« Guest Blogging | Main | A Rural Year, 11/12/10: Autumn’s Gifts »


Brian Johnson

Hypothetically, $29 dollars. Man, the Elephants need to pony up more cash to get my vote.

What I'm puzzled about is the $250k line. Because most of the sturm und drang on the subject involves "small businesses" a 1/4 mil in gross to me is 'wow' business, not small, but I guess that says something about me, not about the money.

Secondly, why oh why do these folks not incorporate? Because this is harmful, as they have said a thousand times, to small businesses filing as individuals. Is it that hard to incorporate? That expensive? And if it is expensive, well, then, I guess they can look at is an investment, just like capitol expenditures, they don't pay off the first year every time. But has anyone done a policy analysis on that? No.

I miss news analysis. I really do. Why do I keep hearing small businesses create most of the jobs? What size is small in this statement? Why does the media not do news analysis anymore? Hurts ad revenue? Laziness? Viewers get bored if there's no white person getting cut somewhere in the story?


Jeff Mariotte

Somewhere along the way, analysis fell by the wayside.  There's still a little of it around, on PBS Newshour and occasionally on Rachel Maddow, but for the most part it's hard to go in-depth in the 2-minute slots the big stories get. Magazines sometimes do it, too, but it's hard to find between all the celebrity fluff. Even most policy-oriented websites seem more interested in covering the headlines of lots of stories rather than using the net's theoretical lack of time/space restrictions to really dig into an issue.


It amazes me how much people freak out over these taxes when they aren't even in the affected tax brackets!
Heck, even without extending the tax cuts we are still no where near the as high as income tax has gone in the past. 1944-1945 94% income tax rate if you made over $200,000.
1951-1963 91% income tax rate if you made over $400,000.

"The marginal rate throughout the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations — from 1951 (under Truman, actually) through 1963 — was 91% on income above $400,000. (Calculating for inflation, $400,000 back in 1963 was worth about $2.8 million in today’s dollars.) The only president whose full tenure coincided with the confiscatory 91% marginal rate was Dwight D. Eisenhower, Republican."
JJ Goldberg - http://blogs.forward.com/jj-goldberg/tags/national-debt/

Jeff Mariotte

True, taxes are basically at historic lows for most people--yet they still complain as if the government were snatching the bread from their dinner tables. And most of those same people have no problem taking advantage of the services that tax money provides: roads and schools and bridges and sewers, police and firefighting service, national defense, etc. etc. Now, of course, everybody's worried about the deficit, but still wanting tax cuts.  You really can't have it both ways.

Brian Johnson

That's interesting information on the marginal rates I hadn't seen before.

The rates themselves are they really that relevant? I mean, if it were 91% on income above $400,000 there would be quite an incentive to restructure to avoid it being classified as "income," then as well as now.

I appreciate your mentioning infrastructure (roads, bridges, sewers) Jeff. I seem to hear a lot of fuss about government spending and yet nobody steps up and advocates for a functioning air-traffic control system, airports, fresh drinkable water and reliable electricity (well, sometimes), as part of the national landscape. We're way behind on maintenance spending on infrastructure, particularly the dams in the Western U.S. and bridges in general.

Not to ditto you, but, ... ditto.

Jeff Mariotte

Agreed--our societal lack of interest and focus on infrastructure is a national shame, and it'll be a tragedy (not that it hasn't already been--but when more bridges go, or electrical grids fritz out at bad times, it'll be worse).

The comments to this entry are closed.