Tom Carper Ready to Fight the “Elizabeth Warren Wing” of the Democratic Party
First of all, …the “Elizabeth Warren Wing” of the Democratic Party? Where do I sign up?
Secondly, if Tom Carper thinks that Democrats can win back the House and Senate by being MORE LIKE Tom Carper, he is either deranged or lying.
Anyway, if you feel like throwing upread the whole thing.
If you want to simply feel queasy the rest of the day, skip to Carper’s quote:
Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), who is viewed as a centrist, said the centrist strain of politician is declining and estimated that “there’s fewer than 100” left in Congress.
“We need more moderates and centrists in both parties,” Carper said. “Part of politics is the art of compromise.”
No we need less Republicans like Carper
Ugh:
And there’s no economic growth without putting money in the hands of the people who will spend it — working class and middle class people. Period. We’ve just lived through a recovery where the wealthiest worked at getting wealthier — not in job creation. You can’t get to prosperity or middle class growth by shifting the cost burdens to middle class taxpayers — which is the organizing theory of these so-called centrist Democrats. Frankly, if these guys would just stop the cost-shifting, heir centrism would be alot easier to take.
Actually, voters did no such thing, since Democrats didn’t run on much of a message at all in the last election and the GOP certainly didn’t campaign on prosperity or growth. They pandered to fear, which was all the constituency that would vote for them in an off year needed.
From the linked article:
PPI wants to set up a false choice between redistribution only(Warren wing) and growth (GOP/Centrist) wing. See the problem here? Warren is not proposing “redistribution only.” And Republicans wouldn’t know a growth policy if it grew out of their ass. Needless to say that goes for Tom Carper too.
Any “Democrat” peddling that bullshit is a Republican plant and should be called out for it.
Republicans/centrists have done enough damage to economic growth, so thanks but no thanks. History shows if you want economic growth, start with modest tax increases on the rich (1992, 2013).
Capitulation is not compromise; surrender to end a battle is not victory. Crazy convoluted logic.
“start with modest tax increases on the rich”
Define “rich”
“History shows if you want economic growth, start with modest tax increases ”
History shows no such thing. History shows that the conditions necessary for economic growth must be present, included in these conditions is consumer confidence. Companies are currently making more money without growth and they continue to sit on money because it’s total profit, money making money with no investment except capital. That’s the situation you want to change. Taxing the “rich” however you define it will not automatically result in economic growth and people who don’t understand how the economy grows asserting that taxing the rich will somehow ramp up the economy doesn’t help matters.
The fact is, corporations are making money without hiring. Change that fact and you will get economic growth. Anything less is like wetting your pants while wearing a dark suit. It makes you all warm underneath, but nobody notices.
companies are making more with less…that’s for damn sure. I work with two monitors, and I’m about to ask for a third monitor so I can be even more productive at my job.
We are as much to blame for the increase in profits as anyone. Collectively, people just don’t understand how they screw themselves all to “save their own asses”
@Dave: The way you change the equation, the way to put pressure on corporate America, is by changing the tax code. Or do you require someone explain how a watch is made every time you ask for the time?
Centrist Democrats will appeal more to moderate independents than what the Republicans have morphed into over the last 35 years.
After being a registered Independent for 32 years I switched registration to the Democratic Party in 2012. There really is no other place for moderates now that the GOP shows contempt for the important missions of government and a disdain for the democratic process.
@Geezer:
But you don’t push companies to hire by increasing the costs of hiring an additional employee.
A primary reason companies hire is when demand for their products and services increases.
As a business owner I am willing to pay a premium for good workers who can drive top line growth that I couldn’t achieve otherwise.
“The way you change the equation, the way to put pressure on corporate America, is by changing the tax code.”
@Geezer, Yes you are correct, but the statement I was referring to was “modest tax increases on the rich.” I recognize that there are those who think that tax increases on the rich is the same as changing the tax code for corporations, but it’s not. The same applies to income tax rates, which covers W2 income, 1099 Dividend, and 1099 Interest, but it does not cover carried interest, the millions hedge fund traders collect, which is treated as capital gains and other types of gains. The public has a W2 paradigm when it comes to taxes. They think they rich are just like them and at the end of the year they get nice little W2 which spells out their income. When you diddle around with the tax tables to more progressively assign rates, you don’t affect the rich or corporations. Citigroup has paid no federal income taxes for 2010-2013. Progressive taxation (aka “modest tax increases on the rich”) would have no affect on Citigroup.
So yes, you are correct that changes in the tax code are necessary, unless when you say it you mean changes in the tax tables that say, if you make this much you pay this much.
The problem, as I see it, is that there is a Robin Hood narrative at work. And I think it’s a consequence of desire and need for simplicity so that the masses can have a short pithy rallying cry “Steal from the rich. Give to the poor.” All the while, the rich are actually having companies buy their cars, country club memberships, their houses, yadda, yadda which the companies then write off as business expenses until low and behold, the rich and the companies pay no income taxes, even if you had progressive taxation. One of these days, Democrats will catch on to the trick and figure out to craft messaging that will get public to comprehend how it really works and stop relying on the tired meme of raising the tax rates because all they really need to do is just tax all income, not just some of it.
When you diddle around with the tax tables to more progressively assign rates, you don’t affect the rich or corporations.
Depends on which tax tables you diddle with.
The Gingrich Congress (and Bill Clinton) diddled with capital gains rates from 20% => 15%, pouring gas on the stock market bubble and crash.
The Bush tax cuts diddled capital gains from 20% => 15%, and also also diddled with dividends from 39% => 15%, setting up exploding deficits and further middle class income shrinkage.
In 2013 Obama diddled capital gains up from 15 => 20%,and added a 3% Obamacare surcharge on capital gains making the current rate 23%, still lower than the Clinton boom years (25%).
In 2010 and again in 2013 Obama wasted the opportunity (through expiration) to let dividends go back to being treated as regular income (42%, I think) but he
diddled dividends from 15% only to 20%.
Needless to say, the Obama increases on investment taxes put jobs back into the jobless recovery and began erasing the deficit, creating the first positive job numbers since – well you know when. The tax increases weren’t the whole story but they were an essential part of the recovery. And there is still more room to increase rates on dividends, and maybe a little less room for capital gains. An increase on dividend rates is the big pig, with the biggest payoff for the economy in terms of changing corporate behavior.
I wouldn’t mind cutting corporate tax to zero, as long as it is made up with a revenue-neutral increase on the personal income tax of the richest people who benefit from those corporations (i.e,, officers and investors).
And yes, the deductions for personal perks should be tightened.
“I recognize that there are those who think that tax increases on the rich is the same as changing the tax code for corporations, but it’s not.”
One of the ways to lower corporate tax rates would be to raise taxes on capital gains — tax the owners, not the corporation itself.
But my point was that when people say “tax the rich,” they aren’t calling for a specific tax on specific people. We’re talking about amending the tax code so that everyone benefits from economic growth. It’s rhetorical shorthand, not a prescription for action.
Exactly, Geezer… Mitt Romney should be paying much more than 12%, and Warren Buffet should be paying a higher rate than his secretary.
The idea of centrism is from another time, just like Carper is.
I am all for talking about compromise because you can’t always get 100% of what you want in politics. As long as you are moving the ball forward FOR YOUR OWN TEAM. Which Carper is obviously not known for.
Healthcare, banking, credit card reform and now the Keystone XL were ALL fucking give aways to the GOP and D’s got NOTHING in return.
So sorry for the inconvenience, Tom Carper, for the rise of the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. Perhaps if your centrist efforts brought something home for Ds this wouldn’t be happening.
Next up: Trans Pacific Partnership. I think he supports that too, right?
So F- Tom Carper.
“It’s rhetorical shorthand, not a prescription for action.”
Yes. For you. And me and many people. But rhetorical shorthand, in this and many other cases, does not provide the insight necessary for the public to comprehend that. It really doesn’t. Most people think it means raise the tax rates on those with higher incomes. They receive what is being transmitted.
Most people think it means raise the tax rates on those with higher incomes.
Thats’s exactly what it means. That, and closing loopholes so that the current tax rates apply to more of their incomes.
Just to be clear, I think a higher top marginal tax rate is among the changes that would help restore balance to the force, er, the economy. Tax cuts are great when possible, but responsible stewardship would indicate that the last taxes cut are the first restored when recalibration is necessary.
The top marginal rate is 42, 43% I think. That is getting close to confiscatory for the regular rich, depending how much of their income is subject to that rate. But I would like to see a new bracket for the hyper-rich with an even higher marginal rate.
That’s why the real target for progressive tax hikes should be dividends, cap gains, and loopholes.
@puck:
Taxes on the super rich would not generate substantial revenue for the government. I am not fond of taxing people just because we can tax them.
Taxes on the super rich would not generate substantial revenue for the government.
A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you are talking real money.
Anyway, the point is not to collect those taxes. The point is to force the hyper-rich into behaviors that avoid those taxes. Like investing that money back into their businesses and their workers. You know – being job creators. After all, they are the decision makers for a lot of their economy, and changing their behavior would have an impact far beyond what is collected.
On the other hand, a lot of those hyper-incomes are generated through parasitic and non-productive finance games that don’t really lend themselves to reinvesting – so we might as well collect a big chunk of it to mitigate the damage.
@puck:
First: You would not raise substantial sums simply by raising taxes on the super rich; the real money is in taxing the middle and upper-middle class. Just read a transcript of the President’s last State of the Union.
Second: In general, investments are not made with pretax dollars. So by increasing the taxes of the super rich, you are decreasing the money that they have to invest. That said, the government would have additional money to distribute to potential consumers or invest itself. But please note my first point.
Third: If you want to discourage behavior (e.g., “parasitic and non-productive finance games”), then tax the behavior. This is called a Pigovian tax. Taxing income is indirect and also discourages desirable behavior.
@Davy: Yeah, see, the thing is that nobody here is actually making policy. And neither are you.
So by increasing the taxes of the super rich, you are decreasing the money that they have to invest. That said, the government would have additional money to distribute to potential consumers or invest itself.
They have that money now, and their investment choices are shrinking our incomes and srructurally degrading the economy. Put that money into the hands of consumers and let business chase the money there. The more consumer driven the economy is, the better choices investors will make.
If you want to discourage behavior (e.g., “parasitic and non-productive finance games”), then tax the behavior.
Those would be called loopholes, and plugging those is part of my prescription for progressive taxation.
The more consumer driven the economy is, the better choices investors will make.
I have to take that back partially. There are instance where some government direction is useful. For example, when gas prices go down temporarily, everyone wants to buy SUVs and trucks all of a sudden, and the auto makers start building them, and everybody is happy for a little while, but it is not necessarily good for the economy. Consumers don’t think strategically.
In general, investments are not made with pretax dollars.
Actually when businesses hire people, buy new equipment, or build new facilities, that ALL comes out of pretax dollars, and that is the whole point. If your company made a crapload of money last year, do you want to take it in salary/bonus so you can restock the wine rack on your yacht? Or do you want to invest it back in your business so you can make an even bigger crapload of money next year? Stiff taxes on personal income can help you make that choice.
@Puck:
You are confusing corporate re-investment and individual investment. Are you faulting corporations for hoarding cash or the super rich for malinvestment?
Corporations are hoarding cash because they have nowhere to invest it and they cannot return the cash to stockholders without paying U.S. corporate income taxes. So the cash sits offshore. Also, contrary to what you believe, capital expenditures cannot be deducted immediately. In fact, some stimulus was provided by permitting companies to accelerate the deduction of capital expenditures.
Outside Traditional 401(k) accounts and IRAs, or similar accounts, individuals invest with post-tax dollars.
In addition, taxing bad behavior directly does not create loopholes. No exemption or deduction is required to tax bad behavior directly. Would you refer to a sin tax as a loophole?
they cannot return the cash to stockholders without paying U.S. corporate income taxes.
Oh no, they made so much money they have to pay TAXES on it? Call the waahmbulance, and get them some TAX RELIEF stat!!
So the cash sits offshore.
Loophole. Plug it. If you start taxing that money I bet they find something productive to invest it in back in the states. Now they are just waiting for a Republican (or “New Democrat” administration to offer tax amnesty on it (see: Chris Coons).
taxing bad behavior directly does not create loopholes.
Right – it plugs them.
@Davy: For all your apparent mastery of the rigging, you have no idea how to set the course.
@Puck: Stop feeding the troll.
I voted for tom every time he ran but his votes on the Keystone pipe line did me in
Problem is to the angry uneducated white lower middle class, its much more important to punish the poor on welfare or immigrants than to have a tax code that generates real growth and opportunity. Liz Warren asks hard questions of the banking industry and this can’t be allowed..
@puck:
How many countries tax overseas earnings? Not many. It’s not exactly a loophole.