Tax the rich! OK, but then what, Mr. President?

[waltky]

Granny says, "Tax `em - an' den tax `em some more...

Tax the rich! OK, but then what, Mr. President?
April 12, 2011 -- For years, President Obama has been clear about his preferred tax policy: Tax the rich more and protect households that make less than $250,000 from higher taxes.

It's not clear what he'll say about taxes on Wednesday when he lays out his ideas for how to tackle the country's long-term debt. If history holds, he'll stick to his guns. Certainly, continuing to promise low taxes for 98% of the country will help his newly launched 2012 re-election campaign. But it wouldn't be a great path to reining in debt. (Sorry GOP: Tax revenue has to go up) Relying solely on tax increases for the rich to aid in deficit reduction -- even when paired with significant spending cuts -- doesn't cut it for two reasons, said Tax Policy Center senior fellow Roberton Williams.

First, the income of the top 2% of taxpayers is typically more volatile than that of taxpayers lower down the income scale, so when the economy sours, so often do those high-end income streams. That means less revenue than expected will flow into federal coffers. Second, even if that weren't true, there just aren't enough rich people to generate the kind of revenue needed to substantially reduce deficits. To show the disparity, consider some recent calculations by the Congressional Budget Office. Raising all six income tax rates by 1 percentage point would yield an additional $480 billion over 10 years. By contrast, raising the top two rates by 1 percentage point would yield just $115 billion.

What Obama has said: In his most recent budget request, the president proposed letting the top two income tax rates revert to 39.6% and 36%, up from 35% and 33% today. He also called for an increase in the capital gains and dividend rates to 20% that high-income households pay, up from 15% today. And he would reduce the value of their itemized deductions and personal exemptions. All told, those proposals -- which would affect individuals making at least $200,000 and couples making $250,000 and up -- would reduce deficits by just under $1 trillion over 10 years. That's only about a third of the deficit reduction that would occur if lawmakers just let all of the Bush-era tax cuts expire.

MORE

See also:

Obama urged to protect Social Security
April 12, 2011 -- The battle lines over Social Security are being drawn a day before President Obama delivers a major speech on the nation's long-term fiscal dilemma.

In a letter sent Tuesday to Obama, a group of over 250 academics, policy experts and economists argued that Social Security does not contribute to the federal deficit and that shortfalls "should be eliminated without cutting benefits, including without raising the retirement age." Another group, the Strengthen Social Security Campaign, sent a letter to the President urging him to not even introduce the subject. "Social Security should not be part of deficit discussions or any deficit package or process," the letter said.

Obama is widely expected to outline on Wednesday his plan to reduce long-term deficits in a speech in Washington, and many worry that Social Security could get a haircut. The push to protect the program is just one component in a broader fight between Democrats and Republicans in Washington about how to put the nation back on a path towards fiscal sustainability. It comes days after Congress approved an 11th hour plan to fund the government, as they narrowly averted a shutdown. But bigger legislative issues remain unresolved, including a proposal to lift the nation's$14 trillion debt ceiling.

Supporters say Social Security is an independent, self-financing program that has no authority to borrow, and therefore cannot deficit spend. But critics say the program is already adding to the shortfall because the federal government must issue new debt to pay back money it borrowed from the Social Security trust fund. Regardless, both sides generally agree that Social Security needs to be reformed as the nation's population gets older and the number of Americans collecting benefits outpaces the amount of money flowing into the system.

MORE

... an' use dem richfolks taxes to pay for Social Security."

 

[LordBrownTrout]

It'll never be enough. We could be taxed at 100 percent and they'd be taxing us on top of that for not bringing in more revenues to tax.

 

[boedicca]

Taxing The Rich is always a prelude to raising taxes on the broad working and middle classes.

 

[Oddball]

Tax the rich! OK, but then what, Mr. President?

Then you charge that all who want to rein in spending are mean spirited, hard hearted, cold, cruel, selfish, SOBs, who kick cats and throw burlap sacks full of puppies into the river.

 

[AquaAthena]

Some suggest "tax the rich to make up the deficit". As of the end of 2010, the total worth of all American billionaires is $1.3 Trillion. We could take ALL their worth, not just high taxes, but ALL their WORTH; and it wouldn't dent our national debt. It wouldn't even pay this year deficit! And if we did take their money to pay some of this year's deficit, what would we we do next year?

 

[asterism]

Taxing The Rich is always a prelude to raising taxes on the broad working and middle classes.

Well that's the real scam in this. "The Rich" can avoid paying just about any tax increase imposed. That's the dirty secret about federal law, it's written by politicians who always carve out niches for their favored fellows.

Currently the agenda is an attack on small businesses - not rich, but affluent. It's gonna suck for future generations if they succeed. It'll suck even more for my employees if the Progressives are successful. I'll just quit and compete in the job market. That means instead of creating jobs I'll take a few of them away.

 

[Sallow]

Tax the rich and then what?

Then the budget gets balanced..by Crickey!

 

[asterism]

Tax the rich and then what?

Then the budget gets balanced..by Crickey!

How?

 

[Sallow]

Taxing The Rich is always a prelude to raising taxes on the broad working and middle classes.

Well that's the real scam in this. "The Rich" can avoid paying just about any tax increase imposed. That's the dirty secret about federal law, it's written by politicians who always carve out niches for their favored fellows.

Currently the agenda is an attack on small businesses - not rich, but affluent. It's gonna suck for future generations if they succeed. It'll suck even more for my employees if the Progressives are successful. I'll just quit and compete in the job market. That means instead of creating jobs I'll take a few of them away.

Taxes, whether you realize it or not..is the Constitutional way the government raises revenue to pay it's debt.

And I for one..think that the most of founders ever intended to concentrate vast sums of cash, like 108 billion dollars, into the hands of two men.

Actually..I know that for a fact.

 

[Sallow]

Tax the rich and then what?

Then the budget gets balanced..by Crickey!

How?

Revenue goes up.

 

[asterism]

Taxing The Rich is always a prelude to raising taxes on the broad working and middle classes.

Well that's the real scam in this. "The Rich" can avoid paying just about any tax increase imposed. That's the dirty secret about federal law, it's written by politicians who always carve out niches for their favored fellows.

Currently the agenda is an attack on small businesses - not rich, but affluent. It's gonna suck for future generations if they succeed. It'll suck even more for my employees if the Progressives are successful. I'll just quit and compete in the job market. That means instead of creating jobs I'll take a few of them away.

Taxes, whether you realize it or not..is the Constitutional way the government raises revenue to pay it's debt.

Actually, I do realize that. It's a big part of my philosophical view that the current system of taxation isn't working.

And I for one..think that the most of founders ever intended to concentrate vast sums of cash, like 108 billion dollars, into the hands of two men.

I however think that that the founders did not intend for taxes to be a means for wealth distribution. Find another vehicle for your agenda, your social engineering is bankrupting this company. Taxes are for the purpose of funding the government, not playing your class envy war.

Actually..I know that for a fact.

Do share.

 

[asterism]

Tax the rich and then what?

Then the budget gets balanced..by Crickey!

How?

Revenue goes up.

Enough to balance the budget? When?

 

[Sallow]

How?

Revenue goes up.

Enough to balance the budget? When?

It ain't going to happen over night..that's for sure.

But not facing it squarely on is ludicrous.

The government makes money by taxing (or charging) for it's services.

That's as simple a business model as I can think of.

And making up nutty budgets that do not reconcile this fact..and keep placing wealth into the hands of a few..will surely bankrupt the nation.

 

[Sallow]

Well that's the real scam in this. "The Rich" can avoid paying just about any tax increase imposed. That's the dirty secret about federal law, it's written by politicians who always carve out niches for their favored fellows.

Currently the agenda is an attack on small businesses - not rich, but affluent. It's gonna suck for future generations if they succeed. It'll suck even more for my employees if the Progressives are successful. I'll just quit and compete in the job market. That means instead of creating jobs I'll take a few of them away.

Taxes, whether you realize it or not..is the Constitutional way the government raises revenue to pay it's debt.

Actually, I do realize that. It's a big part of my philosophical view that the current system of taxation isn't working.

And I for one..think that the most of founders ever intended to concentrate vast sums of cash, like 108 billion dollars, into the hands of two men.

I however think that that the founders did not intend for taxes to be a means for wealth distribution. Find another vehicle for your agenda, your social engineering is bankrupting this company. Taxes are for the purpose of funding the government, not playing your class envy war.

Actually..I know that for a fact.

Do share.

Read up on Madison, Jefferson, Sam Addams, Franklin and Paine. And although he wasn't a founder..read up on Locke too.

But it's also common sense. They didn't start a revolution to make a new Monarchy. They started a revolution to, in part, give the more common folk a shot at the brass ring.

 

[asterism]

Revenue goes up.

Enough to balance the budget? When?

It ain't going to happen over night..that's for sure.

But not facing it squarely on is ludicrous.

The government makes money by taxing (or charging) for it's services.

That's as simple a business model as I can think of.

And making up nutty budgets that do not reconcile this fact..and keep placing wealth into the hands of a few..will surely bankrupt the nation.

True.

So where shall we start? Placing wealth in the hands of a "few" or the services provided by the government?

 

[asterism]

Taxes, whether you realize it or not..is the Constitutional way the government raises revenue to pay it's debt.

Actually, I do realize that. It's a big part of my philosophical view that the current system of taxation isn't working.



I however think that that the founders did not intend for taxes to be a means for wealth distribution. Find another vehicle for your agenda, your social engineering is bankrupting this company. Taxes are for the purpose of funding the government, not playing your class envy war.

Actually..I know that for a fact.

Do share.

Read up on Madison, Jefferson, Sam Addams, Franklin and Paine. And although he wasn't a founder..read up on Locke too.

But it's also common sense. They didn't start a revolution to make a new Monarchy. They started a revolution to, in part, give the more common folk a shot at the brass ring.

Interesting you should say that.

I was common folk and I have had my shot at the brass ring. Higher taxes hurt that endeavor.

 

[Toronado3800]

Well the man will have my vote if he in general supports my view.

"Jerk up the tax rate, leave loopholes which encourage the type of investments from the top 1% which are good for America."

Same thing which encourages you and I to have a mortgage, have kids, pay for education.

 

[asterism]

Well the man will have my vote if he in general supports my view.

"Jerk up the tax rate, leave loopholes which encourage the type of investments from the top 1% which are good for America."

Same thing which encourages you and I to have a mortgage, have kids, pay for education.

But but what about those "green jobs?" GE paid no taxes and created or saved a bunch of jobs and are going to innovate the new green economy!

 

[Toronado3800]

Oh yeah, GE did not pay that much in taxes, did they. Anyone look into the paperwork? Besides the usual cynicism, what did they do right?

 

[FireFly]

Tax the people 100% so the Government Union Thugs can get their pensions. Democrats