In 1983 there were 50 different corporations that had control over our media, today there are only six: Viacom, Comcast, Disney, TimeWarner, CBS, and News Corporation.
Is anyone surprised by this?
For what it’s worth: The article is is linked over here if you’d like to read (I’ve skimmed through and it seems to be focusing on changes to the tax law and the effects they will have on various groups of people). But here’s something of note: With the piece, there is a link specifically to an interactive infographic that describes how the tax law changes would affect people in most income ranges. It goes as low as “single unemployed person” making less than $10,000 per year. Here’s what it looks like:
It’s not a situation where they don’t think low-income people exist. It’s just that they were showing one set of examples in the top one, and left the more granular examples for the interactive graphic. That doesn’t explain why the interactive graphic got flat orange stick figures and the one above got frowny-faced upper-middle-class people, but the WSJ has people making under $180k covered — at least online.
…the commitment he made to the people of Georgia was not to me, it was a written commitment to the people of Georgia that he would go to Washington to reduce government spending, and reform government, not raise taxes. If he wants to change his mind and become a tax increaser, so we don’t have to reform government, he needs to have that conversation with the people of Georgia.Anti-tax activist Grover Norquist • Responding to remarks we mentioned yesterday by Georgia’s Senator Saxby Chambliss. Chambliss made it clear he won’t be constrained on tax negotiations, even though he signed Norquist’s infamous pledge, to never raise taxes, decades ago. The above was Norquist’s testy response, delivered to Joe Johns on CNN. That he’d try to chasten Chambliss by reminding him of potential political risk is no surprise, considering the stakes — the GOP begins turning its back on the pledge during upcoming “fiscal cliff” negotiations could shatter the keystone of Norquist’s influence and relevance in Washington. source
But only $1 for every $10 cut. Let’s not get too crazy: The brother of George W. Bush isn’t afraid to break from his party on some issues, and one of those appears to be the hard stance that taxes could not raise in any circumstances whatsoever. “If you could bring to me a majority of people to say that we’re going to have $10 in spending cuts for $1 of revenue enhancement — put me in, coach,” he told the House Budget Committee Friday. In fact, Bush is one of those rare beasts who turned down Grover Norquist’s infamous pledge against all tax increases, at any time, ever. Whoa, this guy sounds like a moderate. Get him! source
» And he only paid 17.4% in taxes: Buffett, whose monetary gains are the subject of scrutiny because of the fact that he’s the inspiration for Obama’s “Buffett Rule” (a notable part of the president’s jobs plan), released the earnings after being prodded by Rep. Tim Huelskamp of Kansas, a Republican. Of note: Just $39,814,784 of his earnings were taxable, with the rest going to deductions and exemptions (like, say, his fairly robust charitable givings). And in case you’re wondering, Warren’s tax rate is low largely because he makes most of his income through investing. In the end, how much did he pay in taxes? A paltry $7 million (or a mere nine percent in taxes on adjusted gross income).
Class warfare … may make for really good politics, but it makes for rotten economics.Rep. Paul Ryan • Coming out, guns blazing, against Obama’s plan to raise the tax rate for the super-rich. Ryan, speaking on “Fox News Sunday,”also claimed that the tax would be in effect a “double tax” on investments, and would discourage investors from putting their money into the economy. “If you tax something more, you get less of it,” Ryan said. “If you tax job creators more, you get less job creation. If you tax their investment more, you get less investment.” Mitch McConnell, speaking on “Meet the Press,” had similar concerns about the “Buffett Rule,” which we found out about last night. source (via • follow)
Remember how Warren Buffett wrote that the government should raise the taxes of the super-wealthy … you know, folks like him? Well, it looks like someone with a lot of power to put that plan into action read that New York Times editorial. Obama’s going to make a push to tax the super-wealthy (those who make more than $1 million per year) at the same rate as the middle-class, and he’s calling it the “Buffett Rule.” Great selling point for Obama, but will it be enough for all the other rich people in Congress? Good question. (photo via Medill DC) source
I know well many of the mega-rich and, by and large, they are very decent people. They love America and appreciate the opportunity this country has given them. Many have joined the Giving Pledge, promising to give most of their wealth to philanthropy. Most wouldn’t mind being told to pay more in taxes as well, particularly when so many of their fellow citizens are truly suffering.Warren Buffett • Arguing in an editorial for the New York Times (titled, fittingly, “Stop coddling the super-rich”) that Congress needs to raise his taxes and those of people with incomes topping $1 million. “My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress,” he writes. “It’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice.” Wait … a super-rich guy offering more money up in taxes? Be still our hearts. And don’t tell the Koch brothers … they might disagree with this stance. source (via • follow)
» About those tax increases: They would extend a series of temporary tax increase implemented in 2009, which are set to expire in July. Californians are set to vote on the increases in June. And other changes are recommended too – certain services could be transferred from state local governments (such as prisons), and services for the poor are among the ones getting cut the most. However, K-12 schools will be protected from cuts (and just about nothing else).
Copyright 2009-2013 Ernie Smith • Ask us stuff! • E-mail us • Follow us on Twitter • Follow us on Facebook
