Streams

Monday Morning Roundup

Monday, November 15, 2010

BusinessWeek senior writer Diane Brady, and political reporter for Roll Call David Drucker, discuss the latest news, including the deficit reduction commission and trial of Charlie Rangel.

Guests:

Diane Brady and David Drucker

Comments [10]

amalgam from Manhattan by day, NJ by night

Can't any of the decision makers hear the what the slight tax increase will NOT do to affect small business owners, as _Stuart Waldman from Manhattan_ eloquently stated? The reality is that very few of the poverty ridden $200-250K/year income people will have their lives destroyed by such a low level tax increase.

To whom much is given, much is expected.

Nov. 15 2010 03:20 PM
dboy from nyc

... can't afford counsel???

No wonder he needed two illegal rent control apartments in one of the most economically challenged areas of New York City AND illegal rental income.

Charlie, with all due respect; TIME TO SCOOT!!!

Nov. 15 2010 12:07 PM
Stuart Waldman from Manhattan

The idea that small businesses will not hire because of a single digit increase in their taxes above $250,000 is a great example of both republicans repeating a lie until it is accepted truth, and the startling innumeracy of the media who have no idea how to challenge it.
First of all small business owners who make more than a quarter of a mil a year is also in the single digits.
Second, the idea that they would stop hiring because they personally would be bringing home a few percentage points less money after taxes is so illogical it makes your head spin.
I owned a small business. By the time I had 35 people working for me and I was making above the threshold. Hiring or not hiring had nothing it had nothing to do with my take-home pay but whether our sales justified additional employees or if additional employees would help increase sales.
It's a duh moment. What owner would say I'm not going to hire even though it would mean I will end up with more money because I'll have to pay 3% more on that money. If that we're the case all small business owners would have no noses, because they would have all been cut off to spite their faces.

Nov. 15 2010 11:59 AM
Amy from Manhattan

The media should call it a trial because people will call it that anyway?? So they should sacrifice accuracy & dumb it down rather than inform the public about what this proceeding actually is? By the way, the description at the top of the page uses the word "trial." Could the Brian Lehrer Show please lead the way in media responsibility by changing it to "hearing"? (I'll check back to see if you do.)

Also, why would Rangel's legal representation have to be pro bono? Why couldn't he have a lawyer's help from the start & raise funds during & after the hearing to pay for it? It's been done before.

Nov. 15 2010 10:44 AM
Robert from NYC

Well they know he's a millionaire why would they want to represent him pro bono?

Nov. 15 2010 10:30 AM
Robert from Manhattan

Brian,

Please make the distinction between gross and taxable income. The income tax rates are imposed on taxable income, meaning gross income less all your deductions. A person would generally need a gross income of $350 to $400k to see one additional dollar in tax. I think $400k even in NYC is wealthy enough to chip in a little more. THIS IS AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION, PLEASE PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS TO YOUR AUDIENCE.

Nov. 15 2010 10:27 AM
Robert from NYC

Of course Obama will cave, isn't that what he does best! I bitch and complain alot and that's what I do best. Obama caves to the Rs and that's what he does best.
And yes by 2075 65 will be the new 35. And it's time we do leave it up to the next generation and the following ones to decide. We do leave these matters to the future generations that's what it's all about. This nonsense about not passing the problems on to our children and grandchildren, is a non-guilt trip. History and progress is founded on leaving the decisions and hard ones at that, to the coming generations. They're the ones who will be living through the future so let them decide what is best for them. Or if they carry on our traditions, carry on what is not so hot for them!!! I got that dig in didn't I?

Nov. 15 2010 10:25 AM
BRIAN Schatell

WHY NOT SPLIT THE TAX ISSUE INTO TWO BILLS, TWO VOTES, ONE FOR UNDER 250,000, AND ONE FOR ABOVE?

Nov. 15 2010 10:23 AM
Ken from Little Neck

In regards to the Bush tax cuts, what the republicans have never bothered to explain is how extending the exiting tax rates will stimulate the economy. If they were going to do that, why didn't it happen 10 years ago when these rates were adopted? How could extending rates that have been in place for some of the worst economic times in American history possibly do anything to help?

Nov. 15 2010 10:22 AM

my favorite BOLD suggestion from the deficit reduction commission was raising the retirement age to 69 IN THE YEAR 2075. so brave, so bold.
anyone know what life expectancy will be in 2075?
as a 40 something, I patriotically volunteer to work at my desk job until 80.

Nov. 15 2010 09:16 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Get the WNYC Morning Brief in your inbox.
We'll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.