Former Gov. Pataki Takes on MSNBC's Barnicle on His Strange Tax Math

By Eric Ames | July 08, 2011 | 17:02

A A

MSNBC Morning Joe contributor Mike Barnicle repeated the Democrat mantra that repealing Republican tax cuts doesn't constitute a tax increase that he also spouted yesterday on Morning Joe. "The idea that reverting back to a tax rate that existed that people paid into, calling it now a tax increase, I just think that's politics at its worst," said Barnicle.

Friday's Morning Joe panel, however, had an opposing voice to put Barnicle in his place. Barnicle complained "a certain wing" of the Republican Party wasn't grasping his logic, but former New York Governor George Pataki explained simply how repealing a tax cut is the same as a tax increase. "When you're paying more in taxes, it's an increase in your taxes. It's pretty simple. I mean, the rate is here, and it's going to go to there, and you are saying well, it used to be there, so it's not an increase. That's not - it doesn't make sense to me" said Pataki.

This also gave Pataki the opportunity to take some shots at the President's handling of the debt crisis. "One of the things that I think has been missing here completely is that the President had his own bipartisan commission -- Bowles-Simpson -- $4 trillion in deficit reduction measures. They lowered the tax rate, they lowered the corporate rate to 22%, they lowered the personal rate to 23%, and yes, there were revenue raises by closing loopholes, but they used a lot of that to make us a more competitive economy."

A transcript of the exchange, which aired at 7:42 am on Friday's Morning Joe, follows below.

MSNBC
MORNING JOE
07/08/2011

7:42 am EDT

MIKE BARNICLE: Governor, let me ask you a question off of Gene's answer. There's a certain wing of the Republican Party that claims that the Bush tax cuts, that if you go back to the tax rate prior to the Bush tax cut, that that's a tax increase. Is that your view?

GEORGE PATAKI: Yes, it is.

BARNICLE: How can it be?

PATAKI: Because we have tax rates now. The highest marginal rate is I think 35%, and it would go to 38.6%. When you're paying more in taxes, it's an increase in your taxes. It's pretty simple. I mean, the rate is here, and it's going to go to there, and you are saying well, it used to be there, so it's not an increase. That's not - it doesn't make sense to me.

BARNICLE: I liken it to like food sales, you know one day only milk is going to be $3 and -

PATAKI: It wasn't one day only. It was a ten-year law.

BARNICLE: I understand that, but, I mean the idea that reverting back to a tax rate that existed that people paid into, calling it now a tax increase, I just think that's politics at its worst.

PATAKI: I don't think so at all. It's clearly a tax increase. And by the way, you know, you're saying "we've got to raise taxes on all these small business people -"

BARNICLE: I'm not saying that.

PATAKI: That's what you would be doing, and take a look - one of the things that I think has been missing here completely is that the President had his own bipartisan commission. Bowles - Simpson. $4 Trillion in deficit reduction measures. They lowered the tax rate, they lowered the corporate rate to 22%, they lowered the personal rate to 23%, and yes, there were revenue raises by closing loopholes, but they used a lot of that to make us a more competitive economy. And there are two things we have to do to get out of this debt. One is reduce spending and the other is grow the economy.

Eric Ames's blog
Login to post comments

Comments

Heh, Mike got spanked - think

Submitted by amyshulk on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 5:21pm.

Heh, Mike got spanked - think he noticed?

The government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
Ronald Reagan

Huh?

Submitted by IrateNate on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 5:48pm.

Barnicle: "I don't see how using taxpayer funds on government projects can be called spending"

Huh again?

Submitted by mandrake on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 6:10pm.

I read the transcript, cannot find the quote you attribute to Barnicle? What did I miss?

It isn't there

Submitted by goodone91 on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 1:35am.

He made it up as satire.

Really

Submitted by mandrake on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 4:44pm.

I suspect a double standard at work here. Because, If a liberal had just "made it up as satire" then The Vet would be all over it with the Lying Trolliez routine..but that won't happen..cause some get a pass.

Some get a pass....

Submitted by almostacowboy on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 3:46pm.

Others got a sense of humor. Looks like you got the former.

Ole George did good. I saw

Submitted by Gat New York on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 6:04pm.

Ole George did good.

I saw Steve Rattner espousing Obamenomics on the Morning Schmo Show. Rattner said that we needed to raise revenue by increasing taxes on the wealthy. This is a man with an economics degree from an elite school and has been in investment banking throughout his career. I expect idiot statements like that from people like Tweetie Matthews but not Rattner.

If one store sells Brand A for $27 and the next store sells the same Brand A for $17, who do you think is going to bring in more revenue?

If you eliminate the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy (which also includes most small businesses) then those people will have to cut elsewhere which will ultimately reduce the amount of tax revenue. If you instead reduce the tax rate, then they will take that money and in part invest it that will ultimately results in increased tax revenue.

Reagan tried it and it worked. The problem is that Democrats who are either ideologically socialist of just intellectually lazy like Barnicle Bill don't get it.

Why not 70%

Submitted by PoolPlayer on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 6:15pm.

With that logic we could increase the maximum rate to 70% the way it used to be under Jimmah Catah and it wouldn't be a tax increase. What a goof!.

democRATs love tax increases

Submitted by ohio granny on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 6:44pm.

democRATs love tax increases because they do not pay them. Just look at all the people in the obama administration who had to pony up and pay back taxes or remove themselves from consideration for various posts. And look at Charlie Rangel, probably the biggest tax cheat and crook in the House of Representatives.

democRATs = crooks, liars and cheats

I grow sick of the fools who

Submitted by TheHistorian on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 7:01pm.

I grow sick of the fools who take it on faith that the "top bracket PAID 70% under Carter". If those of you might remember right, Reagan cut the top rate to 50%, but he ALSO cut a bunch of deductions such as interest payments on your yacht, cars, credit cards, state sales taxes, etc etc etc. In fact, go look at this reference, particularly Figures C and D. You will see that the tax rate on the top 0.1% was 31.5% in 1979, and went all the way down to 27% by 1986, nt the 70% to nothing that the liberals lie about. What is interesting is that while this happened, the total tax dollars by the 0.1% never went down. In fact, the total share of taxes rose every year until 2001. Then it dropped in 2001 and again 2002 years. However, while the total dollars collected from the 0.1% dropped in 2001 and again in 2002, the percentage tax rate did NOT drop.

What this shows is the following:

During Reagan and Bush 1 years, there were more rich people paying more taxes than during end of the Clinton years (2000).
Bush's tax cuts did not affect the marginal tax rate of the top 1%; the total percentage of taxes paid from that class stayed the same even though the rate went down.
Lieberals love sound bites, and they don't have the foggiest flipping idea on what really was going on, because they are as ignorant of economics as the President, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and even John Boehner.
Anyone who believes this stuff is even more ignorant than the four aforementioned people.

I really am tired of conservatives not using IRS data (the source for the above) to show what the real case was in the Reagan years. The Gipper saved this economy and lieberals have consistently tried to screw it up since.

“Liberals tend to put the onus of your success on society and conservatives on you and your family.”
Dennis Prager

Did you all hear Mika in the

Submitted by WarEagle66 on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 9:56pm.

Did you all hear Mika in the background too? She might indeed be the dumbest person on TV...even more than Schultz.

Wailing away.

Submitted by Red Jeep on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 11:13pm.

Yep

Submitted by GregE on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 11:42pm.

She just about came unglued. Everyone knows 38 is less than 35 and going to 38 will be a decrease of 3.

My question is.............ARE AMERICANS AND AMERICAN POLITICIANS ACTUALLY ARGUING THIS COMMON SENSE?!?!?!?!? Our Founding Fathers would be so proud to hear the pure NONSENSE coming from the Left on this one. Has to be one of the DUMBEST arguments possible, but they're making it because they know they have to.

If 2+2=4 jeopardized their political ideology, they'd argue against it and try to ridicule you for thinking that it equaled 4. I'm convinced.

2 +2 = 22!

Submitted by Red Jeep on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 11:44pm.

Obviously....

Submitted by almostacowboy on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 3:49pm.

....a democrat! ;-)

I once read somewhere on this website

Submitted by djwolf12 on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 1:30am.

someone posted that Bubbles Bzrezinski could actually have a IQ in negative numbers.

"Someday a real rain will come and wash all this scum off the streets". - Robert DeNiro, Taxi Driver (1976).

What if we went back to pre-Reagan tax rates?

Submitted by Red Jeep on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 11:12pm.

President Reagan lowered the top tax rate on the rich from 70% to 35%.

If we go back to that 70% that's not an increase, right, because it used to be 70%? Is that how Liberal logic works?

I think ....

Submitted by GregE on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 11:53pm.

Everyone who wants the rates to go back to what they were pre-2001, should simply look up those rates and pay their taxes according to those rates. No one is stopping them. They're free to do it. Ready, set, go!

So......

Submitted by GregE on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 11:34pm.

If I have 35 marbles and I need to get to 38 marbles, I should decrease my marbles by 3, right Barnacle?

Question

Submitted by GregE on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 11:52pm.

How many tax cuts get sunset clauses, vs tax increases that get them? I'm thinking the latter is a pipe dream.

Pataki is an idiot.

Submitted by big.league.slider on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 2:41am.

Why do these feeble RINO's like Pataki allow themselves to be intellectually slapped-around by hacks like Barnicle? He should never have accepted the premise of Barnicle's first statement. Pataki should have pointed out that allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire is only a tax increase for the small percentage of the US population that actually pays income taxes.

And then Pataki should have pointed out that the $14 trillion national debt is only a problem for the small percentage of the US population that actually pays income taxes, and thus will be responsible for paying it off. While the beneficiaries of those borrowed $trillions are mostly those that do not have any tax liability.

Pataki should have immediately called Barnicle out for the wealth redistributionist shill that he is, and put him on the defensive.

Cripes!

Reagan Tax Cuts

Submitted by Tiger on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 7:55am.

I we reverted to the tax rates of Jimmy Carter, would that not be a tax increase? How about under Truman?

Liberal thinking ibizarrere.

Barnicle, the plagiarizer

Submitted by KC Beach on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 10:16am.

Barnicle, the plagiarizer, is wrong again. When the tax rates were adjusted downward I am willing to bet he called it a tax cut, so by definition raising the rates would be a tax increase.

Like the famous meaning of the word “is” defense, liberals are attempting (and failing) to change the meaning of words to fit their agenda. They floated “revenue enhancement” and “spending in the tax code” but too many people are too informed to let the attempt gain traction. I am surprised we have not heard the libs say they are for “tax cut cuts” so they can try to claim they are not implementing new taxes.

To paraphrase Shakespeare, a turd by any other name still smells like s**t.

He's still calling it a tax cut.

Submitted by CobraMan on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 12:42pm.

"Governor, let me ask you a question off of Gene's answer. There's a certain wing of the Republican Party that claims that the Bush tax cuts, that if you go back to the tax rate prior to the Bush tax cut, that that's a tax increase. Is that your view?"

He called it the Bush tax cut twice in the same sentence.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution

Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court

Or Anwar al-Awlaki.

So, it really wasn't a tax cut then, was it?

Submitted by CobraMan on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 12:29pm.

"I understand that, but, I mean the idea that reverting back to a tax rate that existed that people paid into, calling it now a tax increase, I just think that's politics at its worst."

So, that "Bush tax cut" you mention previously wasn't really a tax cut, correct? What was it, "a temporary refund adjustment?"