WH shoots down talk of middle-class tax rise

[No Passaran]

"The president was clear during the campaign about his commitment on not raising taxes on middle-class families," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Monday afternoon. "I don't think any economist would believe that, in the environment that we're in, that raising taxes on middle-class families would make any sense."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/03/obama.economy/index.html

[Cha]

1. Thank you, I'm going to link this

around to some threads who are whining about the president implementing "middle class taxes". Who started this shite?

[No Passaran]

3. I've seen those thread all over

This should take care of that. Straight from the top

[Chulanowa]

12. Republicans started it

And you know how dogs like rolling in shit. Blue dogs are no different.

[Jennicut]

2. Well obviously.

All Geithner and Summers said was they were not ruling anything out to bring down the deficit eventually. That does not mean tomorrow.

[City Lights]

4. KR&B.

:wtf: started this lie?

Gawd, I hate the corporate media!

[tridim]

5. No idea, but it's being perpetuated right here on DU

It's pathetic.

[MercutioATC]

7. Well, Obama's appointed Treasury Secretary, for one...

I didn't believe that Obama would cave on this issue, but it looks pretty bad when your own Treasury Secretary waffles on middle-class tax increases...

[hfojvt]

11. I think it's pretty bad when a Democrat defines rich people as middle class

Sure, they make more money than 80% of the country, but they are still "middle" class. It just depends on what the definition of middle is. Silly me, I would exclude people in the TOP quintile.

[MercutioATC]

18. "Rich" is also a subjective term.

In traditional usage, "middle class" was anybody who fell between "working class" and "upper class".

..."working class" being defined as laborers and those without advanced education...blue-collar workers.

..."middle class" being defined as white-collar workers and "shopkeepers" (small business owners).

..."upper class" being defined as the investor class.


$250k/year seems about right for the top end of "middle class"....although I'd much rather it indexed to locality.

[hfojvt]

24. that's one definition

and I am betting it gets spread by a lot of perfessors who conveniently happen to fall into that $100,000 - $250,000 range. Fock that noise. In the words of Bender "Don't you EVER compare yourself to me."

I happen to have an advanced education and 3 of the four janitors where I work have college degrees (yay for college!!)

The definition of middle class needs to change then because we no longer have a whole bunch of small businessmen and farmers. Most members of the working class think of themselves as middle class, and rightly so, because their income is in the middle.

Marxist phrases like 'working class' have pretty much never been used in my lifetime (since the 1970s). The classes are lower, middle and upper and can be defined by quintiles. Politicians, even from the Democratic party, are always trying to define middle class upward, because that's where their money comes from (and also it's where they themselves live) but such upwardly mobile definitions should not be allowed. The more 'middle class' gets defined upwards, the more those of us near and far below the median lose.

[MercutioATC]

32. As long as you realize that definitions vary...and they're frequently not based on quintiles.

My very simplified definition:

"Poor" means that you either have no income or you live paycheck-to-paycheck despite having little or no unnecessary spending.

"Middle class" means that you can afford some luxuries and put some money away.

"Rich" means that money isn't a concern unless you choose to make it one.


Completely arbitrary, but as valid a definition as any.

[hfojvt]

38. a definition that makes the rich into the middle class is wrong

definitions are gonna vary unless you solidify it with some facts. Quintiles are probably the clearest and most fact-based way to do it. If the definition is arbitrary, then we have no way to communicate. My bottom line, again, is that upwardly defining middle class does a clear dis-service to the 50% of America that is below the median income. If that does not bother you, then it doesn't bother you.

But I think most people are gonna agree with me. If they make $60,000 a year they probably think "I am in the middle class" when a politician tells them that somebody making $180,000 a year is in the middle class, they probably think he is a liar or a moron.

Even with this very imprecise definition

"Middle class" means that you can afford some luxuries and put some money away.

It's pretty darn clear that you can afford more luxuries and put much more money away if you make $180,000 a year or $240,000 a year than you can if you 'only' make $70,000 a year. And once you've put a fair amount of money away (or even the fact that you could have if you hadn't blown it on luxuries) means that 'money is not a concern'.

[Arkana]

20. Geithner did it because he remembers Bush the Elder's dilemma.

Better to have it happen this way.

[MercutioATC]

22. I think they'll make it work without a middle class tax increase.

We'll see.

[hfojvt]

26. and how far we have fallen because of Clinton

now the Democratic President is the one saying 'read my lips, no new taxes'. Talk about a total victory for Reaganomics.

[mkultra]

29. actually, it was people like you

his secretaries refused to make blanket refusals and the news and people like you cast that to mean the opposite. Its the idiotic old:

1) are you gay.
2) i refuse to answer.
3) then you must be gay.

[MercutioATC]

31. No, it was Geithner's and Sommer's weasely talk.

Reporter: "Are you going to have to raise taxes on the middle class to pay for this?"

Geithner (or Sommers): "Money is money. We don't HAVE to take it from any specific place. The President's been pretty clear that the middle class won't see increased taxes, so we're working in that framework."

Is that so difficult?

[mkultra]

35. seems pretty clear to me. Your reading things into his statements.

[MercutioATC]

39. No, the media is...but he left the door open for them.

All he had to do was state that a middle class tax was not being considered.

He failed to do so.

[mkultra]

40. you cant always plan for the trappings of fools.

[MercutioATC]

43. He was directly asked if taxes were going to be raised on the middle class.

It doesn't take a genius to figure that anything other than a "no" will be printed as a "maybe".

[mkultra]

49. except he ignored the question and pushed his own point

sometimes, stupid people get confused like in this case. There isn't much that can be done to prevent it.

[MercutioATC]

50. As I said, he COULD have just said "no" and avoided all of this.

[mkultra]

51. yes troll, he could have done better.

then he would not have created an opening that people could pry open and twist. But he did so twist away.

[MercutioATC]

52. I expect that sort of comment from blind apologists.

Part of fixing something is removing one's head from one's ass and honestly appraising the situation.

Geithner screwed this up, so much so that the White House had to step in and "clarify" his comments. Perhaps he can just answer a simple question next time.

[mkultra]

53. perhaps they will so that you and yours dont make something out of it

that wasn't. The fact remains, in the end, that no middle class tax increase was proposed or intended. That's not what your on about though is it. This is what i expect from embedded trolls. Ignorance of what is important in place of nit pickery of meaningless matters.

[hfojvt]

8. it's not a lie. It was started by Geithner and Summers

as the article lays out. Geithner was on ABC's "This Weak" and Summers was on "Fake the Nation"

[No Passaran]

9. it's ok. now you know the deal. no need to defend your panic

[Uzybone]

13. Actually it is a lie

they asked 2 economists to rule out a form of fiscal policy and they sidestepped the question as they should. That does not equal Geithner and Summers started talking about tax increases. Sad to see RW crap spread all over here.

[girl gone mad]

23. Geithner is not an economist.

His background is in international studies. He's our current Treasury Secretary, directly responsible for formulating economic policies, not merely pontificating on theoretical ideas. As such, and as was the case for every previous Treasury Sec., his public statements will be picked apart by economic observers and policy wonks.

Geithner was perfectly willing to directly answer other questions on fiscal policy. For instance, he ruled out any new financial rescue package for the banks. If the administration is firmly against middle class tax hikes, then Geithner should stick to the party line, not be out stirring speculation by refusing to say tax hikes are off the table, then seconds later pointing out that people will have to sacrifice to pay off our deficits.

[mkultra]

people shouldnt assume a refusal at blanket statements means the negative

that's the same stupidity you have suffered from on this same topic on other threads. The high likely hood is that he didn't want to get trapped by moving definitions of the middle class or he was avoiding talk outside of his pay grade.

[hfojvt]

25. they are quoted in the article

and while they side-stepping and made things fuzzy, they left it open as a possibility.

[girl gone mad]

17. Tim Geithner was asked directly..

on the Sunday talk show circuit yesterday. He refused to rule out a middle class tax hike, saying our deficit would need to be reigned in and people would have to make sacrifices.

If Geithner was off the ranch, the WH should say so. However, this wasn't the first time he's made such statements and Larry Summers has also alluded to the need for the middle class to pay higher taxes to cover health reform.

[hfojvt]

27. I don't think the middle class needs to pay for it

but I don't think rich people are part of the middle class.

[hfojvt]

6. but does Obama really define "middle class"

as anybody making less than $250,000 a year?

"During the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama made it clear that the middle class -- whom he defined as anyone making under $250,000 -- would not face any tax increase." Because about 82% of American households make less than $98,000 a year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States

50% of households make less than $44,389 a year, which is the national median income for households. But according to what Obama was just quoted somebody making $240,000 a year who had a spouse making $80,000 a year would still be middle class. Does a household making $45,000 a year really think that a household with 5 times their income is not rich?

I think we should increase taxes all the way down to $90,000 a year. The problem is, of course, is there are too many people in the $90,000 - $250,000 range who donate to political parties and candidates. It stands to reason that it is easier to make a $1,000 donation if you make $190,000 a year than it is if you make $40,000 a year.

[MercutioATC]

10. ...and if you made $10k/year, you might support increases on those making over $60k.

Conversely, if you made $270k/year, you might draw the line at $300k.


The issue is realistically defining "middle class"...and, depending on the area of the country in which one lives, I think $250k is a pretty realistic number.

[hfojvt]

15. it so happens that I make about $14,000 a year

but I can still read this chart and see that about 85% of households make more money than I do, so I would not expect any politician to be stupid enough to propose tax increases on the 65% of the population making between $15,000 a year and $90,000 a year. But if they propose tax increases on the mere 20% making over $90,000 a year, they should not lose the support of the 80% (hugh majority, no?) of people making less.

I don't think it is realistic at all to include 80% of the top 20% in the 'middle'. But it obviously plays well with those rich a$$holes.

edit: I got so carried away with my high dudgeon, that I forgot to include the chart. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States

I suppose I could make my own table

Quintiles
1 - bottom ($20,000)
2 \
3 - middle
4 /
5 top ($90,000) (notice how it differs from the middle)

[MercutioATC]

19. I kinda answered this above.

"Middle class" has no actual definition....but most people don't see it as anything close to "median income".

[hfojvt]

28. Why shouldn't they? Median is the 'middle' by definition.

It seems that many people do not want to admit that they are rich. The trouble seems to be that as they move up the income ladder they meet lots of other people in their own class. Thus what really is rich becomes their 'normal' and they can look up and see their department head, who they sometimes socialize with, is much, much richer, so how can they be rich? And they seldom will "look at any of my friends, and certainly wouldn't condescend to speak to any of my friends". So they forget that there is another America full of 'losers' who are much poorer than them. "Really? You mean everybody doesn't own three cars? and have three bathrooms? and a house younger than their parents?"

[MercutioATC]

33. Let's just do this in one subthread...

...I posted an answer in the one above this one.

[Hippo_Tron]

14. Taxing the uber rich makes more sense than taxing families who make $250,000

[hfojvt]

21. not really

this has been true for a while. The top 5% get about 20% of the income. The next 15% get about 30% of the income. (Okay, my other computer has been booted up and I see the actual numbers for 2005 22.2% for the top 5% and 28.2% for the next 15%. If you only tax the top 5% (or what, the top .5% which would be the uber-rich) then you are not taxing over 75% of the total income. Over 50% of the income goes to the top 20% of households whereas only 22% goes to the top 5%. That group is pretty high up there and they simply have a lot of money too (partly because there are many more of them).

Which is not to say that I am against even more progressivity (even higher rates as income goes higher.)

[girl gone mad]

16. Good.

I hope this holds.

[hfojvt]

30. Why?

I hope it doesn't. It's way past time for politicians to stop catering to the top 20% and pay more attention to the bottom 80%. 80th percentile is not middle and it is insulting and stupid when even Democrats claim it is.

[Phx_Dem]

34. Debbielus and Progressoid might want to have a look-see.

They both have their hair on fire and their knickers in a twist because the President is going to raise their taxes, or maybe he already has. I don't know. I can't keep track of the bullshit anymore.

Funny that neither of them have posted on this thread even the topic is causing them anxiety.

:crazy:

[Flying Dream Blues]

37. They are probably just too concerned to go on. nt

[Flying Dream Blues]

36. Thanks for bringing this to light; there's so much concern and confusion

over this topic right now. (If you catch my drift.)
:hi:

[leftstreet]

41. "Read my lips..."

uh, what?

[4lbs]

42. The "read my lips" statement from Bush 41 was talking about no new taxes whatsoever.

President Obama said any new taxes won't be on the middle class.

So, he didn't say there wouldn't be any new taxes, quite the contrary.

He's in favor of increasing taxes.... on those making more than $250K a year.

[Daylight]

54. Obama Said no new taxes on "anyone" making less than 250k in "any form".

Thats as close to a read my lips statement as one can make.

The exact quote --> Under my plan, no family making less than $250000 a year will see any form of tax increase. ...
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/politics/Reads-Obamas-Lips-No-New-Taxes-52386127.html

[Daylight]

55. They passed a bill July 01 that will end up raising the cost of energy for everyone.

Isn't this a tax increase in some form?

Speaker Nancy Pelosi introduced a 300 page amendment for an "energy tax" increase contained in the cap and trade bill at 3 in the morning with 12 hours left before the vote that no one read before they passed the bill.

Speaker Pelosi and her allies in Congress apparently believe that the answer to rising gas prices is to impose a new national energy tax that would punish Americans who dare to flip on a light switch or drive a car. The Democrats’ energy tax would not only restrict the use of environmentally-safe offshore drilling, but would “permanently close some domestic refineries, which could permanently raise the price of gasoline,” as the New Hampshire Union-Leader noted in an editorial published today.

During the debate over Speaker Pelosi’s national energy tax in the House, House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) asked: “Do we need to have a national energy tax on every person in America who would drive a car, who would flip on a light switch or who would buy an American-made product?” Leader Boehner continued: “if our goals are to clean up the air, to build an alternative energy business in the United States, a thriving one, and to create jobs, there’s a better way to do this, and it’s the all of the above strategy that we’ve been talking about in this Chamber for nearly a year.

[nod factor]

44. Here's what I picked up

on at Gibbs' presser. The White House has a clear commitment not to raise taxes on the middle class, but they are resigned to the fact that they will have to do such, but only after 'recovery' has taken root.

[JTFrog]

45. You mean the chicken littles were wrong again?

[Vinca]

46. This was just about to turn into another media frenzy to take the focus

away from health care. MSM will talk about anything else to protect their advertising dollars.

[TexasObserver]

47. Good. That needed to be shot down ASAP.

And those two Wall Street ass kissers in the administration need to be horse whipped for even alluding to it.

[solstice]

48. They've already TALKED about raising them, though - unless taxing HEALTH INSURANCE

doesn't count.

But they DID talk about it.

Whether they actually do raise taxes on the middle class remains to be been.

I think anybody who refuses to admit it's a possibility, given the talking out of both sides of its mouth of the Obama administration on the issue, is completely in denial.

Gibbs is an embarrassment, anyway...like a huge number of Obama's other choices, including Geithner and Summers.

[TxRider]

56. And cap and trade, and tobacco taxes..

And all the other backhanded taxes that effect middle and low income folks or are disproportionately passed through to them....