Inconvenient Truths

Right wing propagandist Fox News NPR and the New York Times on why taxing the rich won’t work:

It’s tempting to look to our millionaires and demand they pay more in taxes, but the same inconvenient truth applies. When you add up all the money made by all the people who earn more than $1 million a year, it amounts to around $700 billion. But since the millionaires already pay close to $200 billion in taxes, the government would have to increase rates to nearly 100 percent — which is about the worst idea ever — for it to have any real impact.

Obama even LAST NIGHT claimed that the rich needed to pay their “fair share” as if they didn’t and that it would magically solve our spending problem. The class warfare argument is nothing but a political ploy for Obama to win reelection. So, what will work? Taxing the middle class.

To solve our debt problems, we have to go to where the money is — the middle class. People who earn between $30,000 and $200,000 a year make a total of around $5 trillion and pay less than 10 percent of that in taxes (owing mostly to tax incentives and the fact that most families make less than $68,000, where larger tax rates begin). Increasing the middle-class tax burden an additional 8 percent, however, would actually have a bigger impact than taxing millionaires at 100 percent.

Tax the Rich middle class!!! Taxing merely the rich will slow growth and not get us where we need to be.

Regardless, most economists acknowledge, and most politicians privately concede, that the middle class will have to give up some benefits (Social Security, Medicare) or it will have to pay more in taxes. Actually, it will probably have to do both.

Obama chided Republicans yesterday for what he considers their failure with the supercommittee. But, John Podhoretz points out the supercommitte did exactly what it was supposed to do. Nothing. It allowed Obama to raise the debt ceiling through the end of his term, and that was a success.

Oh, the supercommittee’s putative purpose was to find massive spending cuts and tax hikes acceptable to both Democrats and Republicans. Then, after achieving this supernatural goal, it was to place these historic changes before Congress, the president and the American people and solve America’s spiraling debt problem at no political cost to anyone.

That scenario was a transparent absurdity. Indeed, it was so absurd that committee members couldn’t even go through the motions of pretending to fulfill it. Politico’s Mike Allen informs us that the supercommittee never actually met during the month of November.

The only plan the Democrats, and Obama, were going to agree on was one that taxed the rich which is purely a political ploy, not one that will solve anything. Their price? $1 trillion.

The talks broke down because Democrats demanded $1 trillion in tax increases as the price of doing any deal that included entitlement savings — which is to say, as the price of doing any deal that begins to address the major drivers of spending going forward.Republicans have never quite owned up to being open to a tax increase, but that is what they are talking about when they talk about “pro-growth tax reform,” which includes broadening the tax base and eliminating some deductions and exemptions, producing a net tax increase even if tax rates stay the same or go down. But even that isn’t good enough for the Democrats, who insist that any tax increase be enacted through a relatively narrow range of options, mostly through raising tax rates on individuals with above-average incomes and on businesses that do not fall within the protective circle of Democrats’ political favoritism. (Don’t expect General Electric or the next Solyndra to start paying 35 percent, whatever else happens.) Because Republicans rightly declined to go along with this class-warfare program and insisted upon savings in entitlements, the supercommittee failed.

Unless spending is dealt with (inlcuding entitlements) we need to increase taxes 88%. On everyone.

Explore posts in the same categories: Uncategorized

10 Comments on “Inconvenient Truths”

  1. Hey, why not? Sweden did it, and look how awesome they are!!


  2. Jay in Ames Says:

    Couldn’t agree more, Car in. This was planned to end this way from the start. The Dems knew the position the GOP would take, and sent their most liberal members to the Pooper Committee.

    Success, Obama! He got exactly what he wanted.

  3. As long as we keep on with the entitlements, including those to people who are not citizens (sorry, it should be like the American Express Card….”membership has its priviledges”)and flushing our borrowed money down toilets like Solyndra, and bailing out GM to give it to the unions, they can’t have more.

    I don’t have it to give, and frankly, I’m a little tired of everyone living well off my money but me.

  4. MCPO Airdale Says:

    I’m having this “discussion” with my liberal son (thanks UMich!). It’s not like he doesn’t know how to perform simple mathematics, it’s that he depends on HuffPo and Jon Stewart for his news. *sigh*

    I’m going to have to bite my tongue through the holiday in order to “ensure the domestic tranquility”.

  5. MJ Says:

    Taxing people making a million dollars a year will now be defined as people making $100K per year.

    Problem solved!

  6. Car in Says:

    On “the 5”, I’ve heard them ask Bob Beckel (sp?) several times how much “the rich” should be taxed, and he’s stated 60% several times. I don’t know why, but they never pursue this line of inquiry with him.

    Personally, I’d like for some of these folks who advocate higher taxes to follow my husband around for a week. A small business owner – trying to get through the massive hurdles the government puts on them with a zillion regulations.

    Here’s one – we have batteries in our shop. Lots of batteries. If the building caught fire – no fireman would enter the building. They just wouldn’t. Yet, we need all sorts of bs under the premise that one WOULD.

    They wouldn’t. If the building went up, they’d contain the fire and watch it burn. fact.

  7. Car in,
    That is because your husband is an evil capitalist, who sells batteries to his fellow man that are needed to power all the devices that society is dependent upon, rather than not raping Gaia and leaving all the ingredients in their natural state where everyone can just go out and get the battery they need from the battery trees for free.


  8. Car in Says:

    yea, you’re right. It’s wrong to profit off of things people need. like lawyer, for example.

  9. Car in,

    I wouldn’t know what that is like.

  10. Car in Says:

    It’s unfair. I may need a lawyer one day. It’s just wrong for you to profit off of someone’s need.

    People should be able to pay you in eggs, or something.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: