Thursday, July 21, 2011

You Already Tried That

President Omaba says our budget woes stem from "tax cuts on the wealthiest individuals." He favors increasing taxes on the rich.

Never mind that the top earners already pay most of the taxes (about 69 percent in 2007)--which is more than their share of income (see chart 2). Never mind that tax rates dropped for all quintiles. Never mind that after tax income is up over the past 3 decades for all quintiles. Never mind that tax cuts spur economic growth. Never mind that tax receipts increased -- and borrowing decreased -- following the Bush tax cuts until the onset of the credit crunch (see page 5). Never mind that the late '90s Clinton surplus was produced by spending restraint, not tax hikes. Never mind that the Democrat definition of "rich" may include the middle class.

Rather, as TigerHawk says:
[L]et us all remember that the Obama Administration has already pushed through massive tax increases, most of which will fall on the "rich," that go in to effect in 2013 and thereafter. The Wall Street Journal has a nice summary of them here. So the question is not whether the "rich" will pay new and more taxes, but whether there will be another round of increases on top of those already legislated.
So, to trim the deficit, how about repealing Obamacare?


Warren said...

Rich is considered having a household income of $250,000, $200,000 for an individual.

Income is not wealth.

The IRS doesn't allow income averaging anymore. A couple could make a combined income of $300,000 one year and only $50,000 most years. Hard to accumulate wealth that way. Yet, for a year at least, Obama considers that couple wealthy.

Warren Buffett and some other truly wealthy people are all for higher taxes. But income taxes don't affect them. They will remain wealthy. Their accumulated wealth will not be taxed.

I wonder if Buffett would have favored higher taxes when he was just starting out in business.

Today, Buffett is truly wealthy. But his base salary is just $100,000. So I guess according to Obama's metrics, Buffett is middle-class.

MaxedOutMama said...

Really, Obamacare IS the elephant in this living room.

It's clear already we can't afford it, and it's clear that it sets up a negative incentive for many seniors.

Way too little has been written about the impending Obamacare economic debacle. Way too little.

MaxedOutMama said...

Warren - in particular, small business owners who sell can be absolutely crucified by these changes.

OBloodyHell said...

>>> So, to trim the deficit, how about repealing Obama?

You had four too many letters on the end there, so I fixed it. Glad to help.

OBloodyHell said...

>> Warren - in particular, small business owners who sell can be absolutely crucified by these changes.

If Warren is who I think he is, he's even more aware of this than you :oD

OBloodyHell said...

BTW -- "You Already Tried That"

Isn't that Einstein's definition of lunacy?

Anonymous said...

Obama is right about increasing taxes on wealthiest 3%. What good have low taxes done for employment or maintaining real (decent) wages?!? Nothing. Low taxes are not causing the cash-rich to increase employment. It's just causing an end to the middle-class in America by reducing them to poverty. GE wants to be treated as a "person" for political purposes, but they decline to pay their fair share as a "person" in taxes. Face it: private corporations and wealthy individuals control the government at every level and have done a lousy job of it, driving our country ever downward as they think they are protecting their narrow, selfish, money-grubbing interests. So much for integrity and patriotism. When it comes to money and corporate profits, we have pure paranoia and greed ruling. Overall....Republicans suck.......big time! Republicans are destroying the USA. That's the way it is nowadays. Take the power from those Republican paranoids and save the USA!

Carl said...

Anony: read the links before commenting. The rich pay more than their share of income, and middle class incomes were rising through 2009.

And GE's low taxes were the product of tax policies that most liberals favor--green energy and the like. You get no arguments from me about removing most tax policy--a flat tax, retaining the home mortgage and charitable deduction would be fine with me.

But if your level of political debate is to pronounce that the other side "sucks," I have little hope of an intelligent reply.

Anonymous said...

Flat tax of 15% would do the trick for me. Why retain the home mortgage deduction and charitable deduction? Adding self-interest to charitable contributions subtracts from charitable spirit. GE's NO TAXES are the result of GE paying big bucks to lobbyists and perhaps indirectly or directly to legislators to develop legislation that keeps them from paying their fair share of taxes. "Green energy" is NOT the issue in GE getting away with paying NO taxes last year and unfairly low taxes generally.

So you think it is fair that the RATE of taxes the wealthy pay is lower than the rate the middle class pay, e.g., Warren Buffett and his receptionist?