Obama Peddles Myths About Taxes And The Rich

[expat_panama]

President Obama has been traveling the country selling what he calls a "balanced plan" to reduce the nation's gargantuan debt.

It would cut the debt a total of $4 trillion over 12 years, relying on tax hikes on the rich for $1 trillion of that. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., in contrast, would cut the debt by $4.4 trillion in 10 years without raising any taxes. Obama has described that plan as "radical."

But in making the case for tax hikes, Obama has made several claims that, while they may strike a chord with voters, perpetuate myths about taxes and the rich.

More at Investor's Business Daily, includes graphic:

 

[Avorysuds]

lol 4 trillion over 12 years, LOLz!

 

[edthecynic]

President Obama has been traveling the country selling what he calls a "balanced plan" to reduce the nation's gargantuan debt.

It would cut the debt a total of $4 trillion over 12 years, relying on tax hikes on the rich for $1 trillion of that. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., in contrast, would cut the debt by $4.4 trillion in 10 years without raising any taxes. Obama has described that plan as "radical."

But in making the case for tax hikes, Obama has made several claims that, while they may strike a chord with voters, perpetuate myths about taxes and the rich.

More at Investor's Business Daily, includes graphic:

This was my favorite lie from your radical extremist Right Wing site:

"The tax burden on the wealthy is at its lowest level in half a century." This suggests that the rich are paying less in taxes than they have at any time in the past 50 years. But this isn't quite accurate.

The liar starts with an extremely accurate stat quoted by Obama, then changes its meaning by saying it "suggests" something it doesn't suggest!!! This is a standard lying technique of CON$.

The quote is accurately pointing out the fact that the effective tax rate on the top one percent is DOWN from 50 years ago. Using the same range as the deliberately deceptive graph, in 1980 the effective income tax rate on the top 1% was 22.3% and in 2008 it was down to 19%. The reason the graph deceptively shows them paying more is because they had more income. Their income went up more than their rates went down.

To give you an idea just how F***ed up they are, their income went up and their tax rate on that increased income went down and they are still whining and crying that it is still not enough!!!!!
These people suffer from a sickness that can never be cured. No matter how much they have, they always will want MORE!!!!!!!!!!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTA0aelnyzw&feature=related]YouTube - The Rolling Stones - Satisfaction[/ame]

 

[digger]

The only reason that they're paying more income taxes is because they're raking in money hand over fist.

The rich are richer than they ever have been before. Reagan told us that they would trickle that wealth on down. But they haven't been. The last expansion (under Bush II) was the first expansion in US history in which the real income of the middle and lower classes declined. And then we hit the worst recession since the Great Depression.

In the 1920's, America's income inequality was at its second highest level ever. Second only to right now. Coincidence that the Great Depression followed? I think not.

Supply-side economics leaves out one big problem. Investors can't start businesses and create jobs if they have no customers. In order to have customers, you need to have poor and middle class people with money to spend. If you suck all the money out of the economy, and give it to the investment class, they'll have nothing to invest it in. In fact, they'll take the money off shore and invest it somewhere else.

The solution is clear. Soak the rich. Take the money that we gave them over the last 30 years. The money that they have failed to use to create jobs. Take it back.

 

[dean12]

obama is getting taxes and on its high rates.

 

[The Rabbi]

President Obama has been traveling the country selling what he calls a "balanced plan" to reduce the nation's gargantuan debt.

It would cut the debt a total of $4 trillion over 12 years, relying on tax hikes on the rich for $1 trillion of that. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., in contrast, would cut the debt by $4.4 trillion in 10 years without raising any taxes. Obama has described that plan as "radical."

But in making the case for tax hikes, Obama has made several claims that, while they may strike a chord with voters, perpetuate myths about taxes and the rich.

There is not enough wealth among the rich (whoever they are) to reduce the deficit. If we taxed the top 5% at 100% we still would be running a huge deficit. Also, Obama's plan envisions debt reduction in years 10 and 11. That isn't a serious proposal. It is even less serious than his proposed budget back in Feb.
Ryan has proposed the only serious plan. We know it's serious because the Dems have trotted out all the old chestnuts about grandma eating dog food etc. The louder they scream, the more they're stuck.

 

[digger]

You know it's right because the Democrats disagree with it? Wow. That's impressive reasoning.

 

[The Rabbi]

You know it's right because the Democrats disagree with it? Wow. That's impressive reasoning.

It's right because it's right. The Dums disagree with it because it's right.

 

[digger]

I wonder. When you watched that video, did you think that you came away with a deeper understanding of the issues at hand? I mean, he tossed so much information at you. That must increase your knowledge, right?

That video was the most misleading piece of crap I've seen in a while. A more realistic view of the budget would have put current government revenue up on the board. And not just income tax, but all of the regressive taxes that poor people pay more for too. Put all the government revenue up on the board, and then show the deficit. And then describe how various plans effect the deficit. For instance, show how Obama plans to cut spending by $3 T and raise taxes on the rich by $1 T, while Ryan wants to cut spending by $5 T and lower taxes on the rich by $1 T. It would probably make the most sense to expand Ryan's budget out to 12 years and compare it to Obama's plan on the same time frame, in order to get the clearest understanding possible of the differences.

Since the plans are at year 10 and year 12, and neither of them actually get rid of the deficit entirely ever, the model of examining what we would have to do to entirely balance the budget next year is just not relevant. All that video is describing is what happens if we tax the rich for everything they own all in one year. And I'm afraid that's not on the table. So this video doesn't really do anything to advance the discussion of the plans that are actually on the table.

I don't understand how Republicans can claim we're broke, but think we have enough money to give $1 T to the rich.

I really dislike that he called protesting a barrier to the working of government, rather than part of the bedrock of a democracy. When people disagree with others, sometimes they express the view that those people are somehow damaging the process of government by exercising their right to peaceful assembly. Very unamerican.

Walker, by the way, also cutting taxes on the wealthy. While claiming the state can't afford to honor its contracts.

 

[The Rabbi]

I wonder. When you watched that video, did you think that you came away with a deeper understanding of the issues at hand? I mean, he tossed so much information at you. That must increase your knowledge, right?

That video was the most misleading piece of crap I've seen in a while. A more realistic view of the budget would have put current government revenue up on the board. And not just income tax, but all of the regressive taxes that poor people pay more for too. Put all the government revenue up on the board, and then show the deficit. And then describe how various plans effect the deficit. For instance, show how Obama plans to cut spending by $3 T and raise taxes on the rich by $1 T, while Ryan wants to cut spending by $5 T and lower taxes on the rich by $1 T. It would probably make the most sense to expand Ryan's budget out to 12 years and compare it to Obama's plan on the same time frame, in order to get the clearest understanding possible of the differences.

Since the plans are at year 10 and year 12, and neither of them actually get rid of the deficit entirely ever, the model of examining what we would have to do to entirely balance the budget next year is just not relevant. All that video is describing is what happens if we tax the rich for everything they own all in one year. And I'm afraid that's not on the table. So this video doesn't really do anything to advance the discussion of the plans that are actually on the table.

I don't understand how Republicans can claim we're broke, but think we have enough money to give $1 T to the rich.

I really dislike that he called protesting a barrier to the working of government, rather than part of the bedrock of a democracy. When people disagree with others, sometimes they express the view that those people are somehow damaging the process of government by exercising their right to peaceful assembly. Very unamerican.

Walker, by the way, also cutting taxes on the wealthy. While claiming the state can't afford to honor its contracts.

The question is whether YOU came away with anything. I'd doubt it. You're probably sitting there thinking "does not compute, does not compute."
Why don't you do what you suggest, since that wasn't really the point of the video.

But let's ask the bonus question here: Do you think increasing taxes on the "rich" (whoever they are) will close the budget deficit? Yes or No.

 

[expat_panama]

The only reason that they're paying more income taxes is because they're raking in money hand over fist.

The rich are richer than they ever have been before... ...The solution is clear. Soak the rich...

On other threads push the president's story that the rich are not paying their fair share to justify raising tax rates on the rich. We agree that the rich are in fact paying most of the taxes and your conclusion is that they're paying more because they're making more which justifies raising tax rates on the rich. While I disagree with your conclusion I like your approach better than Obama's because it's based on reality.

So we're together with the fact that America needs tax revenue and the rich have the money. You want to punish the rich (I don't think creating wealth is bad but no matter) but I'd like to know which is more important to you, increasing revenue or punishing the rich?

 

[expat_panama]

...If we taxed the top 5% at 100% we still would be running a huge deficit...

Actually, if we raised the top rate to 100% the deficit would be bigger than 'huge' because nobody would bother earning enough to fall into the top rate.

 

[DaGoose]

I wonder. When you watched that video, did you think that you came away with a deeper understanding of the issues at hand? I mean, he tossed so much information at you. That must increase your knowledge, right?

That video was the most misleading piece of crap I've seen in a while. A more realistic view of the budget would have put current government revenue up on the board. And not just income tax, but all of the regressive taxes that poor people pay more for too. Put all the government revenue up on the board, and then show the deficit. And then describe how various plans effect the deficit. For instance, show how Obama plans to cut spending by $3 T and raise taxes on the rich by $1 T, while Ryan wants to cut spending by $5 T and lower taxes on the rich by $1 T. It would probably make the most sense to expand Ryan's budget out to 12 years and compare it to Obama's plan on the same time frame, in order to get the clearest understanding possible of the differences.

Since the plans are at year 10 and year 12, and neither of them actually get rid of the deficit entirely ever, the model of examining what we would have to do to entirely balance the budget next year is just not relevant. All that video is describing is what happens if we tax the rich for everything they own all in one year. And I'm afraid that's not on the table. So this video doesn't really do anything to advance the discussion of the plans that are actually on the table.

I don't understand how Republicans can claim we're broke, but think we have enough money to give $1 T to the rich.

I really dislike that he called protesting a barrier to the working of government, rather than part of the bedrock of a democracy. When people disagree with others, sometimes they express the view that those people are somehow damaging the process of government by exercising their right to peaceful assembly. Very unamerican.

Walker, by the way, also cutting taxes on the wealthy. While claiming the state can't afford to honor its contracts.

The question is whether YOU came away with anything. I'd doubt it. You're probably sitting there thinking "does not compute, does not compute."
Why don't you do what you suggest, since that wasn't really the point of the video.

But let's ask the bonus question here: Do you think increasing taxes on the "rich" (whoever they are) will close the budget deficit? Yes or No.

The only reason that they're paying more income taxes is because they're raking in money hand over fist.

The rich are richer than they ever have been before... ...The solution is clear. Soak the rich...

On other threads push the president's story that the rich are not paying their fair share to justify raising tax rates on the rich. We agree that the rich are in fact paying most of the taxes and your conclusion is that they're paying more because they're making more which justifies raising tax rates on the rich. While I disagree with your conclusion I like your approach better than Obama's because it's based on reality.

So we're together with the fact that America needs tax revenue and the rich have the money. You want to punish the rich (I don't think creating wealth is bad but no matter) but I'd like to know which is more important to you, increasing revenue or punishing the rich?

It's not "punishing the rich". That's nothing more than a GOP sound bite.

And raising taxes on the rich as a stand alone mmeasure will not close the deficit.

But what most Americans want, including me, is shared sacrifice.

Poll: Raise taxes on wealthy, leave Medicare, Medicaid alone - The Hill's On The Money

I'm willing to pay a little more in taxes and take a little less in Social Security. But it isn't fair that the wealthy get to set back and pull the strings on their puppets saying "don't punish us". Warren Buffet would even agree that the wealthy do NOT pay their fair share.

.

 

[editec]

The liar starts with an extremely accurate stat quoted by Obama, then changes its meaning by saying it "suggests" something it doesn't suggest!!! This is a standard lying technique of CON$.

Yup.

It's one of the standard methods of propagandists.

Basically it counts on the gullibility of the target audience to accept a title and not notice that the conclusion of the author (which is the title of their post or article) is not supported by the evidence in the article itself.

For example in this thread, where is the myth?

That the uberrich are now paying a lower rate of taxes than in the past?

That fact is plain as day.

To characterize that fact as a myth?

One would have to NOT KNOW about Bush II's tax cuts, and really not know what the historical rate of taxation has been over the last 50 years.

But propagandists do tend to count on people either not knowing their history, that has always been true.

 

[The Rabbi]

I wonder. When you watched that video, did you think that you came away with a deeper understanding of the issues at hand? I mean, he tossed so much information at you. That must increase your knowledge, right?

That video was the most misleading piece of crap I've seen in a while. A more realistic view of the budget would have put current government revenue up on the board. And not just income tax, but all of the regressive taxes that poor people pay more for too. Put all the government revenue up on the board, and then show the deficit. And then describe how various plans effect the deficit. For instance, show how Obama plans to cut spending by $3 T and raise taxes on the rich by $1 T, while Ryan wants to cut spending by $5 T and lower taxes on the rich by $1 T. It would probably make the most sense to expand Ryan's budget out to 12 years and compare it to Obama's plan on the same time frame, in order to get the clearest understanding possible of the differences.

Since the plans are at year 10 and year 12, and neither of them actually get rid of the deficit entirely ever, the model of examining what we would have to do to entirely balance the budget next year is just not relevant. All that video is describing is what happens if we tax the rich for everything they own all in one year. And I'm afraid that's not on the table. So this video doesn't really do anything to advance the discussion of the plans that are actually on the table.

I don't understand how Republicans can claim we're broke, but think we have enough money to give $1 T to the rich.

I really dislike that he called protesting a barrier to the working of government, rather than part of the bedrock of a democracy. When people disagree with others, sometimes they express the view that those people are somehow damaging the process of government by exercising their right to peaceful assembly. Very unamerican.

Walker, by the way, also cutting taxes on the wealthy. While claiming the state can't afford to honor its contracts.

The question is whether YOU came away with anything. I'd doubt it. You're probably sitting there thinking "does not compute, does not compute."
Why don't you do what you suggest, since that wasn't really the point of the video.

But let's ask the bonus question here: Do you think increasing taxes on the "rich" (whoever they are) will close the budget deficit? Yes or No.

The only reason that they're paying more income taxes is because they're raking in money hand over fist.

The rich are richer than they ever have been before... ...The solution is clear. Soak the rich...

On other threads push the president's story that the rich are not paying their fair share to justify raising tax rates on the rich. We agree that the rich are in fact paying most of the taxes and your conclusion is that they're paying more because they're making more which justifies raising tax rates on the rich. While I disagree with your conclusion I like your approach better than Obama's because it's based on reality.

So we're together with the fact that America needs tax revenue and the rich have the money. You want to punish the rich (I don't think creating wealth is bad but no matter) but I'd like to know which is more important to you, increasing revenue or punishing the rich?

It's not "punishing the rich". That's nothing more than a GOP sound bite.

And raising taxes on the rich as a stand alone mmeasure will not close the deficit.

But what most Americans want, including me, is shared sacrifice.

Poll: Raise taxes on wealthy, leave Medicare, Medicaid alone - The Hill's On The Money

I'm willing to pay a little more in taxes and take a little less in Social Security. But it isn't fair that the wealthy get to set back and pull the strings on their puppets saying "don't punish us". Warren Buffet would even agree that the wealthy do NOT pay their fair share.

.

What you want isn't an option. Yeah, I'd like to sprinkle fairy dust and have the problem disappear too. But raising taxes on someone else while I take $5 less in benefits won't work.
Warren Buffet is the most socialist guy out there when it comes to politics. He has consistently been for higher taxes on high earners. Because he doesn't care.

 

[edthecynic]

President Obama has been traveling the country selling what he calls a "balanced plan" to reduce the nation's gargantuan debt.

It would cut the debt a total of $4 trillion over 12 years, relying on tax hikes on the rich for $1 trillion of that. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., in contrast, would cut the debt by $4.4 trillion in 10 years without raising any taxes. Obama has described that plan as "radical."

But in making the case for tax hikes, Obama has made several claims that, while they may strike a chord with voters, perpetuate myths about taxes and the rich.

There is not enough wealth among the rich (whoever they are) to reduce the deficit. If we taxed the top 5% at 100% we still would be running a huge deficit. Also, Obama's plan envisions debt reduction in years 10 and 11. That isn't a serious proposal. It is even less serious than his proposed budget back in Feb.
Ryan has proposed the only serious plan. We know it's serious because the Dems have trotted out all the old chestnuts about grandma eating dog food etc. The louder they scream, the more they're stuck.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ]YouTube - EAT THE RICH![/ame]

First you bring up WEALTH and DEFICIT, and to back your phony claim up you post Slick Willie Whittless' video which talks only about wage income not wealth and financing the entire budget not the deficit.

Most of the wealth of the truly wealthy goes untaxed in the form of capital assets. Capital assets grow in value untaxed, like an unlimited IRA with no penalty for early withdrawal. When these untaxed assets are finally sold, the increase in value accrued is taxed at a lower rate than wages.

Again these tax advantages of the economic ELITE are not nearly enough to satisfy their pure greed!!!!! Lyin' Ryan's plan to destroy the middle class and elderly in America cuts their reduced tax rate to ZERO.

The top 1% alone have about $20 trillion in wealth and the top 5% have about $35 trillion in wealth, so this crap about taxing their wealth at 100% won't cover the deficit is total bullshit.

 

[The Rabbi]

There is not enough wealth among the rich (whoever they are) to reduce the deficit. If we taxed the top 5% at 100% we still would be running a huge deficit. Also, Obama's plan envisions debt reduction in years 10 and 11. That isn't a serious proposal. It is even less serious than his proposed budget back in Feb.
Ryan has proposed the only serious plan. We know it's serious because the Dems have trotted out all the old chestnuts about grandma eating dog food etc. The louder they scream, the more they're stuck.
/quote]
First you bring up WEALTH and DEFICIT, and to back your phony claim up you post Slick Willie Whittless' video which talks only about wage income not wealth and financing the entire budget not the deficit.

Most of the wealth of the truly wealthy goes untaxed in the form of capital assets. Capital assets grow in value untaxed, like an unlimited IRA with no penalty for early withdrawal. When these untaxed assets are finally sold, the increase in value accrued is taxed at a lower rate than wages.

Again these tax advantages of the economic ELITE are not nearly enough to satisfy their pure greed!!!!! Lyin' Ryan's plan to destroy the middle class and elderly in America cuts their reduced tax rate to ZERO.

The top 1% alone have about $20 trillion in wealth and the top 5% have about $35 trillion in wealth, so this crap about taxing their wealth at 100% won't cover the deficit is total bullshit.

So let me understand this: You want the gov't to start taxing income that hasn't been produced yet, right?
This is brilliant! Let's levy a tax on wages we think people might get in the future. Boss promised you a raise next year? Get out the checkbook 'cause Uncle wants some. Doesn't matter it hasnt come through yet and might not. It's out there, so the gov't wants its share.

Did you actually graduate from kindergarten?

Oh, and btw, when BUsh lowered the tax rate on dividends and cap gains those taxes produced more revenue for the gov't, not less. Even Obama had to admit that one.

 

[edthecynic]

There is not enough wealth among the rich (whoever they are) to reduce the deficit. If we taxed the top 5% at 100% we still would be running a huge deficit. Also, Obama's plan envisions debt reduction in years 10 and 11. That isn't a serious proposal. It is even less serious than his proposed budget back in Feb.
Ryan has proposed the only serious plan. We know it's serious because the Dems have trotted out all the old chestnuts about grandma eating dog food etc. The louder they scream, the more they're stuck.

First you bring up WEALTH and DEFICIT, and to back your phony claim up you post Slick Willie Whittless' video which talks only about wage income not wealth and financing the entire budget not the deficit.

Most of the wealth of the truly wealthy goes untaxed in the form of capital assets. Capital assets grow in value untaxed, like an unlimited IRA with no penalty for early withdrawal. When these untaxed assets are finally sold, the increase in value accrued is taxed at a lower rate than wages.

Again these tax advantages of the economic ELITE are not nearly enough to satisfy their pure greed!!!!! Lyin' Ryan's plan to destroy the middle class and elderly in America cuts their reduced tax rate to ZERO.

The top 1% alone have about $20 trillion in wealth and the top 5% have about $35 trillion in wealth, so this crap about taxing their wealth at 100% won't cover the deficit is total bullshit.

So let me understand this: You want the gov't to start taxing income that hasn't been produced yet, right?
This is brilliant! Let's levy a tax on wages we think people might get in the future. Boss promised you a raise next year? Get out the checkbook 'cause Uncle wants some. Doesn't matter it hasnt come through yet and might not. It's out there, so the gov't wants its share.

Did you actually graduate from kindergarten?

Oh, and btw, when BUsh lowered the tax rate on dividends and cap gains those taxes produced more revenue for the gov't, not less. Even Obama had to admit that one.

Well there you go again, using the same Straw Man Fallacy I exposed the author linked to in the OP and for some reason your ego has convinced you that you are so much better a deceiver than him that I won't catch you doing the same thing.

And what happened when Bush cut the cap gains tax rate is the wealthy dumped their capital assets like real estate, flooding the market and crashing the market. Cutting cap gains taxes always give you a boom followed by a bust.

 

[expat_panama]

...It's not "punishing the rich"...

Sure it is. Digger was storming the Bastille all over again when he said--

... Soak the rich. Take the money that we gave them over the last 30 years. The money that they have failed to use to create jobs. Take it back.

--and a worker's paradise for all!

...I'm willing to pay a little more in taxes and take a little less in Social Security. But it isn't fair that the wealthy get to set back...

If you see the federal treasury as a deserving charity then go ahead and donate all you want (more info here), and if you're asking me for donations I can tell you about a few other charities I prefer. You're not. You want to take my money by force and donate it to your charity and if I object you say "it isn't fair". You're in poor company as it's kid's that say "not fair!!" while adults talk about the need for the state to endure and that we must have justice and rule of law.

So what we need is more tax revenue. When tax rates were higher revenue fell --bad choice. The last time we lowered rates revenue increased. Makes sense to do it again.

 

[editec]

The number one lie of the RIGHT is that the rich pay the majority of taxes that keeps this nation going.

No they do not.

The vast majority of taxes that are paid in this antion are in the form of sales taxes, and real estate taxes.

And the wealthy do not pay the majority of those.

So the middle class is actually paying for most of what this nation needs to keep things going.

The rich pay a higher percentage of the FEDERAL taxes which mostly goes to making them RICH to begin with.