Obama Really, Really Wants His Upper Middle Class Tax Increase
As the saying goes, elections have consequences
(The Hill) President Obama said in his weekly address Saturday that his reelection shows Americans want Congress to pass a tax cut for the middle class.
This is what Conservatives mean when we talk about “bias.” In the first paragraph, we get a lie. Obama doesn’t want to reduce taxes for the middle class: he wants to keep the same Bush era rates for those under $250k. Anyhow
Obama said he would work with Democrats and Republicans, along with industry, labor and civic groups, to find a solution for cutting the deficit. But he said the plan he outlined on the campaign trail is the one the nation chose.
I didn’t realize Obama was such a joker. Of course, what he says and what he does are two entirely different things. And we’ve seen the way he “works” with those who have other ideas over the past 4 years.
“I’m open to compromise and new ideas. But I refuse to accept any approach that isn’t balanced. I will not ask students or seniors or middle-class families to pay down the entire deficit while people making over $250,000 aren’t asked to pay a dime more in taxes. This was a central question in the election. And on Tuesday, we found out that the majority of Americans agree with my approach – that includes Democrats, Independents, and Republicans,” Obama said.
On one hand, hey, he won. Personally, I moved straight to stage 5, acceptance, before I even went to bed on Tuesday (the minute they called Ohio I turned on a movie). There were more people who vote for getting Someone Else’s money to pay for their own lives then people who voted for personal responsibility. But, on the other hand, let’s look at some interesting exit poll data
(NY Sun….I thought they were out of business? Guess not) To the question “Should taxes be raised to help cut the budget deficit?” only 33% answered “yes” while 63% responded “no.” Isn’t that interesting? Nobody’s talking about this exit-poll nugget.
Now, it is true that when the question is asked only about income-tax rates, 13% are okay with an increase for all, 47% want an increase only on incomes over $250,000, and 35% don’t want increases for anyone. That’s not so surprising. Most people make less than $250,000 a year, and would therefore say, “Well, heck, just tax the rich people.”
Hey, there’s that “47%” number that Romney talked about. And they want Someone Else to bear the burden. When 48% have zero net federal income tax liability.
Even on that point, though, the margin is only 37 to 45. It’s below 50%, and not a massive mandate. When one combines that with the earlier question, where nearly two-thirds don’t want to raise taxes at all, you have to ask whether the country isn’t a whole lot more divided on these and other questions than President Obama would have us believe.
Raising income taxes will not help, and isn’t quite the mandate Obama thinks it is. First, it won’t raise the revenue needed. At baseline projections, it’ll only pay for 8 days of current government expenditures. Second, history shows that there is no way in hell the Central Government will do anything other than spend the increased revenue. Third, people with big money will find ways to shelter it from taxation. They’ll also reduce capital investment and spending, which means less money entering the private economy, circulating around, and increasing the coffers of the states, counties, and municipalities. When tax rates are raised, tax collection goes down.
The problem is not one of tax collection, it’s one of spending. Giving government more money simply means they will spend more, and waste more. And those elected to federal office never seem to have skin in the game themselves. What say that every member of Congress, the President, the Vice President and their direct staff, including political appointees and czars, take a 10% pay cut for every $100 billion in deficit spending? All these people, both Democrats and Republicans, are irresponsible with the money that is forcibly taken from the People.
There are many ways to handle this. We can eliminate deductions. Create incentives for the money makers to invest, spend, and bring capital back to the US. We need to reform the way federal agencies are allocated money (wish I could find that post on did on this).
Anyhow, Obama wants a deal? How about we go with the number $500,000? That will make darned sure that the small business owners (those with 50 or fewer employees) aren’t hit? Joe Biden was throwing out $1 million. Republicans say none. Let’s compromise. And, hey, Ace provides a good idea
New tax: Any fee of $1 million or more, the performance for which is substantially completed over the course of six months or less, is hit with a 20% surtax above and beyond normal tax rates. If the work for fee is completed in five months or less, 30%; if the work for fee is completed in four months or less, 40%; if three months or less, 50%.
Let’s take Glenn Reynolds’ proposals seriously– let’s start making Hollywood and the Leisure Class pay its fair share.
Surely you liberals who want people to pay their fair share will agree on this, right?
Oh, and let’s not forget that Obama’s previous plan would raise taxes, or, as he calls them “fees” on way more than those evil rich people.
1) Our own government chides those of us who pay taxes for being greedy because we don’t want to give the politicians even more of our money to do things...Read More
-By Warner Todd Huston We have finally heard the full and definitive take that President Obama has on the outrageous
We can always count on Nancy Pelosi to live in her own little private fantasy world (Politico)Striking a tone of
Apparently, the NY Times editorial board, an anonymous group of people who represent the feeling and thoughts, well, being the