A few weeks ago, President Obama delivered a speech in Virginia, and at one point he made a curious assertion about taxes. He was quoted in the Boston Globe:
“We could get that done this week,” he said. “But we’re still in this wrestling match with John Boehner and Mitch McConnell about the last 2 to 3 percent, where, on average, we’d be giving them $100,000 for people making a million dollars or more — which in and of itself would be OK, except to do it, we’d have to borrow $700-billion over the course of 10 years. And we just can’t afford it.”
Note the word “giving.” That’s an odd take of tax payments, one that reverses the order of transfer. When a government doesn’t take revenue from citizens, the logic goes, in effect it “gives” that money to them.
Is this just a rhetorical phrase designed to build support for letting the Bush tax cuts expire? Or is it a case of ideological belief, as Matthew Continetti put it here, “In the liberal imagination, the money is the government’s by default, and the president and Congress determine through the tax code how much to give back to the people.”
Either way, the idea of government “giving” people money (however rich they are) when it doesn’t levy taxes upon them is an argument that’s going to be hard to sustain as November approaches.
12 Responses to A Strange Take on Taxes
slowlearner - September 26, 2010 at 5:55 pm
Read the passage more carefully. Obama is talking about “giving” the $100,000 to Boehner and McConnell – in other words giving that issue to the Republicans in the negotiations over the tax cuts.
markbauerlein - September 26, 2010 at 6:49 pm
Wrong, slowlearner. Yes, he says “giving” the Repubs $100K on average, but the money “goes to” the rich. The original point I made still holds.Also, I don’t understand the last part of your sentence.
luther_blissett - September 26, 2010 at 8:08 pm
Mark, you’re wrong. “Them” can only refer to “Boehner and McConnell,” as they are the only plural noun up to that point. The preposition “for” also makes it clear that “them” is not the same as “people making a millions dollars or more.”
mavprof - September 26, 2010 at 10:45 pm
Luther Blisset, you’re wrong and Mark Bauerlein is right. The contested plural refers to the top (or “the last,” referred to by President Obama) 2 to 3% of earners, not to Messrs Boehner and McConnell. A cursory scan of news stories on this contested issue confirms Mark’s interpretation. And the rest of Mark’s point about the federal government “giving” taxpayers back their own earnings also stands. The moneys “given” back to taxpayers by the feds is sometimes vulgarly referred to as part of “Obama’s stash.”
mavprof - September 26, 2010 at 11:02 pm
You’d think that a speaker who simply parrots (parrots!? cries Bertie Wooster) a prewritten teleprompter speech would remove such ambiguities discussed above before the delivery.
nordicexpat - September 27, 2010 at 2:24 am
“Them” is not ambiguous. The antecedent is clearly Boehner and McConnell, and it’s the preposition “for” which makes this clear (as mentioned above). Obama is saying that if he gave in to Boehner and McConnell’s demands to extend the tax cuts to the remaining 2 to 3 per cent, the administration would be giving them (i.e., Boehner and McConnell) $100,000 for people making a million dollars or more. (I won’t comment on the last part of the quote, which is a bit strained). You can say, “we would would be giving the remaining 2 to 3 percent $100,000 each,” but you can’t really say, “we would be giving the remaining 2 to 3 per cent $100,000 for people making over a million dollars or more,” since the remaining 2 to 3 percent are those making over a million dollars or more. (I can give you $1000 for your children, but I can’t give your children $1000 for your children). In a way, though, Mark is almost certainly right (even with the incorrect parsing). I am sure that at some point in this debate, Obama and others have talked about tax cuts as giving money to the rich. And even in a correct parsing of the quote, “giving” certainly could be construed as, well, “giving” in the sense Mark construes it, rather than conceding a point in negotiations. Then again, “give” has some many different nuances of meaning, that anyone could choose one that suits their political point of view about Obama and tax cuts. I think this whole debate is bit disingenuous, by the by, as each side is using the tax issue for a larger one they want to evade. Democrats know full well that they aren’t going to significantly reduce the deficit merely by allowing the tax cuts on 2% of the population to expire. 700 billion is certainly a lot of money, but as a percentage of how large the debt will be in ten years without a lot of spending cuts, it probably isn’t all that much. And Republicans know full well the tax cuts aren’t going to pay for themselves (they tried this under Reagan, and again under Bush, so let’s drop the pretence, shall we). So how do they they plan to make up for the loss in revenue? (The whole starve the beast ploy doesn’t work, just see California). The whole reason why this debate is occuring now is because the sunset provision of Bush’s tax cuts was designed to get around PAYGO (that is, a provision that legislation could be blocked if it would significantly increase the deficit beyond a ten-year term).Any chance there will be a grown-up discussion of the issue anytime in the near future?
markbauerlein - September 27, 2010 at 9:38 am
If Luther is right, then Obama’s statement is nonsensical. Nordicexpat paraphrases it right–”Obama is saying that if he gave in to Boehner and McConnell’s demands to extend the tax cuts to the remaining 2 to 3 per cent, the administration would be giving them (i.e., Boehner and McConnell) $100,000 for people making a million dollars or more”–and note that we still have the “give” in place.Also, nordicexpat is right on the politics of the whole thing, that is, the inability of both sides to face up to the financial facts.
rightwingprofessor - September 27, 2010 at 10:31 am
Regardless Mark’s point is correct, and I think we all know that Obama views it this way. The money belongs to the government, it it may or may not choose to “give” some of it back with lower tax rates.I am a university professor with 3 kids and a stay at home wife. If the Dems allow the Bush “tax cuts for the rich” to expire, my federal tax bill next year will MORE THAN DOUBLE. Yes you read the correctly, DOUBLE. $500/kid extra with the child tax credit expired, $1000 extra with the demise of the 10% bracket, plus dividents and cap games. The rich already pay about 50% of their marginal income in taxes, federal, state local, pushing 55% in some places. Enough class warfare from the Democrats please!
livefreeordie2 - September 27, 2010 at 10:42 am
This has been one of my biggest complaints for years. The liberal Democrats, with assistance of useful idiot Republicans, have turned everything around when it comes to taxes. Regardless of which “them” Obama was talking about, he and the others in Washington constantly refer to “paying for a tax cut.” Huh? Seems to me that there are two possible ways to do things. 1. Total up all the spending for a particular fiscal year and levy taxes to match, or 2. Set the tax rate and limit spending to available revenue. Obviously, except in the most egregious circumstances, the only moral way to do things is the latter. The former gives the government too much power (and takes us into debt because the people would never stand for the taxes required to pay the bill). In any event, whichever system is used, it is the tax payer who is “paying” for everything. Suggesting that a tax cut must be paid for confirms the assumption above that those in Washington see all money as theirs by default. Of course, we are still a few steps behind our British cousins. From last Wednesday’s Daily Express: “Now Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs. . .proposes that gross salaries shall be sent by employers direct to Whitehall and then the tax authorities will pass on that portion they consider appropriate to employees.” I can only imagine the orgasmic reaction that Obama, Geithner, Reed, and Pelosi would have fantasizing about imposing such a structure on Americans. . .
trendisnotdestiny - September 27, 2010 at 1:21 pm
An alternative hypothesis that exist concurrently to the “governmental encroachment hypothesis may be less about government’s overarching dominion and authority “to give or take”And maybe more about the idea that the previous tax breaks given to this group by Bush presidency, congressional republicans and like minded democrats were like gifts (to be given to the wealthy in repayment of funding)….. While I do not attempt to divine the spoutings of our President, it is an indisputable fact that nowhere have we seen a period in our history where tax breaks coincided with two wars, a depleted surplus and systemic/incremental increases in poverty measures like: home foreclosures, bankruptcies (7&13), and credit distress….. Maybe what he is saying (albeit poorly) is that we cannot afford to make a gifting gesture to the very same people who have benefitted for the last decade. Maybe we all should sacrifice (and have skin in the game)….. The fact that he is using the language of giving has more to do with salesmanship of the idea than inherent belief that he controls the purse strings of our money… We will leave that up to the federal reserve, the banking industry (wall street) and the lobbyists….
luther_blissett - September 27, 2010 at 11:54 pm
Yeah, it’s totally unheard-of to think about tax rebates or reductions as “giving” money back. I mean, from where would Obama ever get that notion?Oh, that’s right. I just bought a phone for $180 but received a rebate for $100, which was sold me as savings, as a gift from Sprint. Except that it was my money to begin with. The entire consumer sector is predicated on the notion that we should buy things most often when we are being given money back (sales, rebates, 2-for-1, etc.). But there’s no way the private sector could possibly think of my money as theirs to begin with, right? Damn, that’s right: they get a ton of money in corporate welfare, subsidies, etc. And Bush had no problem giving them my money as TARP funds and bailout money and other bullshit prop-ups.
markbauerlein - September 28, 2010 at 9:57 am
I agree with you, Luther. But don’t you see that your points run squarely against Obama’s statement? And trendisnotdestiny’s third paragraph pinpoints well the political nature of our fiscal situation.