Wyden's plan to simplify your taxes and end Western civilization as we know it
Kari Chisholm
It's easy to get overwhelmed when you try and study proposals for tax reform. All those "breaks and loopholes and deductions and exemptions and deferrals and exclusions", as the Washington Post's Ezra Klein puts it.
But Senator Ron Wyden's recent proposal - in collaboration with Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) - is an important one. Here's how Ezra describes it:
The Wyden-Gregg plan takes the six income brackets currently on the books and compresses them into three (15 percent, 25 percent and 35 percent). It gets rid of the alternative minimum tax. It triples the standard deduction available to all taxpayers, which means that people don't need to spend as much time trying to itemize deductions and figuring out ways to game the system. It kills off the existing six corporate rates and eight corporate brackets, and replaces them with a flat corporate tax of 24 percent. And it reduces the task to a one-page form.
OK, sounds simple enough. But will taxes go up or go down?
Republicans and Democrats get into a lot of fights about how high taxes should be and what they should fund. But Wyden and Gregg have largely sidestepped those fights by holding revenue more or less steady and are simply attempting to clean up the code. ...The result of all these changes? The average corporation and taxpayer would pay quite a bit less. But the system wouldn't be bringing in less money because fewer people would escape their burden altogether. That last bit is particularly important, says Bob McIntyre, director of Citizens for Tax Justice. "If you're getting rid of loopholes and lowering rates, you get winners and losers, not just losers. So all of a sudden it's not only one side that cares. That's especially true on the business side, which is where the real action is in tax reform and lobbying. That's the dynamic that makes tax reform possible."
In other words, the folks who've been hiring lobbyists to win themselves all those "breaks and loopholes and deductions and exemptions and deferrals and exclusions" would pay more -- while the rest of us would pay somewhat less.
And that's why Senator Wyden said that - from the perspective of a special-interest lobbyist - it's the end of the world.
Save for a couple of big-ticket tax items -- the mortgage interest deduction, for example -- the politics for most of the sections you'd want to clean from the tax code pit a tiny group of beneficiaries who are committed to preserving their sweetheart deals against the vast majority of Americans who have no idea that the tax code contains that deal in the first place. "Every interest group around will be lined up saying if you take our tax break, Western civilization will end," Wyden predicts.
Who else loses? Tax preparers and tax prep software companies. But then, isn't the existence of that entire industry simple proof that our system is too damn complicated?
As Ezra notes, we're long overdue:
Most experts think you've got to scrub the code every 10 or 15 years, much like ship owners have to dock the boat every so often and shear the barnacles from the hull. For a while, we were doing just that: We had major tax reform in 1954, 1969, 1976, 1986, and then . . . nothing. We've gone 25 years without a serious effort at tax reform. That's 25 years that corporations and interest groups and constituencies have spent complicating the tax code.
Sounds like it's time for tax reform to me.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
2:27 a.m.
Mar 16, '10
Full disclosure: my firm built Ron Wyden's campaign website. I speak only for myself.
Mar 16, '10
Add to this a very high rate on uber wealth--I'll be generous and say five million. Anything over that gets taxed at 90 percent, although since so many folks at that bracket are seemingly concerned with "creating jobs", we can alleviate their concerns by allowing them to put that money, at the 35% rate, back into the business for the purpose of hiring people at a living wage.
7:52 a.m.
Mar 16, '10
Not likely, Jim.
Mar 16, '10
Sounds like good policy to me!
Now lets scrap the provision that does away with tax-exempt municipal bonds, and we're ready to roll! :)
Mar 16, '10
"Wyden's plan to simplify your taxes and end Western civilization as we know it"
Mahatma Gandhi when he was once asked what he thought of the Western civilization responded that he thought it would be a good idea.
Seems like a good idea to work towards.
Mar 16, '10
Hot Damn! And one of the guys who wrote that is MY SENATOR!
OK, it's official. I forgive him for all the waffling and wavering on HCR; as long as he stays firm with reconciliation I won't cast even a protest vote against him.
It's a good, proud day to be from Oregon. Or even New Hampshire...for now. Anyone want to bet Gregg promises to join the GOP filibuster against his own proposal when it finally comes up for a vote?
Mar 16, '10
Here we are in the midst of a battle over health care reform where Wyden is going to get the welfare for the private insurance industry he's wanted all along. Except for true Democrats are putting up a valiant effort right now to uphold Democratic values and stop it like we've not seen for a while.
And what do we get in Blue Oregon? Kari's sleazy flakking for Wyden's re-election by pumping Ezra Klein's --- supposedly one of those "progressive" voices --- attempt to also distract the debate. Even though we are at the crucial moment in the a health care battle.
Klein is typically intellectually dishonest by inviting implicatures that mischaracterize Wyden's entire actual position and role. He then goes on in his normal immature way to push Wyden's own attempt to distract from Wyden's moral and legislative failures in the current battle with the old "we have to look forward" thing that has become the standard propaganda technique of too many Democratic elitists for evading responsibility:
A lot of it is coming out of Sen. Ron Wyden's office. Wyden (D-Ore.) -- last seen pushing a bipartisan, comprehensive health-care reform bill that would have passed in a landslide if pundits and experts had votes in the Senate -- is Congress's Energizer Bunny when it comes to proposing ambitious policy overhauls. His next target is tax reform.
And if Chisholm and Klein want to make the excuse, like so many in their ADHD generation that the reason they're bored with the health care debate is because it "soo... over", this week we have two looming foreign policies crises in the Mideast (as if two failed wars is not enough). The adult headlines are talking about:
1) how Biden and Clinton are chastising Israel for being a dishonest, unreliable partner in restarting negotiations with the Palestinians while AIPAC and Israel are screaming psychotically about it, and
2) apparently, even that could be a ploy as a Democratic administration makes moves that appear to be the start of a dangerous path of action against Iran
Where's Wyden on this? The Senate is the body the Constitution designates as giving advice and consent on foreign policy. The Constitution designates the House to be the people's body whose primary responsibility is supposed to be tax and spending issues.
If Wyden wants to do the House's work he should run for Blumenauer's seat. Trading one Portland clown for another wouldn't be any big loss and the objective evidence is that Portland area Democrats are too smug, self-centered, and uninformed to care. The indisputable fact is that they are the blue epicenter of the state and have the vote count to force Wyden out for turning the health care reform effort into a program of permanent entitlement for the private health insurance industry.
Once again, in this typically Wyden sleaze to distract for personal political electoral advantage, we see why he's not morally or intellectually fit for the job he has. He reminds us exactly what the kind of people who have stolen the Democratic Party from the people. As well as how they skillfully use the desires of young and dumb political climbers like Chisholm and Klein to accomplish their selfish political goals to the detriment of average, disempowered people all over the world.
8:46 a.m.
Mar 16, '10
This bill is very reminiscent of the Bradley-Gephardt bill back in the 1980s, which Packwood used as the model when he junked the reform package proposed by Reagan's Treasury Department in 1985 and proposed the alternative which became the Tax Reform Act of 1986. In each case, the underlying theory was lower the tax base by eliminating deductions while simplifying the tax code and lowering tax rates.
The one caveat is that this bill is revenue neutral only because it assumes some unspecified tax expenditure eliminations in the future, so Steve Novick should keep his calculator on. :-) However, most people forget that the 1986 Reform Act was the largest corporate tax increase in U.S history at the time as well.
I doubt there is any stomach for tackling tax reform right now but Wyden should be commended for yet another outside-of-the-box bipartisan proposal like the Wyden-Bennett health care plan.
Mar 16, '10
I am a little skeptical. I am fairly certain that the founding fathers held that citizens have a fundamental right to deduct the depreciated value of business automobiles, rental homes, and railroad pensions.
Mar 16, '10
My 2 or 3 cents:
The number of tax brackets is not what makes the tax code complicated. It takes one tiny little table.
Given the size of the deficit, the goal of any tax reform proposal should find a way to balance the budget. Otherwise, what's the point? Being revenue neutral is not good enough.
The uber-wealthy need to have a high top bracket. Until someone can prove otherwise, I'm convinced the cause of the ever-increasing wage gap in this country is because of the loss of a 50%+ tax bracket. 90% may be over the top (unless it's at $100m). But at least 60% or so for income over $10m is reasonable. 35% is not adequate.
Mar 16, '10
Jack Roberts wrote:
I doubt there is any stomach for tackling tax reform right now but Wyden should be commended for yet another outside-of-the-box bipartisan proposal like the Wyden-Bennett health care plan.
Decoded: What's not for Republicans to like about Ron Wyden? Especially if he is constantly being successful at using his flaks like Klein and Chisholm to deceive average folks into thinking he cares about them? Worked for the last two Democratic Presidents and in the end, with deregulation, no change in our foreign policy including a "war on terror" as a means to keep the American people in fear and in line, and generally more entitlements and hidden bailouts, like the concept Wyden pushed early on of mandatory private insurance, for corporate America, didn't it?
In other words, Republicans should admire how these guys are consummate political double agents: Average Democrats believe these are their guys, but they're actually playing ball with the other side.
What Jack doesn't say, is who doesn't have "the stomach for tackling tax reform right now" and why. "Tax reform" means very different things depending on where one is on the socio-economic ladder. A lot of working people might want it, but they know "Democrats" like Wyden are not trustworthy allies to lead that battle in their interest.
Mar 16, '10
Hey buddy, we get it. Everything that Wyden does is shit and if we would all just listen to you, we, too, would learn to ignore the obvious good he has done, substitute your anonymous judgement for that of liberal and trustworthy experts like McIntyre, Novick, and Klein, and magnify his every potentially wrong move well beyond any reasonable proportion.
Might I suggest portlandindymedia.org?
9:49 a.m.
Mar 16, '10
Given the size of the deficit, the goal of any tax reform proposal should find a way to balance the budget. Otherwise, what's the point? Being revenue neutral is not good enough.
I agree, we should find a way to balance the budget deficit -- but that's a separate conversation than tax simplification.
As soon as you move from revenue-neutral to revenue-positive, you'll lose all the Republicans - and a bunch of the Democrats.
Better to focus on one challenge at a time.
Mar 16, '10
Wyden's plan seems to be an improvement and I give him credit for it. However what we NEED to see at this time of great economic crisis is something bold like Jim H. and others have suggested. The wealthy and super wealthy have been rolling in it for decades. It's time we begin to invest in our people and less into corporations, bankers, and CEOs. We don't need bipartisanship, we need economic justice and the Dems so far are failing miserably.
10:03 a.m.
Mar 16, '10
Complexity is the enemy of accountablility when it comes to tax burden, as complexity invites obsure modification to the benefit of those most able to both pay taxes and influence the code to pay less.
<hr/>We have 7 members in our DC delegation. Several are specialists in their own areas of expertise, and one of 'em frequently addresses the whole machine and looks for innovative ways to make it run better. Sometimes "Big Picture Guy" gets some datapoints wrong and receives serious negative input.
I like Big Picture Guys and am glad we have one. He'll need correcting from time to time, but he's always up on the barricades.
Go for it Ron!
Mar 16, '10
Jack, thank you for the intelligent comment.
Do ordinary folks really care whether the 1986 tax reform "was the largest corporate tax increase in U.S history at the time "?
Do ordinary folks really keep score on things like that?
And just to keep things in perspective, kids born in 1986 were old enough to vote in the 2004 election.
Perhaps the thing to think about is point of view. I am sure there are people who think every time taxes go up it is a grave injustice, because they oppose high taxes.
But there are others who believe taxes pay for services, and anyone who opposes tax increases should be talking publicly about what services they believe should be cut. That's the way things work, folks.
This is a quote from the SJ article on the Ben Westlund.
""Some would say practical-visionary is an oxymoron," said former Chief Justice Wally Carson. "Not so with Ben." Westlund could tell you, Carson said, "how to get there, how much it's going to cost and who is going to pay for it."
Could one reason Ben was so beloved by so many be that he was practical and not an ideologue? That he knew every expenditure costs money (incl. both tax expenditures and funding for essential services) and sometimes there is not enough money for everything?
One of the stories told at the memorial was that when the final version of a budget came out, the money for a program to help needy kids was not in there. He told the advocate for that program something like "we'll get it next time"----and, as the person telling the story said, eventually, the money was found for the program.
That's the sort of concrete details so missing from much of today's political debate at the state and federal level. Meanwhile, more and more Oregonians reject major parties in favor of NAV, Independent, or some other party.
Wyden has been very smart in doing the town hall meetings in every county every year. I have been to several of those. Someone asks him a specific question and he gives a specific answer----what a concept!
And Jack, about this, "I doubt there is any stomach for tackling tax reform right now but Wyden should be commended for yet another outside-of-the-box bipartisan proposal".
I happen to think this quote from the article is accurate.
"...the politics for most of the sections you'd want to clean from the tax code pit a tiny group of beneficiaries who are committed to preserving their sweetheart deals against the vast majority of Americans who have no idea that the tax code contains that deal in the first place. "Every interest group around will be lined up saying if you take our tax break, Western civilization will end," Wyden predicts. "
At a family reunion last fall, I talked with a relative who is a stay at home Mom with 3 kids, and probably as non-political as the vast majority of Americans.
She made this comment in a conversation, however.
"Lobbyists don't care about ordinary people, they only care about their clients."
If that is a widespread sentiment, then lobbyists can see the Wyden plan as the end of the world, just like Mark Hanna (Pres. McKinley's strong supporter) said something similar about 90 years ago when McKinley died and T. Roosevelt became President.
"Oh, look, now that damned cowboy is president!"
But does that influence public opinion?
Kevin Phillips has written and spoken about the history of income gaps in this country. Sometimes the gap between the top income folks and the rest of the country becomes large---but it doesn't stay that way forever.
My guess is that in the general public (who don't have to know or care what lobbyists think) there is more appetite for tax reform to simplify the tax code (why should everyone have to hire an accountant or use a product like Turbo Tax just to do their taxes about this time every year?) than folks with political power might realize.
Mar 16, '10
Why? Get them in a VERY public forum (like Obama's health care summit) and make them state very clearly either where in the budget they'll cut $1 trillion dollars or that they support a $1 trillion deficit.
If you don't tackle the deficit in tax reform legislation, when do you tackle it? You'd just be creating a new status quo that no one will want to disturb (other than to start adding back all the tax breaks and loopholes - things that will only add to the deficit).
Again, what's the point of simplifying the tax code, scrubbing it of breaks and loopholes if you don't actually structure it to pay for the government expenditures Congress is allocating? All you're doing is putting a lot of accountants out of work.
I've long thought Congress has the budgeting process backwards. They need to start with deciding what's worth spending money on, then set appropriate tax rates to pay for it.
Mar 16, '10
" They need to start with deciding what's worth spending money on, then set appropriate tax rates to pay for it."
A good approach at any level, although I doubt lobbyists agree.
And, at the risk of making some people angry, I suspect that the reason 66 & 67 got over 45% of the vote in counties like Yamhill, Wasco, and Umatilla is that the NO campaign ignored the wisdom of the above quote. Asked what was their alternative, all we got was the vague "something will be worked out".
People who remembered the recession earlier this decade, and the cuts made when the budget could not be balanced, didn't trust that answer.
Mar 16, '10
ooh, ooh! Brainstorm!! I just figured out how to get dittoheads, Fox cult followers, and Glennbeckistanis to sign on to a top 90% tax bracket. Instead of trying to villify corporations, bankers and CEOs, make it about the "Hollywood elite" and George Soros.
Jump on overpaid Hollywood actors making tens of millions per movie. "That's OUR money (from ticket sales) they're taking and spending on those dirty liberal causes of theirs! It's time to make those Hollywood elite bastards pay their fair share!"
Could work...
11:58 a.m.
Mar 16, '10
Compressing tax brackets is easily one of the dumbest things I've ever heard of. Our tax system is SUPPOSED to be graduated and has to be in order to be progressive. And Bob Packwood's tax reform in 1986 took out too many socially desirable deductions (e.g., sales taxes paid). Whoever is advising Wyden on tax policy needs to sharpen up. And then, really, conspiring with Jud Gregg is quite beyond the pale -- that asshole is the opposite of reformer. The same goes for his collaboration with Utah's Bennet in that mismatch proposed healthy Americans act. However, I'm sure gonna vote for him 'cause the alternative is far worse.
Mar 16, '10
Jack, I think you meant to say: "the underlying theory was raise the tax base by eliminating deductions..."
Mar 16, '10
I think Wyden fiddles while Rome burns. The single most important issue right now in finance is raising revenue, and that should come from the rich and the corporations. Then we pay down debt, plain and simple. We do not try to do it through cutting spending because there are huge swathes of people who need services. I for one am not interested in hearing how the rich and corporations have to have tax cuts because they produce jobs. I think Wyden's lure was that corporations would not have to hire over seas. Where does this get us? I am not going to vote for Jim Huffman or his ilk. But boy, Wyden has certainly lost me as part of his base.
Mar 16, '10
Simplifying the tax code is a good goal, but if Congress is going to rework the rules it should deal with the huge and continuing polarization of income and wealth in the US. This requires increased progressivity; perhaps a 90% tax bracket, perhaps something less than that. There is nothing positive is the slide toward Banana Republic economics.
4:16 p.m.
Mar 16, '10
Jack, I think you meant to say: "the underlying theory was raise the tax base by eliminating deductions..."
Yes, Bill, you're right of course. Carelessness on my part. Thanks for catching it.
Mar 16, '10
There is no virtue in a "revenue-neutral" rewrite to the tax code when we have structural deficits in excess of $500 billion per year. Any rewrite of the tax code should be significantly revenue-positive.
Graft a 45% bracket onto the Wyden proposal -- say, impacting only the wealthiest 1% -- and tweak the proposed corporate tax rate up a few points. If the "reform" can bring in an extra $200 billion or more per year, with no corresponding increases in spending, we'll be moving in the right direction.
Of course, any tax increase would lose Republican support, but who cares? Democrats in the House were willing to add a "millionaire surtax" to pay for HCR that would have topped out at 45%. We have a majority in the House that's already demonstrated a willingness to hit that marginal rate for health care; would they really shy away from it if packaged with a bill that both simplified and cut taxes for the vast majority of their constituents, while significantly reducing the deficit?
But I like the plan generally. It's a good framework to build on.
9:06 p.m.
Mar 16, '10
Lee, while you're pondering the progressivity question, be sure to ponder the tripling of the standard deduction and the elimination of boutique tax breaks. The rates pegged to the brackets don't determine progressivity - the actual effective rates are what matter.
Mar 17, '10
If you are now in the lowest tax bracket, how will this affect you? I imagine that currently, the lowest tax rate is less than 15%, though I'm not sure. Will the tripling of the standard deduction make the effective tax rate less for these people too?
Mar 17, '10
I'm all for Wyden's Tax Proposal as long as it includes a 25% sur tax on incomes up and above $3 million. This would be big step forward in cutting the deficit.
11:39 a.m.
Mar 17, '10
So how'd Wyden's presentation of this proposal yesterday at the Heritage Foundation go over?
What I don't understand is why, in this economic climate anyone's proposing a top tax bracket of 35%, when the top brackets to pay off spending in the Depression and the Second World War were in the range of 80 and 90 percent. I'm sure the Heritage people probably thought it was still too high, but seriously, the number of brackets is not the problem.
12:21 p.m.
Mar 17, '10
The Reagan tax measures did not reduce the average effective tax rates on rich folks -- top 10 percent, 1 percent, or .1 percent. The Bush I and Clinton tax increases did (although largely by eliminating double taxation on S and LLP corps, this probably meant that their owners didn't actually pay more taxes, just reported higher personal income). Bush II reduced everybody's effective PI tax rates, which had the effect of making the income tax more progressive, but, because this also meant that SS taxes represented a higher proportion of federal revenues, somewhat reduced the progressivity of the federal tax structure as a whole.
The fixation on punitive marginal tax rates is just plain naive, even stupid if you ignore the rules governing taxes that make them easy to avoid. One of the worst loopholes is the municipal bond interest exemption.
Mar 17, '10
I checked out Wyden's site re: this plan to find out what would happen to the effective tax rate for the lowest income filers since no answers are forthcoming here. Still can't find the answer. There is a page that gives examples of how it would affect various types of filers, but there is no example for those who currently have no tax burden: i.e. those with very low income who can take the EIC, for instance.
The Congressional Research Service Memo states only this:
It would also be likely to benefit an average taxpayer with adjusted gross income below $200,000, even though some taxpayers in that income range may experience a tax increase.
So which ones will experience a tax increase? And I'm really curious about why the qualifier "likely" is used.
Is the fact that this info seems so difficult to find (though I acknowledge I don't really know where to look) coupled with the lack of response to my question here, significant?
Maybe Chuck Sheketoff can weigh in here...
5:18 p.m.
Mar 17, '10
The main reason Ronald Reagan is idolized on the right is because of the cuts he made in the top rates. There's a direct corelation between the changes in the top marginal rates and income inequality.
There's nothing "punitive" about it. People who make lots of money pay a disproportionately large share of government revenue through income taxes. In Oregon in 2005, the 9% of the population making more than $100K paid more than 50% of the state's personal income tax revenue. That's the price of living in a civilized nation. Reducing the top rates meant that a huge amount of revenue was lost, which could only be accounted for by running up enormous deficits (as Reagan and George W. Bush did) or by cutting programs, or by forcing the poor and middle-class to pay more of their income to the government. It's pretty simple math, actually.
Mar 17, '10
I want to add a few more cents to what Jim H said about the number of brackets not making the tax code more complicated.
If what Kari has characterized this legislation as is at all accurate, it sounds to me like it won't do much at all to address the persistent problems with the tax code. The elimination of the Alternative Minimum Tax is also going to be a huge give-away to people who have a lot of deductions. These deductions are the real problem with the tax code, and without an AMT the problem is made worse, not better.
Democrats are close to 60 votes in the senate, control the Presidency, and rode into office on a wave of populist backlash against wealthy elites and corrupt banks. They can do much more and do much better than this. They should do the right thing, and when they face a filibuster, they should call Republicans' bluff.
As far as I am concerned, any Democrat who wins with more than 50% + 1 vote has wasted political capital. We need to elect people who will actually further agendas. Electability, of course, is important, but what's the point of me going out there and volunteering if none of the people I work my ass off for actually further a meaningful agenda?
Mar 18, '10
The bill eliminates many deductions and closes some of the more glaring loopholes in our income tax code. That is good. However, the bill completely repudiates the progressive tax structure that evolved to strenghthen America's economy during The Great Depression and further enshrines Ronald Reagan's trickle-down philosophy. The bill offers an almost flat personal rate and an absolutely flat corporate rate. Under it's provisions, RNs and codewriters would be taxed at the same rate as CEOs and investment bankers. The bill foresakes the structure responsible for the high quality of life in much of wetern Europe and flatlines tax revenue at a time we desperately need more. I urge you to urge Ron Wyden to leave legislation that benefits only the wealthy to Republicans.
Mar 18, '10
Sounds like a start! I give Sen. Wyden some credit. He was really going to have to earn my vote this year, but steps he has taken recently have made that decision easier for me.
I agree with one comment, we should make the uber wealthy pay 90% in taxes, then let them use whatever is above the 35% rate to create jobs and hire people for decent salaries. That should help the "big" businesses and the ordinary citizen.
1:51 p.m.
Mar 18, '10
dplant wrote:
"The main reason Ronald Reagan is idolized on the right is because of the cuts he made in the top rates. There's a direct correlation between the changes in the top marginal rates and income inequality."
The Reagan tax cuts increased revenue and left more money in the pockets of tax payers. That sounds like win-win to me. A better reason for idolizing than most.
"In Oregon in 2005, the 9% of the population making more than $100K paid more than 50% of the state's personal income tax revenue."
Those numbers sound about right, although I think that's "9% of taxpayers" and AGI not income.
Garth wrote:
"The elimination of the Alternative Minimum Tax is also going to be a huge give-away to people who have a lot of deductions. These deductions are the real problem with the tax code, and without an AMT the problem is made worse, not better."
The point is that Wydden-Gregg would go a long way toward closing the worst of those loopholes.
James wrote:
"The bill foresakes the structure responsible for the high quality of life in much of wetern Europe ..."
Actually the US (federal government) has the most progressive tax structure of any OECD country (well, maybe not Norway). The reason they get less after tax and transfer inequality as a result than we do is that they make a lot more transfers.
2:12 p.m.
Mar 18, '10
Only in some kind of voodoo economics does cutting taxes increase revenue.
No, what I remember of the Reagan years was that the economy in Oregon went into a recession almost immediately after he was elected, with unemployment rates approaching 20% by 1983 in parts of Lane County and even higher elsewhere; that he spent money like a drunken sailor (despite having cut revenue), running up what were at the time record deficits; and that while a financial bubble that made a lot of financial traders and real estate people money did inflate though the middle of the decade, it burst in the form of the S&L crisis during the last half of his second term and the subsequent nation-wide real estate crash during George HW Bush's term in office.
2:47 p.m.
Mar 18, '10
I do have to wonder what century Wyden and Gregg think they're living in. This is from the press release on Wyden's site:
Now, I've been self-preparing my taxes by computer for over fifteen years, since the 1994 tax year, and while I don't expect everyone to have been doing that, certainly anyone with a moderately time-consuming return who wanted to avoid paying H&R Block could spring $30 for TurboTax. 1040EZ filers can use their free edition. But if you've got anything other than straight wage income, you're not likely to be filling out a "one-page form" even under Wyden-Gregg.
I love that the example sheet of changes under the plan has only two of the six examples from anything like the average American household. A granny making $18K and a single mother of 3 making almost $50K (median household income in the US in 2009 was just over $50K). Then there are four households of $90K (couple), $100K (divorced dad), $170K (couple and child), and $275K (couple, 3 kids). Aside from the fact that it looks like the people making the plan are completely out of touch with how most of America lives, the range of income tax owed under Wyden-Gregg for those four households goes from $7,890 to $56,480. Are they really going to benefit from a "one-sheet form"? Or are they likely to be using a computer or an accountant for their returns? You could have 1,000 brackets and the computer could calculate them pretty easily. Hell, my phone could calculate 1,000 brackets.
Mar 19, '10
Sorry, bartender. Too concrete. The monkeys are only in a mood to fling their poop at each other.
1:07 p.m.
Mar 20, '10