Political Animal
Blog
Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly boasted the other day that he enjoys “more power than anybody other than the president.”
Apparently, though, this rather extraordinary degree of influence over national affairs isn’t quite enough for the conservative media personality. In fact, O’Reilly is so concerned about his potential tax burden under the “Buffett Rule,” he told his television audience last night he might just quit working altogether.
“I must tell you I want the feds to get more revenue. I don’t want to starve them as some people do. We need a robust military, a good transportation system and protections all over the place.
“But if you tax achievement, some of the achievers are going to pack it in. Again, let’s take me. My corporations employ scores of people. They depend on me to do what I do so they can make a nice salary. If Barack Obama begins taxing me more than 50 percent, which is very possible, I don’t know how much longer I’m going to do this. I like my job but there comes a point when taxation becomes oppressive. Is the country really entitled to half a person’s income?”
In case anyone’s interested in the relevant details, let’s clarify a few things.
First, we don’t know if President Obama is eyeing a top rate of 50%, and even if he did, the likelihood of congressional passage would be roughly zero.
Second, a top rate of 50% does not mean O’Reilly would lose “half” his income. I know this can seem a little complicated, but that’s just not how marginal tax rates work.
And third, a 50% top rate for millionaires and billionaires would be a departure from the recent past, but to describe it as “oppressive” is to forget much of the 20th century.
In Ronald Reagan’s first term, for example, the top rate was — you guessed it — 50%. Did Reagan’s “oppressive” tax rates prevent robust economic growth? Did “the achievers” decide to “pack it in”? No and no.
For nearly all of Dwight Eisenhower’s presidency, the top rate was 91%. That’s not a typo. Did this Republican president’s “oppressive” tax policy prevent the U.S. economy from growing in the 1950s? Apparently not.
That said, if O’Reilly is contemplating retirement to avoid helping America pay its bills, I’m not inclined to discourage him.
Facebook
Twitter
La_Randy on September 20, 2011 11:18 AM:
O'Reilly, don't let the door hit you in the arse!
Stevo on September 20, 2011 11:18 AM:
You know what else didn't happen when the Federal Government had a very high marginal rate? It didn't collect more money. During Ike's presidency, with the 91% marginal rate, tax receipts averaged 17.53% of GDP. During W.'s presidency receipts averaged 17.61%. No matter what the marginal rates was, post WW2, all Presidents ended up collecting between 17% and 19% of GDP in tax receipts.
Data here: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/sheets/hist01z2.xls
Quaker in a Basement on September 20, 2011 11:22 AM:
If Barack Obama begins taxing me more than 50 percent...
And if President Perry or President Romney raises your tax rate? Then what?
Bob M on September 20, 2011 11:25 AM:
If that's achievement, then the tax rates need to be higher still.
Ron Byers on September 20, 2011 11:25 AM:
O'Reilly's position is the classic Republican refusal to understand prgressive rates.
I want O'Reilly to pay at the same rate as the rest of us. I am sick of the richy rich paying at a lower rate. The fact is most people pay taxes on ordinary income. They pay payroll taxes as well. Most of the richy rich income is taxed at capital gains rates. Where a regular person might be paying 20-35% the richy rich are paying 15% at most. O'Reilly might be the exception, but there is a very well known tax reason show business stars like O'Reilly also produce their own shows. That is to convert money away from salary to something that might be taxed at a lower rate.
c u n d gulag on September 20, 2011 11:33 AM:
I don't know why, but I'm going to take all of these Galt wannabe's with a large grain of salt.
And, if we do lose a few along the way like, oh, say O'Reilly, or the Koch brothers, well, I won't mind that at all, if that's the cost of the people doing business.
On your way out, 'Don't let the door hitchya where the Good Lord splitchya!'
Anonymous on September 20, 2011 11:38 AM:
"I gave the Federal Government 65% of my wages last year, and I was glad to do it, too. . . . Income tax money all goes into improvement and protection of the country. . . . There’s no better place to spend it. I enjoy this country and I really think I got my money's worth."
--Carole Lombard, 1938
Brenna on September 20, 2011 11:39 AM:
O'Reilly is appealing to his base: a bunch of low educated, drooling, ass-backwards morons whose lives consists of watching Fox all day and listening to Rush Limbaugh.
He would actually be doing America a favor by quitting. A few million Americans might have to actually think for themselves. Nah. Someone else would come along to take his spot.
Lifelong Dem on September 20, 2011 11:40 AM:
A world without O'Reilly. How COULD we survive?
Clearly the implied threat here is that "achievers" like Bill will leave and the jobs they "create" will disappear, leaving former employees destitute. Except, in Bill's case, the hour of TV time he leaves will be filled by someone else who will have to hire "scores" of minions to do all the jobs associated with a cable TV show.
So, no net loss of jobs but a net loss of O'Reilly. TAX! TAX! TAX!
Danp on September 20, 2011 11:44 AM:
Note to Billow: There are plenty of people waiting to fill your chair. Move on.
Josef K on September 20, 2011 11:46 AM:
O’Reilly is so concerned about his potential tax burden under the “Buffett Rule,” he told his television audience last night he might just quit working altogether.
The question that should have been put to Bill immeidately after he said this:
"And this is a bad thing because...?"
Hannibal Lecturer on September 20, 2011 11:50 AM:
We really need to begin eating the rich. Make them a major source of protein for the malnourished. They are fat, lazy and consume a disproportionate amount of the world's resources anyway. Ha ha and yum yum!
square1 on September 20, 2011 11:50 AM:
The very definition of win-win.
Trollop on September 20, 2011 11:51 AM:
O’Reilly should be homeless, I hope karma kicks him in the teeth.
cmdicely on September 20, 2011 11:55 AM:
Something prevent robust economic growth in the Reagan years. Sure, there was rapid aggregate growth during much of the 1980s, but it was rather hollow and limited in who benefited, as compared to prior growth periods in the post-WWII era, so calling it "robust" is misleading.
OTOH, given the even higher top marginal rates in the earlier post-WWII period, its pretty clear that it wasn't the top marginal rate (or, at least, it wasn't the top marginal rate being too high, it may have been that rate being too low) that prevented robust growth in the Reagan years. More likely, it was the tax burden shift off of the wealthy that made the growth particularly hollow rather than robust in the 1980s. (The growth period in the 1990s was somewhat more of a "rising tide lifts all boats" growth, while the growth period between the end of the 2001 recession and the Great Recession was even hollower in the 1980s, which -- given that it was immediately preceded by another tax burden shift which reduced the share of taxes paid by the wealthiest -- reinforces the idea that such shifts produce hollow rather than robust growth.)
At any rate, idealizing the Reagan years is probably not something that is sensible, as that was really where the whole trickle-down, cut-taxes-on-the-rich-and-let-the-poor-pay-more approach began.
Gandalf on September 20, 2011 12:00 PM:
Lets say the rate did go to 50%.Let's say Billo Makes oh 25 or 30 million a year. Now if ole Bill had to pay 12 or 15 mill in taxes he'd still be left with a paltry 12 or 15 mill of pocket money. Now I know conservatives are math challenged but Bill saying he wouldn't work and earn 0 as opposed to his pitifull 12 or 15 mill a year defies any kind of sanity.
Epicurus on September 20, 2011 12:00 PM:
And once again, the old saying applies; IOKIYAAR. Screw these people where they breathe; I am just fed up with lies, exaggerations and outright fabrications. I hope and pray that the electorate is able to see through this pack of lies. Higher taxes are not the problem; they are the solution!
jlt on September 20, 2011 12:01 PM:
We should be so lucky! It would be great for the viewing public..not that I have ever watched him but people are constantly quoting him now that beckie went off the rails!
Jamie on September 20, 2011 12:02 PM:
It's pretty astounding to find out how many or our top earners don't understand the concept of marginal tax rates. Well to think about it, Bill O probably doesn't do his own taxes.
awake108 on September 20, 2011 12:04 PM:
Check out the Bureau of Labor statisitc and tax policy. there is a chart Average Employment Reagans' trickly down does not creat growth. BUT higher taxes on the top earners does.
max on September 20, 2011 12:09 PM:
O'Reilly retiring would be addition by subtraction on steroids. And Bill, take that imbecile Limbaugh with you.
Grumpy on September 20, 2011 12:15 PM:
He loves his job, and scores of people depend on him, but O'Reilly would give it all up if he couldn't make as much money. Papa Bear's got priorities.
JTapp on September 20, 2011 12:17 PM:
But what percentage of Americans fell into the 91% and 50% rates during that era? If very few people affected by it, it should have very little impact. A much greater percentage fall into the top bracket today.
DRF on September 20, 2011 12:26 PM:
O'Reilly's comment is just silly. Aside from his refusal to understand the concept of marginal rates, does he really expect anyone to believe that slightly higher tax rates on large incomes will cause him, or anyone else in his position, to retire?
O'Reilly already has a very large net worth, so we have to assume that his motivation to continue working isn't the paycheck, but rather the fame, action, prestige, power, etc. Even if he is motivated by the paycheck, a slight diminishment in income isn't going to lead to his retirement.
And, even if he did choose to retire because of a tax increase, someone else will come along and take his place at Fox, and presumably will also provide employment for others just as Bill did before retiring.
These sorts of empty threats that high earners will somehow stop producing if taxes go up a few percentage points just aren't credible.
Bob on September 20, 2011 12:42 PM:
Going Galt. Bill, it's a great idea.
Old School on September 20, 2011 12:45 PM:
JTapp - Somehow I doubt the percentage of Americans earning more than $1 million yearly is that high.
truthbetold on September 20, 2011 1:23 PM:
It is okay with me if he quits. Fox will just replace him with someone willing to work for less. Government will still collect taxes without him. It is a win all the way around. I say go for it Mr. O'Rielly.
mr.irony on September 20, 2011 1:32 PM:
one more thing about eisenhower..
he was the last republican president to sign a balanced budget...
in 1957...
when the top rate was 91%...
gop: we really suck at math...economics..history..
etc. etc.
zandru on September 20, 2011 1:42 PM:
Jamie observes how "many or our top earners don't understand the concept of marginal tax rates".
My guess is that, over a certain income level, people just don't do their own taxes. Particularly if they have some other kind of "specialized skill" (like doctors), and even more so if they're in a business situation. Hire a bookkeeper, keep an accountant on retainer, and just do your own thing, the thing that brings in the bucks.
So you get all these "small businessmen" who actually know little, if anything, about business finances OR taxation, but talk like they do. They don't know what they don't know.
"Aro apathem" - that's the medical term for it
Achilles on September 20, 2011 1:48 PM:
The Overton Window has moved waaay too far to the right, and all too many "progressives" haven't even noticed. So-called "progressives" are apparently happy that Obama said Buffett should pay the same rate as his secretary. Oh, really? The same? Sorry, but he should be paying at least twice the middle class rate. Better yet, triple.
That would have been the "progressive" position until recently.
Why on earth are people applauding Obama's statement that a billionaire should have the same tax rate as a middle class secretary? It's absolutely crazy, especially when wealth and wage inequality has never been higher in America. The IRS 400 hold as much wealth now as the bottom 50% of the nation!! Just 400 people hold as much wealth as 150 million Americans!! There has never been a better time to make our tax system truly "progressive", in fact. But we're supposed to look at Obama's statement as a progressive victory?!?!
This country has lost its mind.
Steve on September 20, 2011 1:48 PM:
If paying more taxes means getting rid of Billo, count me in. Not only would the government get more money to help pay for the bridges and stuff that I use, but there would be one less gas bag to listen to!!!
Douglas Lee on September 20, 2011 2:05 PM:
Starve the Beast!
bob somerby on September 20, 2011 2:06 PM:
"Second, a top rate of 50% does not mean O’Reilly would lose 'half his income. I know this can seem a little complicated, but that’s just not how marginal tax rates work."
Please. You're splitting hairs. It doesn't actually matter, but:
O'Reilly earns something north of $10 million. The overwhelming majority of his income is taxed at the marginal rate, whatever it happens to be.
cmdicely on September 20, 2011 2:42 PM:
That's not necessarily true. One of the impacts of increasing marginal top end rates is that it shifts incentives as companies get less bang for the buck with each added dollar of compensation provided to executives that are already earning incomes in that top bracket compared to additional compensation dollars to workers in lower brackets. So the fact (if it is a fact) that very few people were affected by the high-end rates could be a result of the behavior encouraged by the rates which produced broader, healthier growth, rather than an indicator that they had very little impact.
JohnJay60 on September 20, 2011 2:58 PM:
Stevo, opening post, you should read your own spreadsheet. It clearly shows that CLINTON raised taxes - modestly - and was able to create a surplus in his final years and Fed's consumption of GDP was only modestly above 20%, hardly crippling as evidenced by the strong performance of the economy.
When taxes were cut - dramatically - by Bush, we plunged into deficit.
Cuts = deficit, Increases = surplus. The math is clear. The politics, however, are that people don't want to believe the math. But that is a separate story.
Tony P. on September 20, 2011 3:20 PM:
Bob Somerby is right: people like O'Reilly live in Flatland, taxwise.
It is unconventional, but accurate, to say that we have a FLAT income tax in this country, with discounted rates for incomes under about $350K. True, almost everybody qualifies for discounted rates, but that does not change the fact that Flatland is a vast range in terms of dollars. Flatland starts at about 7 times the median income, but it stretches out to 70, 700, and more times the median income.
There is no good reason why a doctor or a lawyer or a restaurateur who only pulls in 7x the median income should be paying the same marginal rate as a movie star or a ballplayer or a pundit who pulls in 700x the median income. If the doctors and the lawyers and the restaurateurs stopped to think about it, they would be outraged. That's why the O'Reillys and the Limbaughs do their damnedest to stop them from thinking about it.
--TP
Redshift on September 20, 2011 3:20 PM:
I must tell you I want the feds to get more revenue. ...
But if you tax achievement, some of the achievers are going to pack it in.
I know Billo's listeners have been conditioned to believe that taxes on the rich should never be raised because they're going to be rich someday, but if you listen to him here, it's a good thing for him that reasoning isn't their strong point.
He wants the feds to get more revenue. He doesn't want it to come from him. Therefore he wants it to come from you. You, Mr. Wingnut, who doesn't want taxes raised on the rich because you don't want to pay more when you're rich; he wants you to pay more right now.
(I'm sure O'Reilly would deny this and insist that there's somewhere else the government could get revenue from, but in the real world, that's what he's saying.)
Schtick on September 20, 2011 3:48 PM:
I said it on here yesterday and I'll say it again today, the tax rate doesn't make a difference when they have all the loopholes so they end up paying little or no taxes. I'm sorry, but a company that makes a profit of 24 million per hour should be paying a lot more in taxes than someone making 50k or 100k per year.
The fact that people don't understand taxes and the rates and marginal rates is intentional. God forbid that the working class should know they are getting it up the butt when it comes to taxes and actually be able to figure it out and see it.
Call the IRS help line around tax time 3 times with the same question and you get 3 different answers. This is why people don't do their own taxes.
crapcha....velleye speak....I don't care I'm not listening.
Freddie on September 20, 2011 3:59 PM:
...Is this supposed to be a bad thing?
E in MD on September 20, 2011 5:29 PM:
Lets see... first, if Tax cuts were going to create jobs they would have been creating them for the last decade because of the gigantic handjob Bush gave the rich... They didn't.
Taxing the rich at the levels that were around during the Clinton administration didn't kill jobs. Actually they created quite a few and there were no shortage of millionaires back then.
Fuck the rich. I pay payroll tax. I pay income tax. I pay sales tax. I don't get capital gains tax deductions. I don't get deductions for my private jet. I don't get to send millions of dollars to buy Congressmen to the Lobbyists. The rich already have ALL of the advantages and now they want all the money too? Screw them.
They can pay their fair share like everyone else. They use the roads, the air, the water, the food systems. They benefit from the protection of the military (and even get to use it as their own personal armies when they want to raise the price of oil to make even more money), and infrastructure such as hospitals and airports and train systems and the internet (which was built by government funds you Galtian assholes). And on top of all that, not only do I not get any help with my under water mortage, but I have to PAY to bail out the very same Wall Street and Big Oil asshats that caused our current financial crisis in the first damn place.
If you don't like it, GET THE FUCK OUT. Take your ball and your bat and go home. I double dog dare you. Move to Saudi Arabia or Qatar and see how well you get treated there.
You know what will happen back here? OTHER PEOPLE WILL STEP UP TO FILL THE VACUUM. New entrepreneurs will show up and build better businesses that will keep the demand satisfied and they will do it better than you ever did because they will have your mistakes to learn from. So if you're going to cry that you don't get your 15% tax rate any more (or if you're like Exxon or GE a freaking NEGATIVE tax rate) go cry into your solid gold plated tissues and complain to your $5000 an hour shrink.
Because those of us who are just one missed paycheck away from eating catfood and living under a bridge at any one moment in the day DON'T FREAKING CARE TO HEAR IT.
Paying taxes is your Patriotic duty.
That's how Capitalism is supposed to work.
Dr. Squid on September 20, 2011 6:05 PM:
O'Reilly calls himself an "achiever"? He is using some definition of "achiever" with which I was previously unfamiliar.
Now if he called himself a "space-filler", that I would believe.
Doug on September 20, 2011 8:05 PM:
cmdicely's posts at 11:55 AM and 2:42 PM explain the beneficial effects of high marginal rates perfectly.
Ensuring that those woth incomes greater than $1,000,000 pay AT LEAST the same rate as the rest of us is an excellent beginning. Since anything below a 50% marginal rate on ALL income over $1,000,000 opens the gates to excessive CEO "compensation" and other such travesties, our eventual aim should be to return to the marginal rates in effect during the 1950s.
Marginal rates ABOVE the 50% threshold mean that corporations look for better ways to spend their cash; increased employee compensation, R&D, business expansion/investment, etc. THAT is what "grows" an economy. THAT is the real "job creator", NOT some mythical Galtian superhero.
It's not going to be easy...
Varecia on September 20, 2011 11:29 PM:
I thought this sort of tax issue means that above a certain income level, X% of every additional dollar earned would be taxed, not X% of one's entire income. For historical perspective, in order to get needed revenue during the war, Roosevelt set an income cap--people could earn only so much--and everything they earned above that cap was taxed at a high rate.
telugumovies1 on September 21, 2011 6:45 AM:
Andhrawishesh always remains in the forefront in the web media for bringing the latest news.
http://www.andhrawishesh.com/
LA Crystal on September 21, 2011 10:32 PM:
Is this even better? What if Murdoch decides Billo just isn't really pulling his $20-$30 million weight (I have no idea how much he makes from Murdoch/Fox, but using someone's estimate here) and next contract renewal time offers him $10-$15 million. Does Billo walk out? Is it just no longer worth it to him to show up every day to rant? Hmm. Well.... we all dream.
Barry Johnson on December 23, 2011 11:50 AM:
Someone should note how many people actually paid those rates. It is weird that the percentage collected by the Feds really doesn't change no matter what the top rate is.... how does that work?
How much money was collected by the Feds from the people in the top bracket?