So it's wrong for poor people to not pay *taxes* (for anti-poverty reasons supported by the theoretical work of people like Milton Friedman, or decade's worth of empirical research showing it helps people escape poverty by increasing work propensity among the most dreaded of social pariah groups-single mothers!), but it's okay for millionaires to not pay *taxes*? I'm confused.
*P.S. I'm purposefully saying "taxes"- even though the correct term would be federal income taxes. It's a little joke for me. You see, like the dozens of Republican legislators and policy "experts" (from groups like Cato and the Tax Foundation) that I have spent hours watching at Congressional hearings attacking the refundable tax credits like the EITC, it appears that today- for some reason- I'm having trouble keeping track of what people actually pay in taxes, correct terminology, etc. Whoops?
Could you imagine what tax policies would look like from a combined "Minnesota nice" ticket of Pawlenty and Bachmann? After all, look at what "moderate" Tim Pawlenty has proposed in tax cuts: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?template=simulation&SimID=394&relTTN=T11-0169
Yes. You read that right (in the first table). That's over $11.6 trillion in tax cuts from current law. Deficit, schmeficit.
And the distributional effects?
In 2013 the Pawlenty plan would give people in the top one-tenth of 1 percent on the income scale (i.e., people with incomes above $2.7 million) an average annual tax cut of $1.8 million — which is more than four times what they got last year from the Bush tax cuts.
As E.J. Dionne wrote this morning in the Washington Post- doesn't the GOP field almost make you miss George W. Bush? And as Dionne also pointed out, Bachmann is only now looking like a moderate because the entire Republican party has shifted so radically in the last three years. That may be scary, but it doesn't make Michele look any less crazy.