Obama Lies: WSJ shows taxing the rich won't cover the bill

[expat_panama]

Well, well, well! From the Federal Reserve

File:US Real Wages 1964-2004.gif - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Great, we're getting somewhere. Actually, that's not a Federal Reserve link but rather a Wikipedia link but no matter because there were some fed links on the page and apparently what they call 'workers' are "Production and Nonsupervisory Employees" --select group. Let's go with it anyway, here's a link to my copy of the AHETPI wage data with the CPI and the adjustment, and here's the plot:

Not flat at all. Starts back in '64 at $18.08, soars 17% in just nine years, proceeds to loose a fourth by 1995. Right now now real wages are up 13% over that of the Clinton economic miracle. That's good, especially considering we're talking such a small select group without other compensation or income.

btw, let's skip Cathy Mulbrandon's blog, like I said we don't need some beltway hack to tell us what to think when we can think for ourselves.

 

[edthecynic]

Barack Obama told the nation last Wednesday that “improvements” in Medicare and hiking taxes on the wealthy would stabilize government spending and bring deficit spending to what can charitably be described as a dull roar. The Wall Street Journal does some fact checking on these claims and finds them entirely false. Even if the “rich” gets defined down to the top 10% of filers — whose average annual household income is $114,000 — the level of revenue from even a 100% tax would still not close the budget gap:

WSJ shows taxing the rich won’t cover the bill « Hot Air

That's one thing we've never heard of being defined Just where is the line drawn at who's 'Rich' I don't know about you but I've never seen a Number.

Maybe one of you well meaning dems can let us know at what point or lower limit does a person get to say he's 'rich'

The truly "rich" are the people who do NOT work for the common wage.

All these charts and claims about taxing the rich at 100% are only talking about WAGE EARNERS. The richest wage earners are only upper middle class. The truly rich, which I call the wealthy, accumulate capital assets rather than dollars. Capital assets increase in value tax free from year to year and are only taxed on that increased value if they are sold and even then they are taxed at a lower rate than wages. Lyin' Ryan and the GOP say having the equivalent of an unlimited IRA that can be cashed in at any time at a lower tax rate with no prepayment penalty is not good enough for the wealthy ELITE. The Cryin' Ryan Plan eliminates all taxes on capital assets when sold.

Rather than giving these capital gains tycoons a free ride, like the GOP wants to do, they should be taxed before raising taxes on any wage earners at any income level.

August 7, 2007
CALLER: And, you know, and the way our tax system works, we have an overly complex system, which in and of itself is a problem, but the way our tax system works and the way the tax laws are written, it's based on a few kind of like hinge numbers like adjusted gross income and taxable income, and while the soak the rich -- or however you choose to describe it -- really doesn't come down that way. It really comes down to much lower income levels.

RUSH: It does, exactly, and here's the dirty little secret if you ever to pull it off. It's hard. This is why most people don't understand the tax-the-rich business. You've got to structure your life so you have no "earned" income. I'm out of time. I'll explain that. There's a category called earned income versus other kinds of income. Earned income is what the income tax rate is on. That's how "the rich" do it. They don't have "earned" income.
END TRANSCRIPT

 

[edthecynic]

Why don't they post what Obama actually said?

Because anything Obama says has an expiration date. Like his claiming he would never do signing statements. Only he just did one.

Anything DittoTards parrot that their MessiahRushie said has an expiration date immediately after Stuttering LimpTard said it.

Can't you mindless morons do anything other than parrot your MessiahRushie's programming???

 

[Nosmo King]

Why is it that we paid of our debt after WWII and during the Clinton years by raising taxes?

Right now the bottom 40% pay 0% of the federal income tax, the top 10% pay 70% and the rest (me) pay 30% of the total tax revenue.

If we tax the top at 1% 100% its not enough money to cover the defecit, if we tax the top 10% at 100% its enough to cover the defecit but not enough to cover our unfunded liabilities (SS Medi). Therefore we can't do it with taxes alone.

We need to cut spending also.

I propose raising taxes on everyone from an income of $1.00/year to the very top a flat percentage rate that is applied equally to all income levels. I dont know what the percentage would have to be but I think every american needs to share in the burden and responsibilty of paying for what was spent and is planned to be spent.

A 'flat tax' will STILL result in the top 10% paying the bulk of the taxes. That argument is irrelevant.

Consolidating wealth among the very few and the very rich is what's happening, and the results will be disastrous.

 

[kiwiman127]

The last time wealth was this concentrated was just before the Great Depression and we saw the end result of that.

 

[Old Rocks]

Barack Obama told the nation last Wednesday that “improvements” in Medicare and hiking taxes on the wealthy would stabilize government spending and bring deficit spending to what can charitably be described as a dull roar. The Wall Street Journal does some fact checking on these claims and finds them entirely false. Even if the “rich” gets defined down to the top 10% of filers — whose average annual household income is $114,000 — the level of revenue from even a 100% tax would still not close the budget gap:

WSJ shows taxing the rich won’t cover the bill « Hot Air

Nor will ending the social programs. Nor will defaulting on the Social Security that people have paid into all their lives. In fact, since SS is a seperate and targeted tax, even including it in the cuts is taxing the working class and middle class to support the rich.

A return to the taxes of the Clinton era would be a good start. All the taxes on all of us. Then an addition tier on the income tax for those making over one million.

You cannot tax our way into solvency, we cannot cut our way into solvency. It will take a mix of both.

People like you wish to balance the budget on the backs of the most vulneble in our society, while increasing the gap between the rich and working people of this nation. If this is allowed to happen, and the inevitable economic debacle follows, the result will not be in the interests of most Americans.