Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

« Poetry That Doesn't Suck | Is Asking About Helmets Blaming the… »

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

Politics / News / TV / At Large Patriotic American Job Creator Offers Unsolicited Advice to Democrats

Posted by Dan Savage on Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 2:29 PM

Today "Savage Love" goes from a one-man shop—well, a one-man shop and a handful of tech-savvy, at-risk, sadly-underpaid youth sweatshop—to an American job-creating juggernaut. My totes amazing new teevee shoe for MTV goes into production in Chicago at 7 PM this evening. It's the music video network's first foray into non-music-video-related programming and it's gonna be all kinds of awesome. And there are 31 people working on [title TBD] and all 31 of us are going to be staying in hotels, eating in restaurants, and shitfacing in bars as we bounce from college town to college town over next twelve weeks.

Now last week the president proposed raising taxes on the very wealthiest Americans—or "job creators," as the Republicans have taken to calling the very wealthiest Americans—and Obama called his plan the "Buffett Rule," after billionaire investor/polyamorist Warren Buffett, who has called on the government to stop coddling millionaires and billionaires:

Last year my federal tax bill—the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf—was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income—and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.

Something is very wrong, Buffett argues, when a billionaire pays a lower tax rate than his secretary.

The White House was smart to call its tax hike plan for millionaires the "Buffett Rule."

Every time the president's proposal is called the "Buffett Rule"—Buffett Rule! Buffett Rule! Buffett Rule!—middle-class taxpayers will be reminded that Warren "Billionaire Polyamorist" Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary does and a lower tax rate than they do. This is a rare and welcome example of savvy political messaging on the part of Democrats. (Did the White House hire this guy?)

Republicans have condemned the president's proposed tax hikes—which they strain to avoid calling the Buffett Rule—because, they argue, taxing millionaires and billionaires takes money out of the pockets of "job creators" and that's not something we can risk doing during a recession! Because then job creators won't have the money the neeeeeeeeeeeeed to create jobs! If we would just give job creators more money then they would create more jobs! It's that simple!

The president took the advice of a polyamorous billionaire about taxing millionaires and billionaires and here's hoping they'll take the advice of a cocksucking job creator—that's me (okay, I'm creating jobs with MTVs money, but still!)—about countering this "job creator" rhetorical ploy/scare tactic that the Rs are rolling out.

Dems! Anytime one of you finds yourself looking into a camera or sitting in front of a mic, for fuck's sake say this: "The rich have never been richer than they are right now. Look at this fucking thing. [Hold up print out of NYT graph.] If the economy worked the way Republicans would have us believe, we would have record low unemployment right now. We don't. We slashed taxes on the wealthiest Americans a decade ago and we extended those tax cuts last year and all we have to show for it is red ink and high unemployment. The rich are richer than they've ever been—look at this fucking thing!—they're getting richer, and they're not creating jobs. The GOP's proposed solution to all current economic problems—tax cuts for so-called 'job creators'—has already been tried and it has failed."

Comments (40) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment

I'm surprised he paid that much.

The average rich person pays about 8 percent federal, if they have decent tax accountants and lawyers.

Must have liquidated a lot ...

But, still, the actual US job creators are US small business owners, who have a median salary of $25,000 a year, so pretending rich people create jobs, when in fact they export jobs and investment capital, is playing to their game.

Posted by Will in Seattle

on September 20, 2011 at 2:35 PM

What the-- Did you just stitch together two separate stories with just the word "jobs"?

You'd make a great politician.

Posted by MacCrocodile on September 20, 2011 at 2:45 PM

I agree with Warren. Lower everyone's tax burden to 17.4% right away!

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me on September 20, 2011 at 2:53 PM

"It's the music video network's first foray into non-music-video-related programming..."

Huh?

Posted by bigyaz on September 20, 2011 at 2:55 PM

"It's the music video network's first foray into non-music-video-related programming"

LOL WUT

Posted by Jenny from the Block on September 20, 2011 at 3:02 PM

Dan's trying to get the CEO nod for Microsoft after Ballmer's kicked to the curb, doncha know, @2.

Posted by Will in Seattle

on September 20, 2011 at 3:05 PM

@4

It is called a joke. Dan is highlighting the fact that the "Music Television Channel" hasn't had music videos on it in forever.

Posted by Akbar Fazil on September 20, 2011 at 3:07 PM

Dan, how can we get you installed as the Dems' chief strategist and talking-points-maker?

Oh yeah, I forgot you are too busy turning MTV away from its 24/7 music vid programming...

Posted by emma's bee on September 20, 2011 at 3:07 PM

I'm sure that some very rich guy has a lower effective rate than some middle-class secretary. But don't get caught up in your talking point and assume that this is typical. The actual numbers are here, and they show that the average very rich guy pays 30% of income and the average middle-class secretary pays 14% of income. And yes, those numbers include the payroll tax. The fact that there are people who have gotten caught up in this talking point and deluded themselves is illustrated by Will @1.

Posted by David Wright on September 20, 2011 at 3:08 PM

@9 The fact that Will in Seattle has deluded himself proves nothing.

Posted by Hernandez

on September 20, 2011 at 3:17 PM

"My totes amazing new teevee shoe for MTV" .... are you 12?

Posted by KittenKoder

on September 20, 2011 at 3:21 PM

@9 That has to be a Republican/Democrat trick!

Posted by KittenKoder

on September 20, 2011 at 3:24 PM

We still get free entertainment here though, right?
This is always my first stop of the day with the morning coffee, seeing as equal rights is the most important political battle going (imho) and sex is fun(ny).

Posted by Sifu

on September 20, 2011 at 3:32 PM

@9, that's only on income. The vast majority of most of the wealth of the super-rich isn't from income, but from capital gains and earned interest, and that's taxed at a cool 15%. And of course none of that goes to payroll taxes. Hence how Buffett ends up with a lower effective tax rate than his secretary.

Posted by pzzz on September 20, 2011 at 3:36 PM

Well said. Right again. As usual.

Posted by Chillavision on September 20, 2011 at 3:39 PM

Yep, yep, and more yep. Thanks, Dan.

Posted by maddy811 on September 20, 2011 at 3:40 PM

Yeah, as a "job creator" myself, the argument that tax breaks for the rich create jobs is ridiculous (note: "job creator" is not a euphemism for me being a millionaire, which I'm not; I actually decide whether my company hires new employees or not).

Supply-side economics is a fancy way of saying "I just don't way to pay taxes, so I've invented a bullshit economic theory to justify myself." Demand creates jobs, not tax breaks. You know when I make the decision to hire someone new for my company? When there is more demand for our services than the current employee base can handle. If you give me a tax break, I'll say, hey, awesome, more money for me (and, because I tend to be a saver, not a spender, I'm probably not going to run out and dump that money into the economy either). I will not, in fact, hire another employee with that extra money (unless I believe that the extra employee will create demand - e.g., sales/marketing). The only thing that will make me hire people is if demand requires it. As a "small business owner", this "tax breaks create jobs" crap drives me nuts....

Posted by Julie in Eugene on September 20, 2011 at 3:50 PM

@14 Why do you think I say "go ahead and hike the wealthy's income tax" .... it won't effect them much if at all.

Putting everyone at the same percentage is the best idea, and killing loopholes as well, some deductions are plain stupid, but it's probably more complicated than that even. I don't know all the crap people can write off, the only deductions should be for giving to charities (real ones).

Posted by KittenKoder

on September 20, 2011 at 3:58 PM

@9 -- That's puzzling. I could have sworn I was an average secretary when I was still working and making less than $60,000/year, and yet I paid a total of 29% of my income out in payroll and income taxes every year. Does that mean I was actually a rich person? Wait. I have a television and a computer and a refrigerator -- yes, I must be a rich person.

Posted by Calpete on September 20, 2011 at 4:19 PM

Supply Side is an experiment that's been going on for thirty years without demonstrating the slightest evidence that it functions as advertised. It's an "experiment" in the same sense that Hunter Thompson was an "experimental" drug user in 2004.

Posted by Proteus on September 20, 2011 at 4:33 PM

Calpete @19: That's highly unlikely. If you are a single person making $60K, with no credits or deductions, not even the standard exemption for yourself, your effective income tax rate is 18%. (You'll be in the 25% bracket, but the first $34K of your income is still taxed at lower brackets. See this website for a simple calculator.) The payroll tax adds another 7% to that, for a total effective rate of 25%. It's actually very difficult to get the rate even that high, since almost everyone takes at least ther standard exemption; that's why most middle-class people end up with total effective rates around 15%.

Posted by David Wright on September 20, 2011 at 4:42 PM

@21: Calpete used the past tense. Tax brackets used to be a lot higher.

Posted by BlackRose on September 20, 2011 at 4:57 PM

@14 (and therefor @18): You're mistaken. Capital gains most certainly counts toward income for the purposes of income tax. Take a look at a 1040 form to see this; capital gains (line 13) contribute to AGI (line 37) just like wages, dividends, interest, royalties, business income, alimony, etc. Carried interest is just a form of long-term capital gains, which is which why it is taxed at 15%.

So why aren't all the super-rich paying only 15%? Because it isn't actually very easy, even with an army of accountants at your service, to get all your income classified as carried interest. You have to have derived it from selling an interest in a partnership that you have held for more than a year. CEO pay packages, Wall Street bonuses, NFL salaries, and bestseller book royalties don't qualify. So, as the data I pointed you to indicate, most super-rich end up paying around 30%.

Posted by David Wright on September 20, 2011 at 4:57 PM

@23 I stand corrected. As I said, I don't know that much on the actual system, I just want things to actually be as fair as possible, and taxing people different isn't fair at all.

Posted by KittenKoder

on September 20, 2011 at 5:09 PM

@9 David, who the fuck cares if it's not typical? We care about the outliers, the people and companies so rich they can afford literal armies to comb the tax code looking for and inventing new loopholes, and whose creative tax cheating costs us billions every year. GE's effective tax rate is negative, and even though there's only one of them, that's enough for me.

We need a simple to understand, simple to compute, and as unloophole-able as possible progressive tax system. If there's rich people out there who aren't taking full advantage of our hysterically pro-rich tax code now, awesome, but that doesn't mean we don't need to to fix it for those that are.

Posted by OuterCow on September 20, 2011 at 5:11 PM

@23 - Despite what the correct marginal tax rate on the super rich may be, an entire decade of tax cuts has done absolutely nothing to stimulate the economy or create jobs (unless, of course, that place is SE Asia) and extending them only seemed to deepen the wound.
Can you dispute this claim?

Posted by ChadK on September 20, 2011 at 5:16 PM

rich people create jobs when taxes on their income are high. then, instead of taking that money as salary, they reinvest it into their business (which means hiring people) and take the money later as capital gains, while stimulating the economy in the meantime. that said stuff like 'the way things work' and 'evidence' are largely irrelevant to decision making, which is usually driven by personal sentiment & bias.

Posted by philosophy school dropout on September 20, 2011 at 5:54 PM

@24, no, taxing people 'different' is more fair. A higher marginal rate for wealthy people and a lower rate for middle-class and lower earners is progressive taxation and it's a good thing. We need money to run this country. Some folks have gotten extremely wealthy due to the structure of our political system and economy. (And don't give me 'They worked for it', or 'they were innovators'--lots of people work hard and/or come up with great ideas and never get a nickel ahead.) Those folks, and their heirs, can contribute more than the rest of us who work low to mid-range jobs. Or those of us who are unemployed, laid off from the public school system.

Posted by clashfan on September 20, 2011 at 6:29 PM

Hold on a minute--The chart from the Brookings Institute's "Tax Policy Center" linked by poster above, somehow credits the top earners with 10.7 Corporate Income Tax! That is how it pushes the effective rate for top earners to over 30%. The only way this make sense is if somehow Brookings is claiming that the taxes paid by corporations should be credited to the corporate stock holders. Take that utterly ridiculous piece out and the results much closer to Warren Buffets 17% figure.

Posted by DeirdreTours on September 20, 2011 at 6:58 PM

My favorite thing about the Republicans is how they routinely ignore the ostensible "moral bankruptcy" of a lot of the most wealthy people in the country while claiming that the same moral bankruptcy is the cause of the country's decline(and not you know, idiotic Republican policies)

Warren Buffett->polyamorous
Tim Cook(CEO of Americas most valuable company)->gay
Steve Jobs->kid out of wedlock
Larry Ellison->4 divorces
Sergey Brin->atheist

and the list goes on.

More proof that Republicans are full of shit.

Posted by Motile Sperm on September 20, 2011 at 7:09 PM

Let us fix this for you Danny,
since your new copy editor is obviously awol or a moron....

"If the economy worked the way Democraps would have us believe, we would have record low unemployment right now.
Cause we shit away 2 Trillion of our kids money on stimulus over the past few years...."

Posted by ....see how that works, you fucking moron? on September 20, 2011 at 7:20 PM

everyone but Danny and Barock know Buffet is a sack of shit windbag.

Posted by f373 on September 20, 2011 at 7:22 PM

@31: funny, most of that "stimulus" was in the form of tax cuts. Give us an actual $2 trillion to spend and I am confident we will see unemployment go down.

Posted by Love Savage, Dan on September 20, 2011 at 8:18 PM

@31: I'm sorry, all the text in your comment after "democraps" came out on this end as "dur, dur, dur, dur, dur." Please re-type.

Posted by craps is for kids on September 20, 2011 at 10:08 PM

@23: Complete horseshit. The vast majority of the income of the wealthy does not come in the form of bonuses. It comes in the form of capital gains, which is taxed at a FAR lower rate than wages (and is not subject to FICA, either). So FUCK YOU for your bullshit lying bullshit.

If you want to know the truth, read the Wall Street Journal.

ttp://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/

Under President Clinton (and his "class warfare" tax rates), 23 million jobs were created. Under President W. Bush (and his "job creator" tax rates), 3 million jobs were created.

SO FUCK YOU ALL TO HELL FOR YOUR SHILLING FOR THE BULLSHIT REPUBLICANS. Eight times the jobs under the Clinton tax rates makes your Bush tax rates look like you really like a plantation economy.

Posted by the idiot formerly known as kk on September 20, 2011 at 11:30 PM

Plus, Obama has lowered taxes every year. He has NEVER raised taxes. So where are the jobs, Republican shitheads?

Posted by the idiot formerly known as kk on September 20, 2011 at 11:36 PM

Wait, filming in Chicago? Hit me up, I need a job! I'm all about working tv shows!

Posted by Drew2u on September 21, 2011 at 3:48 AM

@29: Yes, you're right. That table makes no sense at all with the "corporate" column.

Posted by BlackRose on September 21, 2011 at 3:57 AM

Amen, Dan!! The rich are rolling in dough and can more than afford to pay their fair share of taxes. Tax them at the Clinton-era rates -- that's when the economy was great.

Posted by Patricia Kayden on September 21, 2011 at 5:50 AM