Lars Larson: The Democrats chicken out

You would have thought the Democrats had more guts and courage than they do, but Harry Reid has chickened out.

They were talking about extending the Bush tax cuts, but only for the middle class. But, they can’t do anything for the rich or they’ll disappoint their base. If their base doesn’t vote for them in November there will be a Republican majority in both houses.

So, what does Harry Reid do? He talks about having a vote on extending the cuts for the middle class, throwing the rich people in America under the bus. Then, at the last minute he chickens out.

You see, the Democrats realized that people are reacting to the idea of extending the tax cuts to some Americans and not for others, especially others who happen to be our bosses. You see most of us work for those rich people. If they don’t get tax cuts there isn’t going to be as much money for salaries.

But, the Democrats have chickened out. They’ve decided to have the voters vote for them before they take up the tax vote.

“For more Lars click here”

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 06:14 | Posted in Measure 37 | 15 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Britt Storkson

    Can anybody tell me what’s wrong with simply uniformly enforcing taxation? Why is it that everybody pays different tax rates with some getting preferential treatment while others get the shaft?

    Why should we apply/enforce ANY law arbitrarily?

    If we don’t impose fines for traffic offenses based on race/creed/color etc. Then why do we determine tax rates based on one’s occupation, whether they get their money from wages or investments and many other variables designed to insure that some pay more of their income in taxes while others pay less?

    A flat tax is easy to enforce, hard to evade, gets the politics out of who pays what in taxes and provides certainty to those who must financially plan a year or two ahead. That’s exactly WHY we don’t have it.

    • Rupert in Springfield

      >Why is it that everybody pays different tax rates with some getting preferential treatment while others get the shaft?

      Because the tax code is not about revenue generation primarily. It is about behavior modification. Capital gains taxes would be an example of this – raising them results in lower revenue from them historically yet people love to raise them to discourage savings and investment, thus decreasing dependency on government. Inheritance taxes would be another example, since they have in the past often cost more to collect than they have generated in revenue.

      If you eliminate the ability to socially engineer through the tax code you have just eliminated the entire reason why so many are driven to politics – they like telling other people what to do and controlling the lives of others.

      We will not see a flat tax or any such thing in my lifetime I dont think.

  • valley p

    “You see, the Democrats realized that people are reacting to the idea of extending the tax cuts to some Americans and not for others, especially others who happen to be our bosses.”

    We are? Every poll I’ve seen on this says large majorities of Americans are against extending tax cuts financed by deficits to wealthy people. Maybe Lars reads different polls. Or maybe he is engaged in wishful thinking.

    “Why should we apply/enforce ANY law arbitrarily? ”

    Differential tax rates on income is not “arbitrary.” It has a public purpose. Those who have more can afford to pay more. its pretty simple, and just about every nation in the world does this.

    “Because the tax code is not about revenue generation primarily.”

    Right. Typical Republican math challenged response. Revenues are not needed to pay for wars, old age pensions, medicare, roads, bridges, and a thousand other government services.

    “We will not see a flat tax or any such thing in my lifetime I dont think. ”

    Au contraire Rupert, we already have plenty of “flat taxes.” Rich and poor pay the same taxes on gasoline, the same tolls, the same entrance fees at parks. They pay the same sales tax rates in just about every state. They pay the same rate on social security and medicare, though the rich only pay it on part of their income so they make out ahead on that one. When you add up all the taxes and fees people pay, the rich pay about the same percent of their income as everyone else.

    • Rupert in Springfield

      >Right. Typical Republican math challenged response. Revenues are not needed to pay for wars, old age pensions, medicare, roads, bridges, and a thousand other government services.

      The statement you quote was that the tax code was not primarily about revenue generation.

      You take that statement to say revenue is not needed.

      This is exactly the sort of behavior I think honestly would classify you as an idiot in the clinical sense of the term.

      Mistakes like this one, completely misunderstanding a nine word sentence are why it is clear you have no ability to understand an economic discussion. You simply do not have the head for it, the reason quite possibly being you are clinically an idiot.

      Since you routinely have no grasp of the subject, and demonstrate with this example why that is probably so, I would ask you to consider your participation in this discussion. Taxes are an economic matter, and its been pretty well established you have no facility in this regard.

      Thanks.

      • valley p

        “You take that statement to say revenue is not needed.”

        Ok fine. The tax code is not “primarily about” raising revenue. My statement still holds. You are math challenged. The primary point of the tax code is to generate enough revenues to fund government. If we did not need to fund government, which you and yours seem to increasingly believe, then we would not need a tax code. And if everyone were equally rich or poor we would not need to worry about taxing at differential rates.And, when you add up all taxes and fees, you hardly have differential rates on total income in this nation. You can look this up yourself, but why bother? You already think you know what you don’t know, and that is good enough for you.

        “so, I would ask you to consider your participation in this discussion. Taxes are an economic matter, and its been pretty well established you have no facility in this regard.”

        What I lack facility in Rupert, is your peculiar version of economics. I have a working calculator, and I read, and I have studied macro economics, so that all leaves me included out. When you have lived in an insane asylum for a long time, and only have a broken calculator, as you have, sane people who can add and subtract appear to be nuts. Its not my fault. Maybe its not your fault either.

        • Rupert in Springfield

          >Ok fine. The tax code is not “primarily about” raising revenue.

          And that’s all I was contending, thus we are in agreement.

          Were you able to concede a point with some measure of grace one might not apprehend you as such a dullard.

          • valley p

            No Rupert, we are not in agreement. I was merely quoting you. I was not agreeing with you. Let me spell this out for you in all caps so you can’t miss it. The tax code *IS PRIMARILY ABOUT RAISING SUFFICIENT REVENUE TO FUND GOVERNMENT SERVICES* .

            I even used bold letters so you doubly could not miss my point.

            Had there been a point to concede, I would have gladly done so. I only appear dull because you don’t comprehend me. Its not your fault.

    • Britt Storkson

      Valley p: If you like the idea of arbitrary enforcement of taxation (or any other law for that matter) then how about we raise your tax rate to 100%? Please include your full name and Social Security Number for identification in upcoming legislation.

      That way you can do your part to lower the deficit and demonstrate how great this idea of arbitrary enforcement of tax laws really is.

      • valley

        Arbitrary? Progressive income tax rates are not arbitrary. They are based on ability to pay. As for raising my own personal tax rate to 100% and no one elses, that is called a bill of attainder and is unconstitutional. I thought you conservatives were all constitutional experts?

        • Britt Storkson

          Valley P: If you don’t have any problem with different tax rates enforce upon different people then why do you have a problem with a different tax rate for you?

          There’s nothing in the law that says we can’t do that.

          • valley p

            Its unconstitutional to single out an individual for a specific tax rate. Article 1 Section 9. “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed”. Its also in our State constitution.

            Look it up Britt.

          • Britt Storkson

            Valley P: You make my point perfectly. Taxation has become punitive with the tax code used to reward certain persons (typically those who “buy in” to the club via campaign contributions) and punish others. You are also correct that this is unconstitutional.

            Even though clearly unconstitutional federal, state and local governments engage in the practice making taxation of 100% of what you earn is the de facto law of the land.

          • valley p

            No Britt, I did not make your point. I showed your point to be baseless.

            No one is taxed 100% of what they earn. Leaving aside the point that this is not economically sustainable, our tax code works from the bottom up. That is, people pay exactly the same rate on what they earn at a given level. All of us, you, me, and Paris Hilton pay exactly the same amount on our first $9,000, our first $34,000 and so on up to the top tax rate of 35% for money we earn beyond $373,000, which less than 1% of people earn enough to pay.

            So you ‘de facto law of the land” is pure BS. It is neither facto nor de facto. It is nonsense. Try arguing from reality. Its not so bad really.

          • Britt Storkson

            Valley P: I did not say that anybody was taxed at 100% of what they earn. All I said that there is no law against placing different tax burdens on different people. So at this time it is possible to tax your income at 100%. Unless you get a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that says otherwise, it’s legal.

            If everybody is taxed at the same rate or even at the schedule you put forward then why do we have tax shelters? Why do we have offshore bank accounts and holdings? Why is it not illegal for U.S. citizens to have numbered Swiss bank accounts? I could go on and on with this as there are many examples but Federal, State and local income tax codes are designed so that certain people will LEGALLY get away with paying less in taxes than certain other people.

            Arbitrary tax rates cuts both ways: They serve to reduce the tax burden of some but can be used to increase the tax burden of others. Funny how you like the present arbitrary system but don’t like it when your taxes are increase arbitrarily.

  • bet365

    hello!This was a really superb topic!
    I come from uk, I was fortunate to search your theme in bing
    Also I get much in your blog really thanks very much i will come daily

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)