Some rich people accuse Obama of class warfare while they praise the bipartisan deficit commission. Do they realize that the latter raises taxes more on the top 0.1%?
Pop quiz, hotshot. Which fiscal cliff plan raises taxes on the rich more, President Obama's or Bowles-Simpson?
The answer is ... both. Obama's plan increases taxes more on the top 1 percent, but Bowles-Simpson increases taxes more on the top 0.1 percent. The chart below breaks down the top-end tax increases in the Obama
and Bowles-Simpson plans over the next ten years. There's $1.36 trillion
in new revenue for Obama and $1.253 trillion for Bowles-Simpson from
the top 1 percent, versus $753.6 billion in new revenue for Obama and
$834.6 billion for Bowles-Simpson from the top 0.1 percent. That's the
difference between class warfare and super-class warfare.*
Here's a quick refresher on what the Obama and Bowles-Simpson plans would do for high earners. The president's plan would bring back the Clinton-era level rates of 36 and 39.6 percent for the top two brackets -- kicking in at incomes of $250,000 and $398,350, respectively -- and limit the value of their tax deductions to 28 percent. (Remember, deductions are currently worth more to higher earners because of their higher tax brackets). Then it would raise the capital gains tax from 15 to 20 percent -- which is really a 23.8 percent rate when you include the Obamacare surtax -- and tax dividends as ordinary income. Add it all up, and it's roughly $1.6 trillion in new revenue over the next decade, all from the top 2 percent of households.
Bowles-Simpson raises far more in overall taxes, but it raises about as much from the wealthy. Nearly half of the $2.6 trillion it would bring in over a decade would come from the top 1 percent, and it does that while cutting the top marginal rate to 28 percent. It's not magic. It's fundamental tax reform. (This is the part where you mutter something about lowering rates and broadening the base). Bowles-Simpson would pare or eliminate nearly every tax expenditure. They would turn the mortgage interest and charitable deductions into 12 percent credits so they wouldn't be worth more to richer households, phase out the employer healthcare exemption entirely by 2038, end the tax-free status of municipal bonds, limit tax-preferred retirement contributions and, oh, get rid of everything else. That's a lot of base-broadening, but the big change, at least when it comes to progressivity, is their plan to tax capital gains and dividends as ordinary income -- in other words, at 28 percent. That's quite a tax hike for the top 0.1 percent, who earned half of all capital gains in 2011. But there's a caveat. This assumes that Bowles-Simpson actually could end the exclusion of capital gains at death, which would do a lot for progressivity and revenues, but is towards the "not" end of the politically possible spectrum. This is how you get a plan that's more HENRY (high-earner-not-rich-yet) friendly, and less plutocrat friendly.
Now, there are plenty of reasons for CEOs to like Bowles-Simpson despite its higher taxes. It cuts entitlements how they like to cut entitlements. In other words, it raises the retirement age and uses less generous measures of inflation when it calculates benefits -- never mind that Social Security isn't a driver of long-term deficits. It also raises taxes significantly on the middle class, which the rich might like because it doesn't make them feel like they're being singled out.
But it shows how little anybody knows what's actually in Bowles-Simpson that Obama's plan to tax the rich is seen as soaking them and Bowles-Simpson is not, despite raising almost as much money from the top 1 percent -- and doing it more progressively! What's the matter with the Upper East Side? Maybe Fix the Debt needs to fix its false consciousness? Or at least realize that Obama doesn't want to punish success any more than a pair of swashbuckling centrists do.
Science says lasting relationships come down to—you guessed it—kindness and generosity.
Every day in June, the most popular wedding month of the year, about 13,000 American couples will say “I do,” committing to a lifelong relationship that will be full of friendship, joy, and love that will carry them forward to their final days on this earth.
Except, of course, it doesn’t work out that way for most people. The majority of marriages fail, either ending in divorce and separation or devolving into bitterness and dysfunction. Of all the people who get married, only three in ten remain in healthy, happy marriages, as psychologist Ty Tashiro points out in his book The Science of Happily Ever After, which was published earlier this year.
Social scientists first started studying marriages by observing them in action in the 1970s in response to a crisis: Married couples were divorcing at unprecedented rates. Worried about the impact these divorces would have on the children of the broken marriages, psychologists decided to cast their scientific net on couples, bringing them into the lab to observe them and determine what the ingredients of a healthy, lasting relationship were. Was each unhappy family unhappy in its own way, as Tolstoy claimed, or did the miserable marriages all share something toxic in common?
He lives near San Francisco, makes more than $50,000 per year, and is voting for the billionaire to fight against political correctness.
For several days, I’ve been corresponding with a 22-year-old Donald Trump supporter. He is white, has a bachelor’s degree, and earns $50,000 to $60,000 per year.
He lives near San Francisco.
“I recently became engaged to my Asian fiancée who is making roughly 3 times what I make, and I am completely supportive of her and proud she is doing so well,” he wrote. “We’ve both benefitted a lot from globalization. We are young, urban, and have a happy future planned. We seem molded to be perfect young Hillary supporters,” he observed, “but we're not. In 2016, we're both going for Trump.”
At first, we discussed Bill Clinton.
Last week, I wrote an article asking why Trump supporters aren’t bothered that their candidate called Clinton a shameful abuser of women who may well be a rapist. After all, Trump used to insist that Clinton was a victim of unfair treatment during his sex scandals. Either Trump spent years defending a man that he believed to be a sexual predator, even welcoming him as a guest at his wedding, or Trump is now cynically exploiting a rape allegation that he believes to be false.
Studies have shown narcissists post more self-promoting content on social media, but it's not always so easy to tell if someone's doing it for the attention.
It’s not hard to see why the Internet would be a good cave for a narcissist to burrow into. Generally speaking, they prefer shallow relationships (preferably one-way, with the arrow pointing toward themselves), and need outside sources to maintain their inflated but delicate egos. So, a shallow cave that you can get into, but not out of. The Internet offers both a vast potential audience, and the possibility for anonymity, and if not anonymity, then a carefully curated veneer of self that you can attach your name to.
In 1987, the psychologists Hazel Markus and Paula Nurius claimed that a person has two selves: the “now self” and the “possible self.” The Internet allows a person to become her “possible self,” or at least present a version of herself that is closer to it.
Finally, an explanation for Bitchy Resting Face Nation
Here’s something that has always puzzled me, growing up in the U.S. as a child of Russian parents. Whenever I or my friends were having our photos taken, we were told to say “cheese” and smile. But if my parents also happened to be in the photo, they were stone-faced. So were my Russian relatives, in their vacation photos. My parents’ high-school graduation pictures show them frolicking about in bellbottoms with their young classmates, looking absolutely crestfallen.
It’s not just photos: Russian women do not have to worry about being instructed by random men to “smile.” It is Bitchy Resting Face Nation, seemingly forever responding “um, I guess?” to any question the universe might pose.
This does not mean we are all unhappy! Quite the opposite: The virile ruler, the vodka, the endless mounds of sour cream—they are pleasing to some. It’s just that grinning without cause is not a skill Russians possess or feel compelled to cultivate. There’s even a Russian proverb that translates, roughly, to “laughing for no reason is a sign of stupidity.”
Three Atlantic staffers discuss “Blood of My Blood,” the sixth episode of the sixth season.
Every week for the sixth season of Game of Thrones, Christopher Orr, Spencer Kornhaber, and Lenika Cruz will be discussing new episodes of the HBO drama. Because no screeners are being made available to critics in advance this year, we'll be posting our thoughts in installments.
Five weeks of training was not enough to prepare me for a room of 20 unruly elementary-schoolers.
I am sitting in a comfortable gold folding chair inside one of the many ballrooms at the Georgia International Convention Center. The atmosphere is festive, with a three-course dinner being served and children playing a big-band number. The kids are students at a KIPP academy in Atlanta, and they are serenading future teachers on the first night of a four-day-long series of workshops that will introduce us to the complicated language, rituals, and doctrines we will need to adopt as Teach for America "Corps Members."
The phrase closing the achievement gap is the cornerstone of TFA's general philosophy, public-relations messaging, and training sessions. As a member of the 2011 corps, I was told immediately and often that 1) the achievement gap is a pervasive example of inequality in America, and 2) it is our personal responsibility to close the achievement gap within our classrooms, which are microcosms of America's educational inequality.
Narcissism, disagreeableness, grandiosity—a psychologist investigates how Trump’s extraordinary personality might shape his possible presidency.
In 2006, Donald Trump made plans to purchase the Menie Estate, near Aberdeen, Scotland, aiming to convert the dunes and grassland into a luxury golf resort. He and the estate’s owner, Tom Griffin, sat down to discuss the transaction at the Cock & Bull restaurant. Griffin recalls that Trump was a hard-nosed negotiator, reluctant to give in on even the tiniest details. But, as Michael D’Antonio writes in his recent biography of Trump, Never Enough, Griffin’s most vivid recollection of the evening pertains to the theatrics. It was as if the golden-haired guest sitting across the table were an actor playing a part on the London stage.
“It was Donald Trump playing Donald Trump,” Griffin observed. There was something unreal about it.
The psychological origins of waiting (... and waiting, and waiting) to work
Like most writers, I am an inveterate procrastinator. In the course of writing this one article, I have checked my e-mail approximately 3,000 times, made and discarded multiple grocery lists, conducted a lengthy Twitter battle over whether the gold standard is actually the worst economic policy ever proposed, written Facebook messages to schoolmates I haven’t seen in at least a decade, invented a delicious new recipe for chocolate berry protein smoothies, and googled my own name several times to make sure that I have at least once written something that someone would actually want to read.
Lots of people procrastinate, of course, but for writers it is a peculiarly common occupational hazard. One book editor I talked to fondly reminisced about the first book she was assigned to work on, back in the late 1990s. It had gone under contract in 1972.
The U.S. president talks through his hardest decisions about America’s role in the world.
Friday, August 30, 2013, the day the feckless Barack Obama brought to a premature end America’s reign as the world’s sole indispensable superpower—or, alternatively, the day the sagacious Barack Obama peered into the Middle Eastern abyss and stepped back from the consuming void—began with a thundering speech given on Obama’s behalf by his secretary of state, John Kerry, in Washington, D.C. The subject of Kerry’s uncharacteristically Churchillian remarks, delivered in the Treaty Room at the State Department, was the gassing of civilians by the president of Syria, Bashar al-Assad.
A real-time chronicle of Donald Trump’s unpresidential statements.
People will look back on this era in our history, to see what was known about Donald Trump while Americans were deciding whether to choose him as president. Here’s a running chronicle from James Fallows on the ways in which Trump has been unpresidential in an unprecedented way, and of the evidence available to voters as they make their choice. (If you’d like to flag examples to include, please let us know.)