A caller asked him about it and he really hemmed and hawed but at the end of the day Limbaugh seems to-apparently-not have a problem with Trump's increase of the capital gains rate.
It's fascinating how he gets there but he somehow makes it sound that what Trump wants to do isn't really a tax hike-that somehow there is a world of difference between the call of Obama and other Democrats to raise the capital gains tax and what Trump wants to do.
"He's listening to the radio now, trying to... (interruption) I know, but he's trying to hear himself on the radio now, and our two-minute delay is... (laughing) Okay, thanks, Clarence very much. Here's the answer to the question. This is the reason I took his call. Clarence wants to know what I think of Trump raising taxes on the rich. Here's what Trump wants to do. The primary tax increase on the rich that I've heard him talk about is on people he considers to be "hedge fund bandits."
"What Trump is talking about is called "carried interest," and carried interest is taxed at catalogs rates rather than earned income rates. So whereas the top marginal rate now is 39.6%, these hedge fund guys who Trump calls bandits -- who are a hundred times over millionaires, some of them billionaires -- pay taxes as used to be 16%, and then 19% and I think they're up at 25 or 26%, and Obama wants them at 39%."
"But he hasn't gotten there yet, and when it was pointed out to Obama (just as a little aside here), "Mr. President, we're getting more money from the capital gains rate of 16% than we ever dreamed we'd get. That low rate is just causing all kinds of activity. People are moving, they're selling stocks, they're reporting the sales and reporting their income. They're not trying to shelter it. We're getting more money flowing in than ever," Obama said, "I don't care about that! I care about the fundamental fairness."
"So Trump is coming in and he wants to end what's called "carried interest," and he thinks that these rich hedge fund people ought to be paying the same rate as the top marginal rate that people that earn ordinary income are paying. And he has also... I don't know how specific he's gotten, but I think he has also included other really, really, really rich people who ought to be required to pay a higher rate. Now, I don't know what his cutoff is."
"I think I heard people that are incomes of $100 million. We're talking about one-tenth of one-tenth of the top 1% here. But the thing about it is that the Republican Party never is in favor of tax increases on the rich. (Have I been saying "cuts"?) Tax increases is what Trump is talking about. The Republican Party never, even now... I mean, that's the one thing amazingly they have not given away. They are steadfastly opposed to tax increases on the rich, anybody, anywhere, any time. Income tax."
"They go along with other fees and so forth being raised along the way. But when it comes to the income tax and the marginal rates on income tax, they have never come out in favor of raising it on anybody. Trump is. So Clarence here thinks that he's gonna get me in a trap 'cause he thinks I'm a Trumpster and that he can get me on hypocrisy, 'cause he knows that I've always been opposed to tax increases on anybody."
"But since he thinks I'm supporting Trump, that I'm gonna bite the bullet here and come out and support Trump's tax increases on hedge funders. The desire to raise taxes on the hedge funds, get rid of carried interest, is not an idea that originates with Trump. It's been floating out there. You know, I'll tell you the what really point to learn about this. I first heard about the... I'm not a hedge fund guy, so carried interest was something I had to learn about."
"Carried interest is a term that basically is a convoluted way of computing what kind of taxation there should be on activity at hedge funds. It's a way of shielding a lot of ordinary income from top marginal tax rates. And the first people I ever heard stand up and oppose it were Democrats, which made sense to me. I mean, hedge fund people, for the most part, are the uber-wealthy. And by the way, it's a law written by Congress, written by Democrats, written by the Ways and Means Committee with all kinds of input from lobbyists and so forth. So this is not something that just magically happened because the hedge fund guys had all this power."
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2015/09/02/what_does_your_host_think_of_trump_s_plan_to_tax_the_hedge_funders
Ok, got it? See this is why Rush is good-he has been at it for 30 years give or take. What he manges to do is
It's fascinating how he gets there but he somehow makes it sound that what Trump wants to do isn't really a tax hike-that somehow there is a world of difference between the call of Obama and other Democrats to raise the capital gains tax and what Trump wants to do.
"He's listening to the radio now, trying to... (interruption) I know, but he's trying to hear himself on the radio now, and our two-minute delay is... (laughing) Okay, thanks, Clarence very much. Here's the answer to the question. This is the reason I took his call. Clarence wants to know what I think of Trump raising taxes on the rich. Here's what Trump wants to do. The primary tax increase on the rich that I've heard him talk about is on people he considers to be "hedge fund bandits."
"What Trump is talking about is called "carried interest," and carried interest is taxed at catalogs rates rather than earned income rates. So whereas the top marginal rate now is 39.6%, these hedge fund guys who Trump calls bandits -- who are a hundred times over millionaires, some of them billionaires -- pay taxes as used to be 16%, and then 19% and I think they're up at 25 or 26%, and Obama wants them at 39%."
"But he hasn't gotten there yet, and when it was pointed out to Obama (just as a little aside here), "Mr. President, we're getting more money from the capital gains rate of 16% than we ever dreamed we'd get. That low rate is just causing all kinds of activity. People are moving, they're selling stocks, they're reporting the sales and reporting their income. They're not trying to shelter it. We're getting more money flowing in than ever," Obama said, "I don't care about that! I care about the fundamental fairness."
"So Trump is coming in and he wants to end what's called "carried interest," and he thinks that these rich hedge fund people ought to be paying the same rate as the top marginal rate that people that earn ordinary income are paying. And he has also... I don't know how specific he's gotten, but I think he has also included other really, really, really rich people who ought to be required to pay a higher rate. Now, I don't know what his cutoff is."
"I think I heard people that are incomes of $100 million. We're talking about one-tenth of one-tenth of the top 1% here. But the thing about it is that the Republican Party never is in favor of tax increases on the rich. (Have I been saying "cuts"?) Tax increases is what Trump is talking about. The Republican Party never, even now... I mean, that's the one thing amazingly they have not given away. They are steadfastly opposed to tax increases on the rich, anybody, anywhere, any time. Income tax."
"They go along with other fees and so forth being raised along the way. But when it comes to the income tax and the marginal rates on income tax, they have never come out in favor of raising it on anybody. Trump is. So Clarence here thinks that he's gonna get me in a trap 'cause he thinks I'm a Trumpster and that he can get me on hypocrisy, 'cause he knows that I've always been opposed to tax increases on anybody."
"But since he thinks I'm supporting Trump, that I'm gonna bite the bullet here and come out and support Trump's tax increases on hedge funders. The desire to raise taxes on the hedge funds, get rid of carried interest, is not an idea that originates with Trump. It's been floating out there. You know, I'll tell you the what really point to learn about this. I first heard about the... I'm not a hedge fund guy, so carried interest was something I had to learn about."
"Carried interest is a term that basically is a convoluted way of computing what kind of taxation there should be on activity at hedge funds. It's a way of shielding a lot of ordinary income from top marginal tax rates. And the first people I ever heard stand up and oppose it were Democrats, which made sense to me. I mean, hedge fund people, for the most part, are the uber-wealthy. And by the way, it's a law written by Congress, written by Democrats, written by the Ways and Means Committee with all kinds of input from lobbyists and so forth. So this is not something that just magically happened because the hedge fund guys had all this power."
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2015/09/02/what_does_your_host_think_of_trump_s_plan_to_tax_the_hedge_funders
Ok, got it? See this is why Rush is good-he has been at it for 30 years give or take. What he manges to do is
1. Reaffirm that he's against all tax hikes
2. Imply he's not in the tank for Trump
3. But what Trump wants to do isn't really a tax hike as such.
4. It's a carried interest issue which is really complicated.
Now he sets up the punchline:
2. Imply he's not in the tank for Trump
3. But what Trump wants to do isn't really a tax hike as such.
4. It's a carried interest issue which is really complicated.
Now he sets up the punchline:
5. Carried interest is a Democratic conspiracy that they pretend to oppose but really support and they don't want it to go away as they can continue to pretend to oppose it as it gives them votes. Got it?
"This was a law. It's written in the tax code like any other aspect of the tax code is. And it's made to order for the Democrats to oppose. I mean, it's made to order for their whole argument that the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, and the rich are stealing from everybody else, and yet it's not the Democrat Party attacking carried interest. Have you noticed that? The Democrat Party, whenever they talk about raising taxes, they always exempt the hedge fund people. "
"The reason is, folks, contrary to what every low-information voter thinks -- hell, every union member thinks. Practically half the country thinks that the Democrat Party is devoted to the little guy, that the Democrat Party is defending the little guy and the Democrat Party is out there attacking CEOs and attacking corporations and attacking all these big behemoths and they're gonna get even with 'em and they're gonna take money away from 'em because they've been stealing from the poor and that's how they've been getting rich, everybody thinks that's what the Democrats do."
"The Democrats are not making a move on carried interest and haven't. They're trying to protect the hedge fund guys because most of the hedge fund guys are big Democrats, a good percentage of them are, as are a lot of the Wall Street CEOs, as are a lot of media CEOs. They're all liberal Democrats. The Democrat Party, contrary to what everybody thinks, is not circling the wagons and defending the little guy. The Democrat Party's in bed with Wall Street. That's why Bernie Sanders is not going to get the Democrat Party nomination no matter what because he's serious about implementing policies that would punish those people financially."
"The Democrat Party's in bed. They have become the party of Wall Street. The Democrat Party has become the party of the rich, and they've done everything they can to shield it. It's amazing to me that of all the talk about raising taxes on those people coming from a Republican, at least in the primaries, Trump, carried interest, that's what he's attacking. If I know Trump, he'll have a codicil to his tax increase, and it will be an option not to pay it."
So according to Rush attacking carried interest is not a Democratic idea but an anti-Democratic idea. Got it, Rush. And welcome home.
P.S. Welcome home is an expression he uses when talking to wayward folks that discover that he and conservative Republicans have been right about everything all along.
"This was a law. It's written in the tax code like any other aspect of the tax code is. And it's made to order for the Democrats to oppose. I mean, it's made to order for their whole argument that the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, and the rich are stealing from everybody else, and yet it's not the Democrat Party attacking carried interest. Have you noticed that? The Democrat Party, whenever they talk about raising taxes, they always exempt the hedge fund people. "
"The reason is, folks, contrary to what every low-information voter thinks -- hell, every union member thinks. Practically half the country thinks that the Democrat Party is devoted to the little guy, that the Democrat Party is defending the little guy and the Democrat Party is out there attacking CEOs and attacking corporations and attacking all these big behemoths and they're gonna get even with 'em and they're gonna take money away from 'em because they've been stealing from the poor and that's how they've been getting rich, everybody thinks that's what the Democrats do."
"The Democrats are not making a move on carried interest and haven't. They're trying to protect the hedge fund guys because most of the hedge fund guys are big Democrats, a good percentage of them are, as are a lot of the Wall Street CEOs, as are a lot of media CEOs. They're all liberal Democrats. The Democrat Party, contrary to what everybody thinks, is not circling the wagons and defending the little guy. The Democrat Party's in bed with Wall Street. That's why Bernie Sanders is not going to get the Democrat Party nomination no matter what because he's serious about implementing policies that would punish those people financially."
"The Democrat Party's in bed. They have become the party of Wall Street. The Democrat Party has become the party of the rich, and they've done everything they can to shield it. It's amazing to me that of all the talk about raising taxes on those people coming from a Republican, at least in the primaries, Trump, carried interest, that's what he's attacking. If I know Trump, he'll have a codicil to his tax increase, and it will be an option not to pay it."
So according to Rush attacking carried interest is not a Democratic idea but an anti-Democratic idea. Got it, Rush. And welcome home.
P.S. Welcome home is an expression he uses when talking to wayward folks that discover that he and conservative Republicans have been right about everything all along.
I mean you have to love it. Taxing hedge funds is a conservative idea that Democrats oppose. My mistake.
Mike, I love it. Limbaugh has one other concern in the complex cost function he's trying to optimize... he doesn't want to flip flop so fast that it becomes noticeable or embarrassing. I think Krugman nailed modern conservatism here (or at least the guy who wrote the book he links to does): it's all about:
ReplyDelete"What happened to conservative principles?
Actually, nothing — because those alleged principles were never real. Conservative religiosity, conservative faith in markets, were never about living a godly life or letting the invisible hand promote entrepreneurship. Instead, it was all as Corey Robin describes it: Conservatism is
a reactionary movement, a defense of power and privilege against democratic challenges from below, particularly in the private spheres of the family and the workplace.
It’s really about who’s boss, and making sure that the man in charge stays boss."
And if you do notice it, or your memory of what they said or how things were in the past when they were "the boss" doesn't square with what they're saying now (Reaganolotry anyone?), then it's time for them to give you the "gaslighting" treatment (as Noah Smith puts it).
DeleteOf course somebody like Stephen William would probably claim that it's Krugman who's doing the gaslighting.
DeleteI've written about that same exact quote from Krugman. So yes conservatism is about protecting certain social patterns against others.
DeleteOf course, because SW is a Freshwater school shill. Of course, he pretends there is no divide-all FW economists do that-supposedly the Saltwater economists like Kurgman and Paul Romer just reamed the whole thing up.
ReplyDelete