When it comes to tax plans, it’s all just so confusing. Or at least that’s what the NYT< seems to be telling us.
|By: Dean Baker Friday August 3, 2012 12:58 pm|
|By: cocktailhag Thursday June 14, 2012 8:00 pm|
After pissing away $25 million or so on Newt Gingrich’s “candidacy,” billionaire cuckoo person Sheldon Adelson just grandly announced that he’s going to pony up another $100 million to elect Mitt Romney President. Since the guy’s got another $24.9 billion where that came from, that’s no idle threat; geezer that he is, he can go ahead and buy every political office available between now and his death, and still never come close to running out of money. That’s nice.
But then what will be left for all the other obscenely rich crazy people we’ve nurtured so obsequiously to buy?
|By: Scarecrow Friday May 18, 2012 6:00 am|
I suspect Chuck Schumer is pulling a fast one on us. After all, it doesn’t make sense to be upset that some selfish rich kid who came from another country would feel no particular loyalty to America, while we look the other way as millions of wealthy Americans and US-based corporations do everything they can to shield their income and evade US taxes while still enjoying all the benefits of US citizenship.
|By: masaccio Thursday February 23, 2012 6:00 am|
A framework for a bipartisan approach to corporate tax reform. Middle Class, if there are any of you left, hold on to your wallets.
|By: Scarecrow Sunday February 19, 2012 11:50 am|
A few days ago, PBS New Hour’s Judy Woodruff was interviewing Nancy Pelosi defending the pending payroll tax cut deal, and she wondered if Pelosi was concerned about the resulting loss to the Social Security Trust Fund. Huh?
The impression she gave was that a 2 percent reduction in the payroll tax would mean that funds available for Social Security would be reduced by that amount. Pelosi either missed the point or chose not to correct her. Someone will set her straight, I thought, and no one else will be confused about this.
But on ABC’s This Week, today, Jake Tapper made the same mistake, twice, though ABC’s writeup obscures this.
|By: masaccio Tuesday December 27, 2011 7:45 am|
Robert Samuelson confuses taxing the rich with slavery. Coincidence? Nipping at the sherry again? You decide.
|By: Dean Baker Wednesday December 14, 2011 8:12 am|
It is far from obvious that the purpose of a proposal that would have almost no impact on the overwhelming majority of rich people is in fact motivated by a desire to “make sure that the wealthiest Americans contribute more to reducing the deficit and paying for middle-class tax relief.” In fact, if anyone looks at the numbers, one could get the opposite impression since these proposals are being presented as alternatives to proposals to have a surtax on the income of the richest one percent. Such taxes would be a much greater expense to the richest one percent.
|By: Blue Texan Tuesday September 27, 2011 11:00 am|
Looks like Ted Leonsis, the billionaire who owns the Washington Wizards, got his fee-fees hurt when the president said all those mean things about rich people having to pay more taxes.
|By: Blue Texan Friday September 23, 2011 10:30 am|
Unfortunately, Obama hasn’t always been this strong and clear on taxes. Contrast the above statement with his Super Bowl interview with Bill O’Reilly last February.
|By: Blue Texan Monday August 1, 2011 11:15 am|
Buried in a post by Jonathan Chait is this shocker.