The New York Times‘ Sheryl Gay Stolberg (11/29/17) reports that in passing a tax bill, Republicans are “doing what Republicans do best.”
The New York Times (11/29/17) discussed the prospects for the Republican tax bill, comparing the difference in Republican attitudes towards the tax bill and the efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act. In its effort to explain this difference, it told readers:
But lowering taxes is, at heart, what makes a Republican a Republican.
The problem with this assertion is that the Republican plans actually raise taxes for close to half of middle-income families, as the New York Times has reported. Given the structure of this tax cut and prior Republican tax cuts, it would seem more accurate to say that cutting taxes for rich people is what makes a Republican a Republican.
A version of this blog post appeared on CEPR’s blog Beat the Press (11/30/17).
You can send a message to the New York Times at letters@nytimes.com (Twitter: @NYTimes). Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective.
I think that the NY Times misspoke ( or whatever it is now called when people make things up. : )
I think it really must have been written like this with changes written in caps:
” But lowering taxes is A LIE, AND HEARTLESS BUT IS WHAT makes a republican a republican, SOMEWHAT LIKE THE TIN WOODMAN, WHO HAS A HEART METAL STUCK ON HIS CHEST!
*****So NY TIMES, click your heels together 3 times and say, ” there’s no sense without real journalism, and maybe you’ll be able to leave Oz, or where ever it is that you find yourself when sending out your current work : )
a corporate tax cut is a tax cut for the poor and middle class as well. For the poor and middle class it means being able to buy goods and services cheaper, the poor and middle class also work at corporations, this will increase employment and wages. If profits are used to increase the value of stock this also benefits anyone who owns stock, that happens to include a ton of the middle class. The reality is that there is no “rich” corporation the way it’s thought of by many on the left. Corporations are not people, but real people do work for them, buy their products and services as well as invest their hard earned dollars in them. The left seems to think that the only people effected by tax cuts for corporations are a few big wig billionaires and this simply isn’t true.
Now if the author had stated this differently and claimed that without cutting spending it’s not a tax cut for anyone, then I would agree. This isn’t really a tax cut, it’s tax redistribution from one generation to the next. So this will be a tax cut that helps everyone in the short term made possible by redistributing the tax burden on those who will be forced to pay for it at some later date.
Let’s please not play the game where we ignore the fact that corporate taxes are not in fact paid by the big shots out of their pocket. Corporate taxes are paid by you and me and everyone else in this country who works for or buys anything from or invests in corporations. If it were only the big shots paying corporate taxes do you really think we would have had among the highest corporate taxes in the world? Think about that for a minute. Trust me, those big shots would have much preferred their own income taxes be cut and capped at 20% instead.
Dear Brad Smith, I have looked at lots of sources that say under Eisenhower the tax rate for high incomes was 90%. That seems possible because it was after the only war that America had won in a long time and besides that Europe was totally smashed up and they were no competition for an untouched America so who else could build anything? There was so much exporting that lots of average people did well with basic income and evreyone just about could get a job and unions helped level the palying field too. So—America becomes great I guess, when no one else on the planet can make anything. Now of course, other nations not only make things, but American corporations go over seas to hire these people, but the cost to comnsumers is not lowered re: the lowered wages. So, America is not the same country.
I also think that poiple were nicer and cared more because probably just about everyone had lost something or someone, and working together has always helped people. ( of course black poeple and Mexican and Japanese and Germans were totally dissed and still are)
I think that you ,Brad Smith, are overlooking that America doesn’t make much nowadays except war and truly wages don’t seem to go up. I looked up minimum wage in 1968 and it was $ 1.35 and then later went up in places like CA to $1.65. and gas was like 25 cents a gallon and people were told that 1/4 of their income should go to their rent. At that time Congress was paid $30,000. Now, here it is 2 017 and some states aren’t even at $8 dollars minimum wage. BUT NOW, Congress makes $174, 000. So, from $30,000 to 174, 000 in about 50 years ….. that’s a raise of $144,000. Meanwhile lots of people are making just $10.50 an hour in places like CA, but rents have gone up so much that a minimum wage job can’t afford rent. So minimum wage goes up just $8.35 in states like CA in the same 50 years where Congress goes up $ 144,000.
ON the other hand, I think that you cou;d probably get a job with the NY Times today, because your reasoning made sense in the 1950s, but we don’t live like that in America anymore. I don’t think it exists anymore. Remember too that China backs their money with gold, and we seem to have air and war backing ours. ; 0
American companies keep their money off- shore and haggle to lower rates even lower if they bother to bring any of it back. Don’t foghet that even Disney in Florida tried to fire their American citizen workers tech peple so they could bring in people from overseas, Corporations seem now to be about making money for a select few and the environment and the majority of people aren’t valued…..but remember, America was not built by the rich Anglos… but immigrnts from all over, but they are being devalued too. We really aren’t a democratic re;ublic any more but don’t be surprised when the people act like that old movie Network ” We’re mad as hell and we’re not gping to tke it anymore” . I think that will be even worse for humanity than the
French revolution…. Is the the GOP still giving people the right to carry concelaed weapons of all sorts and in all kinds of public places because the timmimg of that seems to be a creepy idea when so many people who have already lost so much are about to lose even more with this tax and health killing bills. I hope that the GOP didn’t pass the silencers for al guns l idea for the NRA because that will truly be awful. I;m sorry Brad, but your tax infpomation seems to have been written by people who aren’t caring much a bout creating a” more perfect union, ” with a minimum of what the Constitution says this country is based on.
Here is a recent news item on the environment which might explain how insane America is getting.
Apparently the Great Lakes fish are suffering from drugs which get into public water, so I am wondering, what is the quality of water in Congress… and if mental health drugs have compromised the water systems from all the big phatma stuff that’s being proscribe——- that would explain a lot. : )
I also read a politician saying the tax changes will be “revenue positive,” and I thought, “Revenue positive for whom?”
The bill doubles the standard deduction (the president’s idea) and materially helps the vast majority of taxpayers. True the rest of it, like all other tax bills, is special interest provisions but for ordinary people it’s way better than the Bush tax cuts which were made permanent by the Democratic congress as their contribution to amending the tax code. So I guess what I’m saying is stop whining. As bad as it is, this is the best tax bill for ordinary Americans since 1981. Also how is it you people expect to get a different result when you keep re-electing the same congressmen and senators for the past 15, 20, 25, 30 years? If you don’t change the people nothing is ever going to change.
Lowering taxes has NEVER meant anything else than lowering taxes for the RICH. The supposed logic is that lowering taxes for the RICH will create job. The same logic has never applied to anyone else. How could lowering taxes for the middle classes ever do anything than lowering the taxes for the middle class. It would be about time that this was made clear once and for all. Lovering taxes always MEANS lovering taxes for the RICH.