The problem he's having at the moment is that the incoming congress will be the first in which there are enough republicans who have refused to sign and/or honor previous signing of the pledge that when added to the democrats the majority of congress is at the very least not pledged to raise taxes.
And given that basically Grover is running a "cult of personality" in that he's relevant only as long as people believe he is, and that he can only "knock out" so many defectors, he is desperately trying to coax the GOP back in line (cause at this point he wont be able to knock this many defectors out and therefore will quickly become irrelevant if he cant carry out the "threat" associated with breaking his pledge). It's that coaxing that probably led Grover to call for Republicans to pledge to return to the Reagan tax rates, as those would be the only thing that could counter all the job and economy killing tax increases and government spending increases under Obama.
As a side note I should point out, Norquist firmly believes that it was breaking from the Reagan rates and raising taxes that cost George HW Bush the presidency in 1992. Now I point that out because that appears to be the last time Norquist actually paid any attention to tax rates.
See at the moment under the "Bush Tax Cut's" the top tax rate is 35%. What Obama and the democracts are calling for is letting those cuts expire, restoring the "Clinton tax rate" of 39%. So under the democratic plan taxes go up to 39% in the richest people.
Compare that to the return Norquist is calling for in his attempt convince the GOP to allegedly keep taxes LOW, the Reagan Tax Rate.
Well when Reagan came into office the Top tax rate was 70%. 2 years into his term Reagan lowered it to 50%. 4 years later he would pass the second, cutting the top tax rate to 38.5%. Only in his final year would taxes actually drop notable below the "dreaded" Clinton tax rates, dropping to 28%.....well at least until George HW Bush undid them and brought taxes up to 31% two years later.
What this means though is that under Reagan taxes on the top earners where 50% most of time he was in office. AND there's more.
When Reagan came into office in order to be placed in the highest income bracket you had to make $532k a year by todays standards. With his first tax cut (down to 50%) he dropped that to $199k a year (again by todays standards/adjusted for inflation). In other words if you made some amount of money between those two points your taxes likely went up slightly.
Same with his 2nd tax cut (dropping top bracket down to $178k and 38%) and his 3rd ($56k 28%).
Again compare that to the Clinton and proposed Obama rates of 39% if you make $388k (how much you have to make stayed more or less the same under the Bush rates) or more a year.
Just compare the two side by side Reagan: 50% for those making more then 199k a year. Clinton/Obama: 39% for those making more then 388k a year.
No question about it, clearly under the Reagan rates more people would pay more in taxes then under the Clinton/Obama rate.
So to recap, according to Gover Norquist: Republicans shouldnt vote for a 4% increase in the top rates, as a tax increase like that would be horrible for the economy send us father into recession, quash job growth, discourage job creators. What Republicans should do though, in the name of lower taxes, more job growth and encouraging job creators is accept a tax cut of -15%. (which most of us would call an increase)
Look turns out Grover might not be wrong, we might be better off under the reagan rates.....but I can totally understand now why the GOP is deserting him, he clearly doesnt know what he's taking about since according to him moving from 35 to 39 is an increase and moving from 35 to 50 is a cut......
No comments:
Post a Comment