Getty Images
Piers Morgan asked New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) last night about Warren Buffett's calls for tax fairness, and not surprisingly, the Republican governor didn't seem especially receptive to the idea.
"Yeah, well he should just write a check and shut up," Christie said. "Really. And just contribute. I mean, you know, the fact of the matter is that I'm tired of hearing about it. If he wants to give the government more money, he's got the ability to write a check. Go ahead and write it."
Greg Sargent explained, "It's kind of remarkable that Republican officials in positions of real influence and responsibility continue to repeat this silly line in public without any apparent sense of embarrassment."
Let's try to walk through this really slowly. The problem that Buffett and other wealthy people are trying to solve by calling for higher taxes on their class isn't simply that they as individuals would like to be contributing more towards the tax burden, but can't. Rather, the problem as they've identified it is a society-wide one: We need a massive boost in revenues to keep society functioning at acceptable levels and to address profound and intractable fiscal problems that threaten the country's future.
This problem will not be solved if Warren Buffett writes a check. Buffett's point is that the scale of the problem requires his class as a whole to chip in a bit more to solve it.
Quite right. That this is actually a fairly common GOP talking point -- it was Christie's very first instinct when asked about tax fairness -- is depressing.
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), for example, has long championed the same idea: "[A]ll those rich, liberal democrats who are eager to pay higher taxes can do just that. They can write a check to the IRS and make an extra payment on their tax return to pay down the federal debt."
Christie's argument may be nonsense, but it's become routine nonsense.
This really isn't complicated. We're a massive, modern nation with a vast economy, a large debt, and by modern standards, low taxes. We face real challenges, but they're not the kind of challenges individuals can hope to resolve on their own, piecemeal. Whether Christie understands this or not, we need cooperative solutions built around shared action.
Making additional tax contributions voluntarily -- in other words, asking for a little more only from those willing to pay a little more -- is ridiculous. The wealthy can afford modest tax increases, which in turn can help pay down the debt Republicans pretend to care about, while shielding many of those who can least afford to take another hit.
Here's hoping Buffett and others ignore Christie's advice and choose not to "shut up."
Leave a Comment:
I don't understand how the idea of fairly generating revenue for the sustained operation of the federal government and our military, etc., suddenly became anathema to conservatives. So the next GOP plan is to eliminate taxes entirely and rely on billionaires to write in checks like they';re donating to the Red Cross? Every poll shows Americans see through this ruse and do not buy the GOP talking points that raising taxes to 1990's levels on the super-rich is somehow devastating. Chris Christie is just a big fat moron... http://www.sunstateactivist.org
The problem is that Republicans keep insisting that the top 5% or so get to define what constitutes "Fairness" in the tax code, and it's not exactly a big surprise how they are defining it. What is surprising is how many of the non-rich are stupid enough to keep voting for it.
Dear, Non Rich. For the last time, STOP SUPPORTING THIS CRAP. THEY AREN'T GOING TO SHARE IT WITH YOU.
"Bbbut, we're the Soon-To-Haves! Paul Ryan said so!"
Well what I love is how hypocritical the thinking is. They want the bottom 47% (those who are unemployed or making low-wage like me) to start paying federal income taxes in addition to the taxes we already pay (even though we make less than 25k/yr). Their argument here, of course, is that we have to be compelled to pay or else we'd never do so on our own free will. But of course when it comes to millionaires and billionaires they'd be willing to do as much right? right? So on the one hand when it comes to making the poor pay we understand compulsory taxation. But when it comes to the rich paying? What? They can just voluntarily do that! Le sighs.
Oh please. Can't we just call him a moron? The fact that he is fat has nothing to do with it!
Isn't that Christie's argument to everyone?
yes it is! 'I'm smarter than YOU so just STFU!' He is a buffoon...or a balloon...oops Freudian slip there...
Is anyone else hearing, "I wanna be vice-president!" in his comments?
He is going to suffer bad optics and foot in mouth disease . The buffoon Republican governors all think that brazen state attitude will play well on the national stage ....WRONG
No one likes a loud mouth bully . Especially one who is playing to the teabaggers and their 30% .
News Flash Christie : America ain't what Faux nooze tells you it is . That only exists in their bubble
Not everyone is looking for Red Meat. We need a thinker and negotiator in the White House....Bullies only get so many Votes. Comparing President Obama with Christie...Who's the Gansta / Thug?
No. I'm hearing "Gimme your lunch money, pee-wee!" Christie is just a bully, which means he's a sniveling, cowardly wretch who talks big to distract attention from the stink of his fear.
"Tax fairness" is an elusive concept. The tax system is very complex, and isn't likely to become much simpler any time soon. There's an old adage that, "a fair tax is not a simple tax, and a simple tax is not a fair tax."
I'm all for increasing tax rates for the wealthy--and by more than three or four percent. However, if we're going to do that, we need to give them back their itemized deductions, exemptions, and other benefits that accrue to those higher rates. This is what we did until the '90s, when we started to limit certain deductions and credits for those with incomes above a certain level.
Yes, it affords the rich more tax planning opportunities. They're always going to have those anyway. It might also make the system seem less oppressive to those affected while we're pulling additional tax revenues from them.
If only he would heed his own advice.
I've noticed this meme lately from Republicans.
There's nothing in the Constitution that promises that taxes should be fair. Then they trot out the 50% no taxes.
I'm amazed at this. No one promised the poor that they wouldn't have to support the rich through their taxes, but it isn't fair for the rich to support the country with their taxes.
Christie keeps hitting his one note...
"Chut up!!"
Chris Christie sure is Fat and that makes Chris Christie a walking metaphor for the 1%. He, like them, would not miss it were a little trimmed.
Do the Man Tax thing on the Man Cave.
Seriously.
If a bunch of men want to get together and tell everyone they are hearing the voice of god, and the voices are telling them to ban contraception and force doctors to rape women seeking abortion, can't the women get together and tax the men that are going to be responsible for fathering all the unwanted children?
Adult women are a majority voting block.
Put a Man-Tax rider on the pro-rape/anti-contraception legislation.
Just saying.
Fair is fair.
It's simple: Taxes are a responsibility for maintaining law and order, not a philanthropy to be given on a whim.
So paying taxes is voluntary now? No... Only for the uber-rich? But why the hell can't I get a ridiculously low tax rate, and just opt to voluntarily pay more (which I probably won't do, btw)???? We need to make some changes around here!!!!
When the wingnuts start bleating about "bombing Iran"...just tell them to "join the Air Force, leave the rest of us alone...and shut up!!
Exellent point - and when they keep bleating about religion, tell them to go to church, get on their knees, leave the rest of us alone...and shut up!!!
Uh, do you really want these idiots stationed anywhere near a nuke? Should they be allowed to even wash the planes? Remember they would be representing us all if they wore the uniform and we would all regret it.
So from the story about Romney today, Romney said:
"If you just cut, if all you're thinking about doing is cutting spending, as you cut spending you'll slow down the economy," he said in part of his response. "So you have to, at the same time, create pro-growth tax policies."
I know that when Romney says "create pro-growth tax policies" it's code for "lower taxes on 'job creators'," but the context of that quote was with regard to cutting federal budget deficits and paying down debt. How does Romney propose to do those things if he doesn't want to slash spending AND wants to lower tax revenues?
Romney's a moron, and Christie is a moron/jackass mixture.
So Christie is a morass? He does seem to get bogged down when his thought processes require anything beyond telling people to shut up.
The important part of the story that was omitted is that Buffett matched a legislator's 15% give back of his salary. Second, Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan Chase, stated he is in agreement that taxes should go up and that there needs to be more reform of Wall Street and the banks. Piers Morgan should have questioned Governor Loud Mouth about those statements.
Governor Bully rears his ugly head again. Instead of being a public official, Christie is more suited to play alongside Snooki on "Jersey Shore".
Republican politicians--they may not be the 1%--they're just in the pockets of the 1%. It's funny, if you listen to everything, anything that these Republican politicians from the point of view of their 1% owners--it suddenly makes all sorts of sense...
The fact that rich or poor the people don't want to pay for all the stuff the government provides is proof the government is giving us too much stuff. I am all for everything the liberals want if they can convince people to pay for it. If you can't persuade them of that then start prioritizing and cutting.
Conservatives by and large are the ones who complain about paying for it. Liberals typically- at least according to polling- are more than willing to pay higher amounts. Independents (although that's not a political philosophy, but rather non-party affiliation) say that they are also willing to pay. Conservatives say they are willing to pay too in the majority, but the majorities goes down. It drops from the 60's and 70's respectively to I believe around 53%. Still a majority, just not as high. But what this tells us is this is another instance in which politicians are going against what the majority of Americans want. So if we're going to say we have to persuade the public to pay for their services then this argument is already made invalid by the fact that the public is already persuaded. The problem is that politicians aren't persuaded. Since their taxes are the most likely to be affected it's somewhat understandable why elected officials would have the 'just shut up' attitude towards taxation. But this isn't shared by the rest of Americans.
I think that is true that conservatives are less willing to pay than liberals, but they are Americans too and you need to get everyone to agree not just the liberals. Historically you have never been able to get more than 20% of GDP to go into federal tax. Last time I looked we are spending more than that. Look at SS. People love the program and we always paid for until now when the democrats don't want to fund it. Hence the payroll tax cut. Conservatives put in a drug benefit they did not want to pay for as well as a couple of wars. Medicare tax does not cover medicare and so on. I agree polling says people are will to pay more tax but I bet they vote their representative out of office when they raise the tax.
They may very well vote their rep out of office once they do. I am not sure on that one. Our electorate is so reactionary that it's hard to predict what they'll do. Even in writing that response to you I was and am cogniscent of the fact that the electorate changes their minds about every six seconds. My only point was that it doesn't appear to be that the mainstream of America oppose tax increases because the mainstream seems to be concerned w/ the debt.
As for the pay roll tax cut we can assume that there will be a huge amount of that money spent in the economy which means it generates economic revenue. There is an economic trade off to cutting the tax, although to what extent I don't know. What I do know is that the first 2 pay roll tax cuts were paid for and were not added to the deficit or debt. But I don't know if this more recent deal is or will be. I certainly don't want us cutting any more taxes if that means we're going to just be adding the difference to the debt. That really doesn't solve anything. However I can also understand the economic prudence of cutting lower income taxes in the short term (mind you SHORT TERM is the key phrase there). In the short term it can help boost sales, especially to retail stores, utility companies, and to grocery stores. The exchange rate is about 1:9. For every 1 dollar you cut (in low income tax revenue) you get about 9$ back in economic revenue when it's done on the lower income spectrum. However most economists agree that this isn't healthy as a long term policy. I worry that Congress will make it permanent just like the Bush tax cuts (which, as you've noticed, are now the Obama tax cuts). And that's kind've the problem.
The percentage of GDP to federal tax is skewed since the market tanked in 2008. There are more people on welfare and unemployment while tax revenues are down because of the Bush Depression. Cutting government spending is not going to be enough. Taxes have to go up--on everyone and that is in the future.
SS is not in bad shape as conservatives would have us believe. It is a question of bringing benefits and the FICA deduction in line with more recent actuarial tables. It does not need wholesale cuts and increases of taxes. Also, the government administers SS which is funded by employers and employees, not our income taxes. It does not add to the deficit. The things that add a lot to the deficit are the Bush tax cuts, two wars and Medicare. The wars are winding down so that leaves the other two factors. Republicans want the tax cuts made permanent and that is not going to happen. If they do not cut a deal now with Obama and Dems retake the House, the Republicans will be in a weaker position to negotiate the budget except by reconciliation with the Senate.
Thank you for the info. I did not know the first two tax cuts were paid for. I am assuming you mean the money that did not go into the trust fund was replaced by other revenue into the trust fund. Tax cuts do increase revenue in the general economy and because of the multiplier every dollar creates more than a dollar of revenue. I had no idea it was so high though. What the politicians have to look at is this, If I give a tax cut and reduce the revenue into the treasury will the increased economic activity when taxed bring that money back into the treasury. Very important to look at just the income and loss to the treasury not the economy as a whole. If it is 9:1 then a 10% tax will almost pay for it. I don't know if that is sufficient when you are talking about low income people. I only make $20,000 a year and sometimes I pay federal taxes sometimes I don't, although with my county property tax and my state taxes I pay about 25%
The cuts in the SS tax are not going to be significant enough to affect the long term stability of SS. These cuts were target to the middle class to stimulate demand. Tax cuts for the rich do not stimulate demand nor do they increase revenues. The issues with SS were created by Bush and the Republicans borrowing from the SS surplus to pay for the wars and the Bush tax cuts. When Clinton left office the projected surplus was going to be used to pay off the government IOU's written on the SS funds. Now, Bush has left huge IOU's with SS that have to be repaid. There is no reason why the middle class should take the hit with benefits so that the rich can have their tax cuts.
Your local taxes are issues with your local governments. But if the feds cut programs, local governments are going to be faced with service cuts or increased taxes. These local governments will have to cut police, fire, schools, etc. Pick your poison. Either way the middle class is getting screwed. They are going to lose at the federal level and at the local level because of the Bush Depression.
You mean rich people don't get the payroll tax cut?
Don- well not really. Technically anyone making a paycheck gets to benefit from it, but my understanding they did the payroll tax cut on a reverse slanting scale. So for people like you and I (you and I are pretty much in the same income group) we get around $150/mo more than what we would be getting otherwise. For people like Rachel (who technically takes a paycheck from NBC) she probably doesn't see a payroll tax cut. I am pretty sure it stops affecting people if you're over 100,000$/yr because, like I said, it works on a reverse slant (so it gets lower as you go higher in income).
They paid for the payroll tax cut by removing spending from other departments and transferring that money to this one. The money was already budgeted to be spent so all they did was switch around to what it would be spent on. I guess you can take that as good or bad depending on your perspective.
The 1:9 ratio I'm quoting is from a Moody's study and I am quoting it from memory so I may not be accurate. Apologies if I'm wrong- I know it was something incredibly high, but it's only high for people in lower income brackets like you and I. For people who make, say, 80,000$/yr the benefit is not as much. It's for poor people like you and I who make just enough that when we see an extra 10$ here or 10$ there the likelihood is we'll go out and spend it instead of saving it. That generates economic revenue because we're giving that money to local businesses. Someone like Rachel Maddow would likely put that money into savings since the amount would be so negligible (as compared to her normal salary) as to not impact her spending habits. That's part of why I said there's a giant asterisk that has to go next to the payroll tax cut when talking about it. It is ONLY good as a short term effect and if it's targeted towards low income individuals. Change either one of those aspects and you've completely defunked the purpose of the holiday tax. And you are absolutely correct that it becomes a cost/benefit ratio analysis. The CBO projections (for the initial tax holiday, that is (I do not know about the last 2)) said that it would increase revenues by a few hundred billion. That would more than offset the amount being lost in tax deductions. Did this continue w/ the new extension? I do not know.
Thank you. I learned a lot. BTW I am not hurting. I was making $80,000 a year but took an early retirement and the money I make is my pension. Not bad for watching Rachel and facebooking all day. My income will triple in a couple of years when I take SS and and my 401K. They also let me keep my healthcare benefit which is only $10 a month. I am a very lucky man. House is paid off. I sold the house where I was when I was working right before everything went to H. The prices had gone up so much I basically had lived there for free for 15 years and walked away with $150,000. Pretty much put it all in this place though. I have a little left just in case to get me through till SS.
ack double post! Newsvine is teh devil >.<
Ah well then you're in an entirely different situation. Sorry, wasn't trying to speak on your behalf. I gotta learn to stop doing that ;-). For me I make just enough to have no money left over at the end of the month. I'm broke, but I'm also not in any debt. I will have to go into debt in order to get out of debt, though (loans to finish paying off school). Sometimes I can understand how the federal government feels regarding their situation...or at least I think I can heh ;-).
You can live real cheap if you have to. I was so poor when I was young I actually ate Purina monkey chow. I know the diet at that time was based on what humans needed as they were the closest primate to monkeys. Yeah, my mom is 95 and I needed to take care of her as well as having some health problems of my own. It was time to give up the rat race. When you don't work you don't spend. I can dress in rags and not drive so much and hardly ever eat out. Life is good but I am not really retired as my time is still not my own.
And when the GOPers keep calling the 1% "job creators" can we just tell them to "shut up?" Anyone with any knowledge of economics can remember the lessons of supply and demand. Consumers create the jobs. Consumers are the middle class. When they have money, they spend. And when they spend, there is more demand for product. Which means companies have to create more product and hire more people to create more product. Pretty simple. Oh, yeah. They'd just tell me to "shut up."
I'm so tired of These politicians that believe personally that marriage is between a man and a woman and overturn the will of their constituents.... They should just shut up about their personal opinions!
By historical standards too. The only time taxes were lower was before there was a federal income tax!
The republican tantrums and bitter crying about the onerous burden of taxes is disingenuous at its core. To put it in terms they would understand: they lie.
Chris Christie is nothing but dripping republican pork fat. McCain, where are you when we need you to cut out the pork?
If Christie's saying we should make taxes voluntary, why don't we start with NJ and see if it works?
Exactly. Write out your check and be quiet. Limosine liberals want to keep their money but get everyone else to pay.
"Limosine liberals want to keep their money but get everyone else to pay." Yet it's Romney who wants to lower taxes on the wealthy while Obama wants to raise taxes on the wealthy, including himself.
Pay attention, contessa!
Contessa wants to raise taxes on everyone until those who aren't paying federal income taxes drops down to 15%, even if that means taxing the unemployed. Yet Contessa wants to excuse the wealthy from this same requirement. Very funny.
I don't know about all states but here in Minnesota unemployment insurance (UI) IS taxed.
Raising taxes on people making 250k when they are already paying 50% is what the uber wealthy want. They know that when they are lumped with people that make only 250k, their tax rate will always be reasonable for them...
What we need is a millionaire tax bracket and to bring down the number (49.5% that pay NO FEDEAL INCOME TAX) to about 25%.
Right, because people making 18,000 a year or less which is poverty rate if not mistaken, can easily afford to pay federal income taxes. Robme makes that amout every five minutes in the day. Damn, whats wrong with you people?
Shut up and write a check to the RNC. And many wealthy tax dodging wealthy people with personal agendas are doing just that. Thanks to the five activist judges and "citizens" united.
Taxes imposed by ourselves on ourselves is the price we pay for our freedom. Freedom from having to bow down to the wealthy, freedom from having to pay them tribute. Pining for the days of say, medieval Germany, when any lord could charge whatever he wanted for you even to cross his domain...what a world they are picturing.
Citizens United did us one favor: it showed how shallow, stupid and pseudo macho our billionaires are -- and how utterly unfit they are to guide this nation.
In fact, to read the NYT this morning, about the horrendous self-contradictory millions thrown at the GOP candidates (there's no rhyme nor reason to it--millions thrown at one candidate, who uses to bash another, then the same guy contributing to the bashed guy to bash the first, then the same guy giving money to the first guy on condition of not bashing the second.
It showed me that these billionaires are engaging in what the Indians of the Pacific Northwest used to engage in: POTLACH. They are trying to outdo each other in how much they can ostentatiously waste, just as rival chieftains did, by throwing vast amounts of wealth on the fire and daring the other to match him.
sometime we have to take the bull by the horns. i say just pay 15% and say good day. what are they going to do arrest everyone?