britain when the cuts happen (the TEA Party plan).

                    Here are actual figures from the IRS website. The top 1% of tax payers in the 2009 tax year (returns filed by April 15, 2010), were people with adjusted gross incomes over $343,927. Their total income in 2009 was $1.324572 trillion. They paid a total of $318.043 billion in taxes. That means, they were allowed to keep $1.006529 trillion of their income. Let's say that taxes were raised to 100% on that top 1%. That would bring in an additional $1.006529 trillion in revenue. Every year since Obama has been in office, we've had a budget deficit signifiantly larger than that. Taking everything the top 1% make won't erase the current annual deficit.

                    It's not possible to raise taxes on "the rich" enough to cover the deficit. Spending has to be cut. We've spent beyond the point where taxing "the rich" will help. The budget can't be balanced by raising the top tax rate. There simply isn't enough money available in the economy to sustain our current spending levels.

                    Also, changing the top tax rates historically doesn't really change revenues much as a percentage of GDP. The comparison of total tax revenues to GDP is fairly flat over the long term (since the 1930's). It fluctuates between about 15% of GDP and 19% of GDP. It was in that range in the 1950's when the top marginal rates were 90% (before Kennedy cut them). It was in that range in the 1970's when the top marginal rates were around 70%. It was in that range in the 1980's when the top marginal rate was 28%. The difference is that GDP grows faster when the rates are lower. The best way to increase revenues is to get the GDP growing significantly. Higher tax rates won't do that.

                    This is in response to MJMullinII in 10.3:

                    Based on what (other than money going to things you don't like, I mean)?

                    Based on the fact that we can't raise taxes on "the rich" enough to pay for current spending levels. We're spending more than the total of all the income "the rich" are earning.

                    And to RobPlumley in 10.4

                    Deficits also occur when you don't take in sufficient revenue for what is desired.

                    Do some more research.

                    When you're spending more money than you could ever possibly get in revenue, the deficit is a spending problem. More revenue might help, but there isn't enough revenue sources available to sustain the current spending levels. Spending will have to be cut to balance the budget. And, sooner or later, the budget will have to be balanced. Our national security will be at risk if we keep borrowing like we have been.

                    Also, A Yank in Australia wrote in #10.7

                    There ya go your lesson in economics 101 for today....when you get a grip on that let me know and we will have another lesson.

                    Read this lesson from me. When you get a grip on this, let me know. We can have another lesson.

                    --
                    ¢ommon ¢ents

                      #10.8 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 10:42 AM EST
                      Dennis in WA

                      Flawed premise.

                      A Deficit occurs when the government spends more than it takes in in revenue.

                      Without looking at the full picture, there is no way to predict the deficit.

                      Irony alert:

                      Deficits are a spending problem.

                      Only when you don't look at the full picture! Flawed premise, indeed!

                      The top 1% of tax payers in the 2009 tax year (returns filed by April 15, 2010), were people with adjusted gross incomes over $343,927. Their total income in 2009 was $1.324572 trillion. They paid a total of $318.043 billion in taxes. That means, they were allowed to keep $1.006529 trillion of their income. Let's say that taxes were raised to 100% on that top 1%. That would bring in an additional $1.006529 trillion in revenue. Every year since Obama has been in office, we've had a budget deficit signifiantly larger than that. Taking everything the top 1% make won't erase the current annual deficit.

                      A number of flaws in this argument also. First, in 2009, at the heights of the recession, the total AGI (not total income) of the top 1% was down radically from just two years earlier (over $2t in 2007), so you're cherry picking a year to make your point. Also, with respect to deficits, as is the fiscal 2012 deficit is actually on pace to be under $1t, in part because of economic growth and in part from spending cuts already made. So, theoretically, the top 1%, assuming only that their 2012 AGI and taxes paid returns to 2007 nominal levels, could cover the whole deficit and still have around $500b left (still over $350k each, and that doesn't include income not in AGI).

                      No one's proposing that, of course, but one can see that while the share of income going to the top 1% has increased over the last decade, and their effective tax rate has gone down, that this should certainly be one way to make further reductions in the deficit - taxing those who have.

                      • 2 votes
                      #10.9 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 4:34 PM EST
                      Common.Cents

                      Several points. First, I used the most recent year for which data was available. This is not "cherry picking." I also note that the 2008 figures don't balance either, although it's closer.

                      Second, you are assuming a growth in total AGI in 2012 for the top 1% of about $700 billion. This has never happened before in history. It won't happne this time. It will take 4 years of solid growth to get back to the 2007 levels, and right now, we don't have the kind of growth that will make that happen. This President will not allow policies that will enable growth like that to be implemented.

                      Third, over the last decade, the share of income going to the top 1% has actualy decreased. That share is currently (well, in 2009, the last year we have full data for) at the lowest level it's been at since about 1998. There was even an article in the New York Times yesterday about that. I seeded it here. Check "Recession Crimped Incomes of the Richest Americans." Here's a quote from that article:

                      The share of income received by the top 1 percent — that potent symbol of inequality — dropped to 17 percent in 2009 from 23 percent in 2007, according to federal tax data. Within the group, average income fell to $957,000 in 2009 from $1.4 million in 2007.

                      Here's more from that article:

                      It’s very interesting that this has become such a big topic now when the numbers are back to where they were in the 1990s,” said Steven Kaplan, an economist at the University of Chicago’s business school. “People didn’t seem to be complaining about it then.”

                      This doesn't stop the Occupy Wall Street crowd from complaining about "income inequality," but the reality is, "inequality" has been falling with the recession. It also points to the logical endpoint for "redistribution" to achieve more "income equality." All it does is bring everyone down. It's "trickle up poverty."

                      I hope people in this country want a country where people are free to succeed. That's not the Occupy Wall Street message. It's more in line with the TEA Party message.

                      We'll see how it turns out. 2012 will be an interesting election year.

                      --
                      ¢ommon ¢ents

                        #10.10 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 10:37 AM EST
                        northtosouth

                        There's more to it. You stopped with this...

                        The share of income received by the top 1 percent — that potent symbol of inequality — dropped to 17 percent in 2009 from 23 percent in 2007, according to federal tax data. Within the group, average income fell to $957,000 in 2009 from $1.4 million in 2007.

                        But left this part out.....

                        Analysts say the drop largely reflects the stock market plunge, and most think top incomes recovered somewhat in 2010, as Wall Street rebounded and corporate profits grew.

                        The article you reference is a pretty good read. Problem is, it doesn't really support your position. In fact, it strenghtens the position of those that point to the rapid growth of inequality over the last 30 years.

                        The income shares of the top 1 percent became a common metric of inequality after a 2003 study by the economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanel Saez, which traced trends back to 1913. It peaked at 24 percent in 1928, just above its 2007 level. Mr. Saez, of the University of California, Berkeley, sides with those who think the rich will soon get richer

                        Per the article you seeded and linked, the top 1% held 23% of income in 2007. The highest level going back to 1913 was 24%. So, just because income (which includes capital gains, by the way) dropped from 23% in 2007 to 17% in 2009 we're supposed to think the divide is getting smaller? Note that the article also expects data to show a rebound for the 1% in 2010. And I suspect the percentage of income to the top 1% will reach 30% by 2013 as markets are rebounding and wages for the middle class continue to stagnate or decline.

                        We will not be remembered for the house we have or the car we drive. We will not be remembered for the size of our bank account or investment portfolio. We are remembered for the difference made in the lives of others. Whether that difference is a positive one, or a negative one, is up to us.

                        • 2 votes
                        #10.11 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 11:00 AM EST
                        Tim S.-560036

                        I don't know anyone that disagrees with the fact that we need to change our spending. That includes rethinking our priorities on the money we continue to spend and reducing the total amount we spend and when we should run a deficit and when we shouldn't. And the vast majority of people also realize that revenues have to increase. This is accomplished in 2 ways.

                        1. Economic growth
                        2. Higher effective rates

                        Deficits go up when the economy slows and especially when it shrinks. Part of this is because spending in many counter cyclical programs like SNAP and UI go up as unemployment goes up and average income goes down. This spending is cut automatically as the economy recovers, people get gainful employment, stop needing these programs and pay taxes on these new sources of income. They have a downward pressure when the economy grows. Higher effective rates come from raising marginal rates and/or reducing deductions. During the tail end of a recovery these effective rates should increase to pay off the debt accumulated during the downturn. Then they should be cut after that debt is paid down.

                        This doesn't stop the Occupy Wall Street crowd from complaining about "income inequality," but the reality is, "inequality" has been falling with the recession. It also points to the logical endpoint for "redistribution" to achieve more "income equality." All it does is bring everyone down. It's "trickle up poverty."

                        This is factually wrong on so many levels. Economic growth and stability are their best when income and wealth inequality are within a range of about 10% for the top 1% and 20% for the top 10%. We are not even close to that range at this point in time. Fewer than 500 people have the combined wealth of 50% of the population; 0.00017% has as much wealth as 50%. That is not healthy. It is not a question of people being free to succeed. It is the difference in succeed and greed. They may rhyme, but they are not the same.

                        The people in OWS want the chance to have a decent job at a decent wage to live a middle class life. This opportunity has been disappearing from this country for over 30 years. At the same time the top 0.01% is allowed to extract wealth from the system instead of creating it, commit fraud in the process and get "bailed out" when these actions crash the economy. That is a redistribution of wealth that destroys a country and an economy. That is the redistribution that OWS opposes and you sound like you support.

                        • 2 votes
                        #10.12 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 11:25 AM EST
                        northtosouth

                        Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife- “When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist.”

                        • 3 votes
                        #10.13 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 12:33 PM EST
                        Dennis in WA

                        Several points. First, I used the most recent year for which data was available. This is not "cherry picking." I also note that the 2008 figures don't balance either, although it's closer.

                        I'll concede that perhaps I should have referred to 2009 as an "outlier" instead, rather than assuming a motive behind its selection. It was, in fact, an outlier both in that the income of the top 1% declined in nominal terms by nearly 34% from two years earlier. It was also an outlier from the trend-line in income share going to the top 1%, which had been generally rising for quite some time, up to nearly 23% in 2007 - and again down a bunch in the outlier year 2009.

                        This President will not allow policies that will enable growth like that to be implemented.

                        As noted by another poster above, the decline was largely a result of the stock market collapse, which disportionately impacted the 1%. Also as noted above, the stock market has climbed substantially since its bottom in early 2009. Ironically, the rise corresponding quite nicely with the passage of the Stimulus, which also neatly contradicts your assertion regarding the Obama administration's economic policies! In fact, compare stock market performance under Bush v. Obama for the (theoretically) smart money's real opinion of Obama's policies...

                        Second, you are assuming a growth in total AGI in 2012 for the top 1% of about $700 billion. This has never happened before in history. It won't happne this time. It will take 4 years of solid growth to get back to the 2007 levels, and right now, we don't have the kind of growth that will make that happen.

                        Except that the same tables you reference show that it did just that between 2003 and 2006, in nominal terms (and in percentage terms, AGI in 2003 was 41% lower than in 2006, while 2009 was only 34% lower than my suggested target of return to 2007 nominal AGI).

                        All this of course is beside the point of the article, in that no one on the left of center is proposing tax policies that will clearly make the deficit worse, which is what EVERY mainstream Republican presidential candidate has done. No one on the left is suggesting that revenue increases alone will solve the deficit problem, while nearly EVERY Republican is suggesting that ONLY spending cuts can solve a problem created by BOTH revenue declines and spending increases.

                        A balanced approach should begin with removing tax preferences from the personal and corporate income tax codes (rather than necessarily raising marginal rates generally), starting with aggregious examples like the unwarranted special treatment of income derived from wealth, such as dividends and LT cap gains (especially as compared to the same income level, but derived from actually working), and the numerous corporate tax subsidies such as accellerated depreciation and the silly oil give-a-ways. It should also seek to reduce spending especially from the areas where it has increased the most over the last decade (defense - from around 3% of GDP to 4.8%), and where it is least beneficial to the long term economic health of the country (defense - where most resources are devoted to other than constructive endeavors).

                        • 4 votes
                        #10.14 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 4:23 PM EST
                        Reply
                        Don-3155982

                        This guy is revealing a continuing nightmare of stupidity since Bush Jr took the oath of office. How can things get so screwed up in such a short period of time. We need to throw the politician model out the window and reinstitute what we had under the Roosevelts Ike and Harry Truman. Good conservative leaders that cared for their fellow man. Under Eisenhower he too bypassed the politician model an through generals managed to clear out illegals in 48 deporting them far into the country so they couldn't reoffend and solved a problem with 5000 men. All because he bypassed the political people who were the same as today chronic unrealistic problem creators not solvers. Same with the economy today these self same idiots want to have tax cuts for the 1% who have 43 trillion dollars and tax us the other 99% yeah right. Bush's case fool me once 9/11 and the Guns of Navarone Tsunami of the economy with the tax cuts for the rich and now we have a second person in the same mold as Bush Jr. espousing the same thing uh uh not hardly. Run this guy out of town on a rail I wouldn't even be under the same roof as this guy. He's that far off what the people want. We don't need to be entertained take his dog and pony show somewhere else we need leadership to take us where Clinton took us taxing the rich and having an exciting financial upswing full of vitality. Gingrich is out with Dr. Seuss go with Romney and Michelle as VP to liven his campaign and focus more on those leaders that can emulate what we had with the leaders in the 20th century people that could be trusted and depended on.

                        • 5 votes
                        Reply#11 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:39 PM EST
                        adrienhaefeli

                        You know it's important that people do not fall to such tricks.

                        • 1 vote
                        Reply#12 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:45 PM EST
                        Hayduke1

                        Once again, Newt and the GOP demonstrate they really don't give a rat's ass about the deficit. It was never about the deficit; after all they had no problem running it up under the last few Republican administrations.

                        It's about killing our government, period.

                        • 10 votes
                        Reply#13 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:56 PM EST
                        TheTruthOnly

                        When was the last balanced budget? Who was SOH at that time?

                          #13.1 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 8:06 PM EST
                          lifeisgood43

                          Truth... so what happen to that Newt. Newt is one of the biggest hypocrites in America. He will say anything and do anything to get that money. You should be directing your anger at Newt. Newt has to please the real kings of the Reps, GROVER NORQUIST and the KOCH BROTHERS. That is why Newt is attacking the poor and the Unions

                          • 6 votes
                          #13.2 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:11 PM EST
                          Got_hate?

                          Which president raised taxes at that time?
                          which party freaked out and said the president was going to send us into a recession?

                          you already stated it lead to a ballanced budget.

                          WHICH PARTY TOOK A GOVERNMENT WITH A BALANCED BUDGET, and screwed that up?

                          which party fired it;s treasury sect for dare saying the bush tax cuts would lead to massive deficits.

                          I'll wait for you to spin your self dizzy coming up with a reply.

                          (notice how when someone on the left mentions the surplus people like truth scream "dot com bubble", now suddenly they want us to give all the credit to newt, who is proposing to destroy our revenues)

                          • 6 votes
                          #13.3 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:11 PM EST
                          chitownty

                          The budget surpluses of the 90s were largely the result of passage of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993.A bill that had NO Republican support in the House and VP Gore had to break the tie in the Senate to get it passed.Oh,by the way,the Speaker of the House then? Rep.Tom Foley of Washington.

                          • 7 votes
                          #13.4 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:25 PM EST
                          Randy McMurphy

                          "truth?"

                          show one piece of legislation under Newts that had a direct effect on the economy BEFORE 1997, truth is he dicked around with his contract on America for 2 years, and shut the government down because he didn't like sitting in the rear of air force one.

                          Clintons budget in 93 which not one republican voted for, and his administrations reinventing government which shed 377,000 government jobs (while all the so called "fiscal conservative" presidents increased government jobs and cost)

                          So Newtie was speaker starting 1995, but look at the deficit reduction Clinton was doing from year one of his presidency ; - indicates deficit/deficit share of gdp

                          92 -340/-5.5 Bushs' last year
                          93 -300/-4.6
                          94 -258 /-3.7
                          95 -226 /-3.1
                          96 -174 /-2.3
                          97 - 103 /-1.3
                          98 -29/-0.3
                          99 +1.9 /*
                          2000 +86.4/+0.9
                          01 -32/-0.3 Bushs' first year massive tax cut borrowed from gov't to give it
                          02 -317.4/-3 bush 2nd year deficit

                          • 7 votes
                          #13.5 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 11:11 PM EST
                          Reply
                          skeptic-227981

                          yeah, they want to cut spending until it's something THEY want to spend on. Putzes all.

                          $815 billion is considerably more than our defense budget for the year (we spend more than any other country on the planet) and many billions more than either TARP or the Stimulus.

                          So Newt is up to his old 'now you see it/now you don't' crap again.

                          • 4 votes
                          Reply#14 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:56 PM EST
                          Got_hate?

                          drug testing the poor.. yep
                          voter id.. yep
                          huge fence to keep out brown people.. yep
                          killing brown people... yep

                          helping the american poor... OMG you evil commie socialist, always spending other peoples money.

                          • 8 votes
                          #14.1 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:13 PM EST
                          Reply
                          RobPlumley

                          Please people, before making any comments about anything, take a little time and think before you type - more importantly, before you "post comment".

                          It's both spending and revenue that needs to be addressed, but the republicans keep this hope that tax cuts will work, which by themselves wont, especially during these recession times.

                          • 3 votes
                          Reply#15 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 7:04 PM EST
                          silverhawk63

                          See here we go.A flat tax with closing loopholes starting at 15% and liberals start raising hell. I've come to understand with them its personal, they hate people who succeed and just want to punish someone.Same old leftwing tired bull@!$%#.

                          • 3 votes
                          Reply#16 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 7:21 PM EST
                          TheTruthOnly

                          At one time I believed Liberals and Conservatives could come together for the benefit of our kids futures. Unfortunately, your statement contains real truth and unfortunately a dagger to the heart of my dream.

                          • 1 vote
                          #16.1 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 8:10 PM EST
                          Got_hate?

                          republicans want to clean up the mess they left us with by destroying the country we have left.

                          • 7 votes
                          #16.2 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:14 PM EST
                          Brian-497171

                          they hate people who succeed and just want to punish someone

                          Yeah, only Republicans succeed and all liberals don't have jobs.

                          Who tells you this sh&t, silverhawk?

                          • 9 votes
                          #16.3 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:16 PM EST
                          Got_hate?

                          fox

                          • 7 votes
                          #16.4 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:17 PM EST
                          FlyingEnergy

                          they hate people who succeed and just want to punish someone.Same old leftwing tired bull@!$%

                          Yep, same old tired right winger B.S.. Do you know how economies work silvehawk? The basic principles of supply and demand? Did you know people made a median wage of 35k in 1970? Adjusted for inflation that's 208k in 2011 dollars. The median wage now is 50k, that's 50k in 2011 dollars. That means people today are making 1/4 what was made back then. How about the fact that a house in 1970 had an average sale price of 40k, almost the same amount they made in a year. Now that's 150k and that's a 9year low. Cars sold for 3,500 back then now they are 22k on average. Wake up, the average person is getting screwed while the top 2% have seen their wealth rise 275%.

                          • 7 votes
                          #16.5 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:30 PM EST
                          Randy McMurphy

                          Silverhawk...did you read the article?

                          or switch to the new 15 percent tax. The new tax would apply to income at all levels, but there would be a variety of tax deductions and credits.

                          • 2 votes
                          #16.6 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 11:15 PM EST
                          People's_Republic_of_Seattle

                          Did you know people made a median wage of 35k in 1970?

                          HORSECHIT! According to Wikipedia the median income for white males in 1970 was $7,011 which works out to $30,536 in 2004 dollars. In 2004 it was $31,335. So basically no change, adjusted for inflation. Must be why they keep saying real income has stagnated since 1970. Wages are not 25% of what they were 40 years ago, that's just ridiculous.

                            #16.7 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 2:21 AM EST
                            FlyingEnergy

                            ?

                              #16.8 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 11:28 AM EST
                              Terry-2167801

                              Wages have stagnated, but costs for everything other than electronics have gone up.

                              • 2 votes
                              #16.9 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 2:46 PM EST
                              Reply
                              Peter-2556560

                              Yeah first Bush Tax Cuts now Newt's Tax Plan? Don't get me wrong but it is to give the Private Sector more of the tax credit especially major businesses? It is outrageous when Newt decried to OWS Protesters, go get a job, but before you do that be sure to take a bath first. Creating jobs is one thing, Hiring is not another, either Newt knows that difference between the two or he has no idea what is happening out there.

                              I understand this guy's confidence in our Free Market, but come to think of it. Not all U.S. businesses are from here at home, many are from overseas. So he wants to give them more tax credits so they can send their money abroad?

                              That is exactly what happened to Mortgage Business when it got introduced in the Free Market which he pocketed 1.6 millions out of Freddie Mack before the crisis.

                              What in the world is this Candidate thinking, Private Sector are for the People but his Government is not now which he wants to run and be the President of the United States for?

                              • 5 votes
                              Reply#17 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 8:23 PM EST
                              Jackie-355788

                              Nein nein nein to Gingrich tax plan. ( no, no,no in German)

                              • 6 votes
                              Reply#18 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 8:55 PM EST
                              SuperSaiyan

                              Why am I not surprised by this?

                              • 6 votes
                              Reply#19 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 8:57 PM EST
                              southern,comfort

                              We have seen too much hypocracy with the history of this man. He does not need to be running for president making any promises. This man has a hard time keeping commitments and promises to spouces and the american people. His own sister will not vote form him. I don't care she is gay, but, that tells me alot about a person. Just another man that will say or do anything to get what he wants. Don't you think we have paid enough already????????

                              • 4 votes
                              Reply#20 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 8:58 PM EST
                              Rygar

                              Gingrich would eliminate taxes on capital gains, dividends and interest,

                              Ah so in other words rich CEO's/Investors won't need to pay taxes at all. Considering much of their income from bonuses and stock options falls underneath the capital gains.

                              • 4 votes
                              Reply#21 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:01 PM EST
                              northtosouth

                              Exactly. Eliminate taxes on activities that do nothing to contribute to the economy. Stellar idea! /sarc

                              • 3 votes
                              #21.1 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:36 PM EST
                              Randy McMurphy

                              Rygar since 50% of the capital gains are realized by the top .10% ,they might even make hm an archduke...

                              • 4 votes
                              #21.2 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 11:17 PM EST
                              Reply
                              roybokhade

                              We're screwed either way. No way Newt gets elected with Republican super majorities in both House's of Congress, so his agenda will not get any farther than President Obama's is with the idiots on both sides of the aisle we have at the moment.

                              Everyone is so up in arms about 2012, Nazi this and Socialist that, it will be the same people regardless. Whether it's a tall thin black man or a short fat white guy, their all still politicians and we're all still screwed. Whether we spend our way or tax break our way, screwed is screwed.

                              • 1 vote
                              Reply#22 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:11 PM EST
                              rockarooskiDeleted
                              greenpagan

                              Newtie Boy is an utter rube.

                              • 4 votes
                              Reply#24 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:46 PM EST
                              Marcel Villa

                              To me, all of these tax plan are plain dumb and stupid to the core. There is no tax structure that is fair and just both for the poor and the rich that can compete with the 2000 tax structure before Bush takes over.

                              The tax must and should be:

                              1. Removed all unnecessary subsidies like the oil industry. Go back to the time when these oil industry has to set aside some of the billions of profit they generate year in and year out for any oil development, restructuring and expansion.

                              2. Let the Bush tax exempt legislation expire and don't ever renew it.

                              3. Give new viable business ventures and old business ventures who wants to expand but has no capital and no banking credibility by acting as a collateral where the government do not dole out money at the start but these businessmen will go to the bank borrow money under government sponsored collateral program which gives much lower interest rate that is guaranteed by the government in the event the business fails but all the investigations for the project viability will be handled by the bank thus the business will have to pay the monthly dues, the bank will be forced to do the collection in order for them to garner the interest payments while the government does nothing but sit on the sidelines and watch the venture open up to success. The only time the government will open up their purse is when the business failed because the banks did not do the right job of investigating the parameters needed to make it a viable business venture. The banks will try their best to not let this happen because they will lose the interest from the loan since the government will reimburse them only on the principal that they loaned out minus any interest and work it entails to grant the loan. The business will get it's capital for expansion, reorganization or new business interest without utilizing their own working capital. In this manner, business that is not viable. no intention of making it through, or basically a junk bond business will not be given a chance to claim for government assistance.

                              4. Government must restructure their programs so that it will provide results in training and educating unemployed people with alternative courses and technical knowhow for them to get a job.

                              5. Government must recall any subsidies granted to any private corporations with regards to research and development since most of these are used by these corporations merely for their own benefit and does not necessarily filters down to the consuming public. The government must start building up research and development programs that may or may not parallel private business programs but whose intentions is to make new, innovative product lines and or concept that will benefit the public.

                              There are lots of other things the government can do to raise funds and increase financial stability without further encroaching to business tax structures. The GOP and the BUSH tax cut programs is the cantankerous virus that has resulted in millions of people losing their jobs. offshore job loses and so much more.

                              So, I say again, there should be no more talk of new stupid and idiotic tax plan just so the people will not know how the past administration created these massive and dangerous financial crisis and also so the GOP candidates will lose their fat cash cow for donations. Admit your mistakes and just let fair and judicious tax structure of before 2000 led the way.

                              • 2 votes
                              Reply#25 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:50 PM EST
                              Pat P11111

                              First we need to get the money out of politics with a constitutional amendment. Then with politician in place who are not owned and controlled by special interests we can revamp the tax structure.

                              It is a waste of time to do it now since no one listens to the majority.

                              • 1 vote
                              Reply#26 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 10:01 PM EST
                              Jump to discussion page: 1 2
                              Leave a Comment:
                              You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                              You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
                              (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
                              Newsvine Privacy Statement
                              As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                              FUN STUFF:
                              • Leaderboard |
                              • E-Mail Alerts |
                              • Top of the Vine |
                              • Newsvine Live |
                              • Newsvine Archives |
                              • The Greenhouse |
                              COMPANY STUFF:
                              • Code of Honor |
                              • Company Info |
                              • Contact Us |
                              • Jobs |
                              • User Agreement |
                              • Privacy Policy |
                              • About our ads
                              LEGAL STUFF:
                              • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
                              • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
                              • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com