April 26, 2024

Talk: Glenn Beck Wants to Know: Why Can’t We All Just Get Along?

You’ve said The Blaze could put traditional TV news out of business. That’s a bold prediction.
I learned that when Barbara Walters came and did an interview with me. They had about 50 people in our studio for two days — more people in my offices than we had employees. All for an eight-minute segment.

But do you really think that will happen?
The nightly news is doing a fine job of putting itself out of business. Who watches it? I mean really, besides my grandparents, who are both dead, who is watching the nightly news? I think we’ll be ready to put them out of business in the next three to five years.

Is it true that you expressed interest in buying Current TV?
Yes. I didn’t speak to him, but I was told that Al Gore didn’t want to sell to me.

When you heard Al Jazeera was buying it, what did you think?
I thought that Al Gore saw me more as an enemy of America than Al Jazeera, which I found fascinating coming from the former vice president. Or maybe he doesn’t believe a word he says. He sold for twice the amount of what it was worth.

How did your fans respond to your support of gay marriage?
I don’t care. The point is that government shouldn’t be involved in marriage.

Did you hear any reaction?
Can we stop dividing ourselves? Do racists exist? Yes. Do bigots exist? Yes. But most of us are not. Most Americans just want to get along. Why can’t we do that? What has happened to us?

I think there’s a misperception that your show is more political than it actually is.
Unfortunately, because of the news of the day, we have spent most of our time on politics. What people don’t ever understand is this: I’m the guy who lives in Dallas who did not get an invitation to the George Bush Presidential Library opening. He didn’t like me. I had called for his impeachment. I didn’t call for Obama’s impeachment. People think I just hate this president. No, I hate power and those who do everything they can to hold onto it.

But you said you were going to hunt down progressives like an Israeli Nazi hunter.
Oh, I will. I think these guys are the biggest danger in the world. It’s the people like Mao, people that believe that big government is the answer, it always leads to millions dead — always.

Sometimes when you give a speech, you hold up a napkin stained with Hitler’s blood. Why?
It could be Hitler’s, I don’t know. It was from somebody present during the July assassination attempt. The point of it is: pay attention when the trouble is small. If you don’t pay attention to people who want to regulate every aspect of your life, it spirals out of control.

What was it like for you to live in New York?
Sad, because I think New York is one of the greatest towns in the world. I love New York. I wanted to live in New York my whole life, and I find it so unbelievably closed-minded.

You must feel more comfortable living in Dallas.
Yeah, but there are people that hate me all over the world. I went to South Africa, and people hate me there.

Why did you start your jeans company, 1791 Denim?
I wore Levi’s my whole life. I think they’re great. They’re making them in China now. Fine, whatever. But when they branded themselves the uniform for the progressive movement, instead of complaining, I started my own company. I don’t care if you’re a liberal and you want to wear them. I hope they’re comfortable. If they’re not, return them to me.

Are you still in touch with Sarah Palin?
No. In fairness, I don’t really stay in touch with really anybody. I’m a little busy.

INTERVIEW HAS BEEN CONDENSED AND EDITED.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/08/magazine/glenn-beck-wants-to-know-why-cant-we-all-just-get-along.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

For Wealthy, Tax Cuts Since 1980s Have Been Gain-Gain

The last major overhaul of the tax code, signed by President Ronald Reagan in 1986, set tax rates on capital gains at the same level as the rates on ordinary income like salaries and wages, with both topping out at 28 percent. But that link was uncoupled by his successor, President George Bush, and the rates on capital gains were reduced by President Bill Clinton. President George W. Bush then lowered the rates on capital gains and dividends to a high of 15 percent — less than half the 35 percent top rate on ordinary income.

While rates for all American taxpayers have fallen to near 50-year lows, the wealthy have reaped the most savings from the changes because they derive a larger proportion of their income from investments.

Between 1985 and 2008, the wealthiest 400 Americans saw the percentage of their income paid in federal income taxes drop from 29 percent to 18 percent, according to data from the Internal Revenue Service.

Some economists say the cuts are necessary to keep capital from fleeing the United States to lower-tax countries. Scott A. Hodge, president of the conservative Tax Foundation, has written extensively that a capital gains tax is effectively double taxation on profits that have already been taxed at the corporate level. Many investors, and political leaders in both parties, have lobbied for tax cuts on capital gains and dividends by arguing that they spur investment and, therefore, job creation.

But there is little data to support that contention: the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service issued a report last year concluding that tax cuts on capital gains reduce federal revenues and do little to stimulate economic growth. And as income inequality and tax fairness have become major concerns for many Americans, the issue of tax fairness has brought calls to alter the tax code’s preferential treatment of investment income.

One outspoken critic has been Warren E. Buffett, a billionaire himself. Mr. Buffett stirred debate about the issue last year when he wrote an opinion article for The New York Times stating that the low rates for investment income had allowed him to pay only about 17 percent of his income in federal taxes, less than the effective rate paid by his secretary or any of the other 19 workers in his office.

President Obama responded to the outcry by proposing the “Buffett Rule,” which would stipulate that those earning more than $1 million a year should pay at least the same percentage of their earnings in federal taxes that middle-income Americans did. Though estimates showed his plan would raise tens of billions of dollars a year in federal revenue, it met strong opposition from the business community and failed to win approval in Congress. Still, the idea of taxing the wealthy at a higher rate could be an issue in this year’s presidential campaign.

Another point of contention is determining which investments should qualify for lower tax rates. Appreciation on stock and real assets like property has traditionally been classified as investment income because it involves investment risk on assets held for some extended period, typically at least a year. But during the last decade, hedge fund managers — who are frequently paid 2 percent of a fund’s assets annually plus 20 percent of its profits — have also been able to pay the lower rates on their earnings. Similar rules often apply to those who manage private equity funds and other types of investments.

Hedge fund and private equity managers have argued that their tax treatment is warranted because their earnings are contingent on whether their investments make a profit. But others have characterized it as a loophole that benefits the very wealthiest Americans, and Mr. Obama and other Democrats pledged to eliminate it during the 2008 election campaign.

In 2010, when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, the effort to end the exemption for carried interest was met by a muscular lobbying campaign by investors and never made it out of committee.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=ebffd46b4c6474359d57823d207c992f