Where the money goes

Tax cut distribution chart, via Ezra Klein:

Results of the tax cut "compromise"

Yes. Obama actually wants to sign a deal with Republicans to make the tax code more unfair. Wtih nearly 10% unemployment, crumbling infrastructure, and bankrupt state governments we shouldn’t be giving even more money to millionaires who don’t need it.

* * * *

Update
I realize the argument is also that tax cuts for millionaires will, through Supply Side voodoo, stimulate the economy. That’d be a great reason for these tax cuts in a cash strapped world, but millionaires have plenty of money. The problem is consumers aren’t buying stuff. You can give millionaires all the money in the world (and boy are we trying to do that) to create business and investment opportunities, but the economy won’t get better for all of us until the bottom 95% have money to spend on those businesses.

5 Comments

  1. Like I have said in the past…..stimulating the economy does not necessarily equate to jobs…..

  2. SisterSue

    The following isn’t really a comment on whether this should be done or not…. rather…. a note about how a singular graphic taken out of context can distort a conversation.

    I could make a chart that looks almost like a perfect inversion of the chart above… if I represented tax cuts as a percentage of income instead of total dollars returned. In the new chart, the democratic plan would be the one with the greatest variation ranging from a cut of 2.58% for people making 15-20K and .8% for people making 750K (I skipped the lowest and highest categories because I don’t know what the true lower or upper bounds would be — but presumably, it would show an even greater distance between the amount of income a particular taxpayer would be allowed to keep — which is, to be fair, a little different than a “gift”)

    That said, attack it all you want. There are good reasons on both sides, and I enjoy hearing all of them — just don’t pretend this chart gives a complete and unbiased picture of the cuts — because it doesn’t.

  3. Chris

    That’s a fair point, but there is no doubt that if this plan passes our nation’s finances will be put into further jeopardy largely to pad the already fat bank accounts of millionaires. If there was proof these upper-bracket marginal breaks were an effective stimulus, I’d support the plan. But that’s not the case.

  4. Sister Sue is right! look at Glenn Beck….he has been using this technique for years…if he is accurate then the chart above is accurate….

    We have had these tax cuts for at least 8 yrs and how many jobs have been created in that time? And how many have been set offshore? I believe the offshore will win in that debate….so why would an extension do anything better?

    Personally, I think this was done to pad the resume for 2012…..

  5. SisterSue

    Lobotero,

    I think I’m missing your point. And, I think you might also be missing mine. The chart above is accurate. As would be my proposed alternate. My point wasn’t about the accuracy of the chart — it was about how people will parse/present accurate information in different ways depending on their viewpoint. And that if we’re interested in a having a genuine debate, we shouldn’t start out with such a skewed frame of reference (or, at the very least, we should acknowledge that we’re offering our opinion — and not absolute fact). I simply hoped to remind us there is more than one way of looking at the same data. And along with those perspectives could come totally different ideas of what’s “fair.”

    In short, there are multiple ways of looking at the same information. And pretending otherwise does everyone a great disservice.

    In any event, I would love to know what you think, but, at present, I’m having a little difficulty discerning what it is that you’re saying — and I mean no disrespect — I’m just not following your point (and it’s probably my failing, not yours). If you wouldn’t mind spelling it out for me, I would love to hear it.