Marginal Tax Rates Explained (in part).

Small businesses and those on the lower end of the wealthy (those making around $250,000) seem to have found a way to make it through the fiscal cliff and Obamacare.  If the cliff is avoided by raising taxes on those who make over $250,000, these top earners and small businesses will simply make sure they do not earn more than $249,000 in a year.  After all, after you pass the magic number, your tax rate goes up, right?  Sort of.  A marginal tax rate doesn't quite work that way.  After an earner passes $250,000, his or her tax rate goes up, but only on what he or she has earned beyond $250,000.  That is, if you make $260,000 in a year, only $10,000 of that will be taxed at a higher rate.  Thus, if you try and keep your income below that magic number, you're only screwing yourself.  If you're going to invite a small business expert on your show, this is one of the things he should know--and if you are going to play the journalist on your show, you should call him out if he doesn't know this basic fact.

More info here, and here.

(This is not an endorsement for raising taxes).

Obama tax hike will kill small businesses.

I begin with a clarification: this post does not imply that I support a tax hike on those making more than $250,000/year.  Nevertheless, I find it incomprehensible that politicians could lie so brazenly when technology provides the public with ways of uncovering their tall tales. 

There are good arguments against such tax hikes.  There are also bad arguments.  And then there are simple falsehoods.  Here is the full report from factcheck.org.

Bill Kristol offers a compromise (sort of).

Conservative pundit and commentator Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard is encouraging the GOP to compromise on the the Bush tax cuts--one of the most significant elements of the looming fiscal cliff (fiscal slope? fiscal mound?).  Breaking ranks with Grover-Norquist-Republicans, Kristol suggested that the cuts could be allowed to expire for those making over $250,000 (or $500,000 or $1 million).  He seems to acknowledge that the reelection of President Obama (together with the continued Republican control of the House) will require negotiations, conversation and debate.  But notice, he is incapable of simply suggesting what is a very reasonable response to the elections (presidential and congressional) without a dig at the rich Democrats who voted for Obama and "live in Hollywood?".  What does their address have to do with anything?  (Is it even true?)