« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Putting Saxby Chambliss, Mike Crapo, and Tom Coburn in Perspective

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  July 22nd, 2011 at 06:15 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

This is really sad and pathetic. I can only guess they have struck such a bad deal because they negotiated from a position of fear. You never get a good deal when you are negotiating because you are scared.

The Senate Budget Committee is sending around an email pointing out some of the horrors of the Gang of Six’s gangrene plan.

Consider this: Saxby Chambliss, Mike Crapo, and Tom Coburn agreed to raise capital gains taxes from 15% to 28%.

Likewise, employers would no longer get a wage credit for keeping activated military reservists on the job.

Tags: , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • juumanistra

    Granted, it’s a pathetically small subcategory of them that consists pretty much entirely of cap-gains from appreciation of art objects, antiques, and other comparable goods, but still.

    Really, we shouldn’t be afraid of abolishing the preferential treatment of cap-gains under the tax code: The Left does have a point that it is distorting and does pick a particular class of winning taxpayers, while we have no great ideological dog in this fight. (As, after all, the only reason cap-gains are taxed at preferential rates is to compensate for the fact that income taxation disincentivizes investment.) Of course, we’ll never be able to get the Left to agree to the only equitable and non-destructive way to achieve their preferred policy result, as that’d mean taxing all income, regardless of source or class, at a single uniform rate. So best hunker down and bitterly oppose changing the status quo.

  • Viator

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/60673572/boehner-07-22-2011

  • Locked and Loaded

    He may be crawling – or slinking.

  • phenry

    Seems like a very modest price to pay for real cuts. Maybe it’s just because I’m not wealthy and capital gains don’t affect me very much, but it seems to me that capital gains come from rich people shuffling money around instead of actual work being done.

  • Death_of_the_Donkey

    with no deductions, loopholes, or subsidies. We can eliminate all these tax expenditures and greatly lower rates across the board.

  • d_lamar

    I’ve been of the opinion for the last couple of decades that every dollar earned should be taxed at the same rate, and should be capped at 10%. If it’s good enough for God, it should be good enough for the government.

  • carolina

    after Boehner spoke.
    CCB supporters would be proud. BO sounds like an arrogant idiot.

  • carolina

    after Boehner spoke.
    CCB supporters would be proud. BO sounds like an arrogant idiot.

  • Tbone

    If they raise the rates then the appreciated assets won’t get sold and there will be no gains to tax. Here, let me help you learn with an exercise you can do at home. How many more years would you have to hold an asset that is appreciating at a rate of 5% annually to recover the 13% in extra tax?

    Yep Sparky, no taxes paid in the interim.

    Also, Google “1031″.

  • Tbone

    See, now you don’t have to think like a Democrat.

  • juumanistra

    And yes, I also know there cannot be a gain until it is realized via sale of the asset. Might want to tone down the condescension a wee-bit, lest someone take it personally.

    I’m not disagreeing with you: As said in my second paragraph, raising the rate at which cap-gains are generally taxed without a wider reform of the tax code is pointless and self-destructive, because the only reason cap-gains are taxed at rates different from ordinary income is because of the disincentivizing effects to work and investment that result from progressive income tax rates. That doesn’t mean that in an ideal system that they should be given preferential rates, though: Income should be treated as income, no matter the source, and taxed at a uniform rate that is sufficiently low as to not penalize incomes derived heavily from investments in capital.

    We shouldn’t be wedded to preferential rates for cap-gains: Merely that, with the current form of the tax code, they are necessary to mitigate against the adverse effects of extant marginal rates. Cure the marginal rate problem by adopting a uniform rate of taxation, or abandoning income taxation in favor of consumption taxation, and there’s no need to treat cap-gains as somehow different from ordinary income.

  • carolina

    .

  • Tbone

    idea, you truly are an educated fool.

  • rightwardmarch

    if the government just taxed all income equally? Would be better than the status quo, where they pick “winners” income like capital gains to be taxed at a low rate, and sticking the rest of us with “losers” income taxed at the income tax rate.

  • Flagstaff

    It isn’t only the “rich” who realize capital gains. Any sale of stocks, bonds, or mutual funds that have appreciated are subject to capital gains taxes, as are sales of other assets that can be considered “investment assets.”

    I may be wrong, but I believe that over half of us own securities of some kind, although not all in accounts that are subject to the capital gains tax. A jump to 28% would be a tremendous problem for those of us who have to sell securities to pay our bills, which is most likely every “not rich” retiree, since without such a cushion created by years of saving and investing it is very hard to retire while being “not rich.”

  • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

    “Really, we shouldn?t be afraid of abolishing the preferential treatment of cap-gains under the tax code”

    Yes, we should because it is a massive investment-and-job-harming tax increase. The ONLY way to abolish the preference would be to cut the other rates down to 20% or less.

  • BigRedConservative

    End all loopholes, impose a flat tax on everything. It would average out revenue-wise and prompt much more in terms of enterprise.

  • radicalrighty

    that I donated to Saxby in a couple of congressional runs, as well as his first senate run.

    Redistricting moved Saxby into my district, and my friend and congressman Jack Kingston sent me a note asking me to donate to Saxby, and that Saxby “voted just like me.” Well, Jack was wrong.

    Saxby has become one of the Washington elite, who by virtue of getting voted into the Senate, is now DC Royalty.

    Maybe Herman Cain will primary his butt right out of office in three years.

  • http://www.AmericanThinker.com Hammer2008

    The 2014 Race to Replace Sen. Saxby Chambliss has unofficially begun. Should I be staying in Georgia these next three years, I’ll be encouraging better options to primary against him. I’d dare say (should he not pull off a coup) that Herman Cain could run him down in a primary.

    I’m ashamed I helped campaign for Saxby in the 2008 runoff. His yard sign will find another use, I’m sure…

  • rickdeckard

    This post is about to drop from the front page. I just want to use it check my anchor tags.

    Still I think these three should think twice about stinking around. There’s always more time with family, right? Not that they’ve done anything ethically wrong, mind you. They’ve just, you know, collaborated.

    Check this poll out

  • towg

    Hammer has it right. Saxby needs to be primaried in 2014. This was the last straw for him.

  • lakeworthcane

    Just like Obama.

    He has no intention of even suggesting decreasing the federal public sector’s size. He has no intention of cutting taxes. He spoke out against “Obamacare” and then unhesitatingly held out his hand when the money from it was shoveled his way.

    Anything that will put more money in Chambliss’ hands is okay with him. Like most long-standing congresspeople, he cannot lead. His power comes from other people’s money. Cut off that supply and he’s powerless.

    He’s been in office too long. We need leaders, not spenders. The good citizens of Georgia need to vote him out office ASAP.

  • edintexas

    The only “real cuts” are those made today, and those mandated by the Constitution (and the latter can often be ignored, see history). Any projections of cuts can be changed, or eliminated, in the next Congress (or even tomorrow). And that is beyond the fact that most “cuts” are simply reductions in the amount of increase, not reductions below current spending levels.

  • edintexas

    I agree IF there is reduction in the rates. Are you comfortable that the rates will be cut, and remain reduced, after the deductions, et al, are eliminated? Or do you think, as I do, that the deductions would be eliminated while the rates remain the same (or even increase over a longer term)?

  • edintexas

    Class warfare speak from someone claiming the “handle” rightwardmarch. Didn’t you really mean “rich people” instead of “winners”?

  • carolynr

    This is an example of a “company man”….someone that will make sure that he takes care of himself before he takes care of the nation or his oath to the Constitution. I know for a fact that the people of GA will vote this guy out in a heartbeat. BTW….He is against any drilling…THANK YOU SAXBY FOR THE HIGH GAS PRICES.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    You can’t win without a candidate, who’s in the wings?

  • JSobieski

    nt