Obama Administration targets the middle class while pretending to tax only the rich.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 20, 2011 6:13 AM GMT
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704621304576267113524583554.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

    A dominant theme of President Obama's budget speech last Wednesday was that our fiscal problems would vanish if only the wealthiest Americans were asked "to pay a little more." Since he's asking, imagine that instead of proposing to raise the top income tax rate well north of 40%, the President decided to go all the way to 100%.

    Let's stipulate that this is a thought experiment, because Democrats don't need any more ideas. But it's still a useful experiment because it exposes the fiscal futility of raising rates on the top 2%, or even the top 5% or 10%, of taxpayers to close the deficit. The mathematical reality is that in the absence of entitlement reform on the Paul Ryan model, Washington will need to soak the middle class—because that's where the big money is.

    ***
    Consider the Internal Revenue Service's income tax statistics for 2008, the latest year for which data are available. The top 1% of taxpayers—those with salaries, dividends and capital gains roughly above about $380,000—paid 38% of taxes. But assume that tax policy confiscated all the taxable income of all the "millionaires and billionaires" Mr. Obama singled out. That yields merely about $938 billion, which is sand on the beach amid the $4 trillion White House budget, a $1.65 trillion deficit, and spending at 25% as a share of the economy, a post-World War II record.

    Say we take it up to the top 10%, or everyone with income over $114,000, including joint filers. That's five times Mr. Obama's 2% promise. The IRS data are broken down at $100,000, yet taxing all income above that level throws up only $3.4 trillion. And remember, the top 10% already pay 69% of all total income taxes, while the top 5% pay more than all of the other 95%.

    We recognize that 2008 was a bad year for the economy and thus for tax receipts, as payments by the rich fell along with their income. So let's perform the same exercise in 2005, a boom year and among the best ever for federal revenue. (Ahem, 2005 comes after the Bush tax cuts that Mr. Obama holds responsible for all the world's problems.)

    In 2005 the top 5% earned over $145,000. If you took all the income of people over $200,000, it would yield about $1.89 trillion, enough revenue to cover the 2012 bill for Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security—but not the same bill in 2016, as the costs of those entitlements are expected to grow rapidly. The rich, in short, aren't nearly rich enough to finance Mr. Obama's entitlement state ambitions—even before his health-care plan kicks in.

    So who else is there to tax? Well, in 2008, there was about $5.65 trillion in total taxable income from all individual taxpayers, and most of that came from middle income earners. The nearby chart shows the distribution, and the big hump in the center is where Democrats are inevitably headed for the same reason that Willie Sutton robbed banks.


    ED-AN418_1taxes_G_20110417172403.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 20, 2011 10:29 AM GMT
    You can always rely on the WSJ op-ed page to be completely divorced from reality. icon_lol.gif
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Apr 20, 2011 11:07 AM GMT
    HI -Larious

    First W goes on a Let's destroy Social Security Tour during his Presidency and America rightly says? >>>>>>>>>>> NO F**CKIN WAY!!!

    Then the surrogate for the republican party ... the Teabag Group
    Start yellin at TownHall Meetings ....... DON'T TOUCH MY MEDICARE
    and what does the republican party do ?
    They Touch your Medicare
    See Ryan Plan

    Republican party says we're in deep shit Financially .... and maybe we are
    But the first thing they do when they get into power is strong arm the rest of the government
    .................. TO NOT REPEAL THE BUSH TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHY
    Which btw would OBLITERATE more than one third of all the debt we have right now
    But we still need to defund the EPA and NHI ... because there's SO MUCH money there icon_rolleyes.gif

    ...... and NOW Obama FINALLY puts the republican's back against the wall and we're getting
    More Birther and Death panel type crap

    ThePR Team is pulling Traffic Controller shifts over at FOX EH Rid ?icon_cool.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 20, 2011 11:35 AM GMT
    Riddler, good data from the IRS and an excellent article. In addition to sharing this with moderates, probably the other thing is they will see how irrelevant the ramblings from the far left really are.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 20, 2011 1:34 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidI've been saying this all along. Even if you taxed "the rich" at 100%, and taxed "the evil corporations" at 100% of their profits, it STILL wouldn't be enough to satisfy this Federal government's insatiable spending binge.


    Right. Which is why every reasonable adult is saying we have to raise taxes AND cut spending. icon_rolleyes.gif

    This entire "editorial" is arguing against a hypothesis that doesn't exist.
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Apr 20, 2011 2:32 PM GMT
    "you can prove anything with statistics"---Homer J. Simpson
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Apr 20, 2011 2:48 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidI've been saying this all along. Even if you taxed "the rich" at 100%, and taxed "the evil corporations" at 100% of their profits, it STILL wouldn't be enough to satisfy this Federal government's insatiable spending binge.



    southbeach jane, WHY weren't you complaining when the former temporary occupant of 1600 penn ave, namely george bush, was increasing federal spending year after year, and starting foregin wars without creating any way to pay for said wars?


    icon_confused.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 20, 2011 3:13 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    southbeach1500 saidI've been saying this all along. Even if you taxed "the rich" at 100%, and taxed "the evil corporations" at 100% of their profits, it STILL wouldn't be enough to satisfy this Federal government's insatiable spending binge.


    Right. Which is why every reasonable adult is saying we have to raise taxes AND cut spending. icon_rolleyes.gif

    This entire "editorial" is arguing against a hypothesis that doesn't exist.


    Those are words though. When it comes down to it, people aren't willing to part with their benefits or programs.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 20, 2011 3:29 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    Christian73 said
    southbeach1500 saidI've been saying this all along. Even if you taxed "the rich" at 100%, and taxed "the evil corporations" at 100% of their profits, it STILL wouldn't be enough to satisfy this Federal government's insatiable spending binge.


    Right. Which is why every reasonable adult is saying we have to raise taxes AND cut spending. icon_rolleyes.gif

    This entire "editorial" is arguing against a hypothesis that doesn't exist.


    Those are words though. When it comes down to it, people aren't willing to part with their benefits or programs.


    And the rich aren't willing to pay a fair income tax.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 20, 2011 3:47 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    mocktwinkie said
    Christian73 said
    southbeach1500 saidI've been saying this all along. Even if you taxed "the rich" at 100%, and taxed "the evil corporations" at 100% of their profits, it STILL wouldn't be enough to satisfy this Federal government's insatiable spending binge.


    Right. Which is why every reasonable adult is saying we have to raise taxes AND cut spending. icon_rolleyes.gif

    This entire "editorial" is arguing against a hypothesis that doesn't exist.


    Those are words though. When it comes down to it, people aren't willing to part with their benefits or programs.


    And the rich aren't willing to pay a fair income tax.


    American Billionaires are allying to give away half of their fortunes and yet they "aren't willing"? They don't need to give away anything and yet they are. I think it's fantastic.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 20, 2011 3:51 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    Christian73 said
    mocktwinkie said
    Christian73 said
    southbeach1500 saidI've been saying this all along. Even if you taxed "the rich" at 100%, and taxed "the evil corporations" at 100% of their profits, it STILL wouldn't be enough to satisfy this Federal government's insatiable spending binge.


    Right. Which is why every reasonable adult is saying we have to raise taxes AND cut spending. icon_rolleyes.gif

    This entire "editorial" is arguing against a hypothesis that doesn't exist.


    Those are words though. When it comes down to it, people aren't willing to part with their benefits or programs.


    And the rich aren't willing to pay a fair income tax.


    American Billionaires are allying to give away half of their fortunes and yet they "aren't willing"? They don't need to give away anything and yet they are. I think it's fantastic.


    Are you talking about the Giving Pledge?

    That's a completely separate issue.
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Apr 20, 2011 3:53 PM GMT
    a "Flat Tax" rate, with few exemptions (except for the very poor); would end all of this stupidity expressed on this threa


    icon_idea.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 20, 2011 4:17 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    And the rich aren't willing to pay a fair income tax.


    "The rich" (those earning more than $200,000 per year) actually pay federal income taxes whereas 50% of households pay no Federal income taxes.

    Only in the screwed up mind of liberals does this make sense:

    50% of population pays no income tax = Their fair share.

    The other 50% of population pays income tax = Not paying their fair share.

    Top 10% pays 70% of income tax = Not paying their fair share.


    Stop with this "the rich need to pay their fair share" stuff and instead tell the truth - the rich have "too much money" and it needs to be taken away from them to be used to pay for Federal government programs for those that pay nothing in Federal income taxes.


    Incorrect.
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Apr 20, 2011 4:25 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    And the rich aren't willing to pay a fair income tax.


    "The rich" (those earning more than $200,000 per year) actually pay federal income taxes whereas 50% of households pay no Federal income taxes.

    Only in the screwed up mind of liberals does this make sense:

    50% of population pays no income tax = Their fair share.

    The other 50% of population pays income tax = Not paying their fair share.

    Top 10% pays 70% of income tax = Not paying their fair share.


    Stop with this "the rich need to pay their fair share" stuff and instead tell the truth - the rich have "too much money" and it needs to be taken away from them to be used to pay for Federal government programs for those that pay nothing in Federal income taxes.



    who/what/where is you source of these percentages?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 20, 2011 7:42 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    And the rich aren't willing to pay a fair income tax.


    "The rich" (those earning more than $200,000 per year) actually pay federal income taxes whereas 50% of households pay no Federal income taxes.

    Only in the screwed up mind of liberals does this make sense:

    50% of population pays no income tax = Their fair share.

    The other 50% of population pays income tax = Not paying their fair share.

    Top 10% pays 70% of income tax = Not paying their fair share.


    Stop with this "the rich need to pay their fair share" stuff and instead tell the truth - the rich have "too much money" and it needs to be taken away from them to be used to pay for Federal government programs for those that pay nothing in Federal income taxes.




    The rich have gotten richer while average Americans have been getting the shaft under the Bush/Repub tax cuts.
    Here is the truth about how the super rich aren't paying their fair share.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110418/ts_yblog_thelookout/tax-day-not-too-taxing-for-super-rich-charts-suggest

    It's very revealing that this proof of how the rich have been profiting while the rest of us have been getting shafted, also shows that this Republican wealth redistribution has been going on for the last 30 years - which is exactly how long the Repub trickle down economics swindle has been going on.

    It's also very revealing that riddler titles his many many threads with deliberately deceptive titles.
    His intent to brainwash readers into agreeing with his pro-right-wing views is blatantly obvious.
    The fact is that the tax rates that are currently in place - are still the BUSH tax rates.
    President Obama hasn't been able to implement the pro-middle class tax rates he advocates yet.

    It's absolutely unbelievable the extent to which the Repubs have tried to blame Obama for shit that BUSH is responsible for.
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Apr 20, 2011 8:32 PM GMT
    Here's just one example:

    General Electric, one of America's largest corporations, paid NO TAXES at all in 2010, despite global pre-tax income of more than $14 BILLION.

    A full $5.1 billion of that was earned in the United States. This is the second year in a row they've managed to completely avoid taxes.

    But get this, not only did GE pay absolutely no taxes in 2010 or 2009, but they actually pocketed more than $3 billion in government tax credits. Yes, the government paid GE.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 20, 2011 10:34 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    rickrick91 said
    The rich have gotten richer while average Americans have been getting the shaft under the Bush/Repub tax cuts.
    Here is the truth about how the super rich aren't paying their fair share.


    Yep. 50% of the households continue to pay zero in Federal income taxes, while the top 10% which already pays 70% of Federal income taxes needs to pay even more Federal income taxes and then that will be "their fair share."

    Why are all you liberals so afraid to just come out and say it: The "rich" have too much money for your liking and you want the government to take more of it away from them to use it for government programs?

    This thing about "the rich not paying their fair share" is liberal lunacy. icon_lol.gif


    It's not about "our liking". Rather, the tax code has been rigged to reward short-term financial speculation and lots of other unproductive facts of predatory captalism.

    Also, the current wealth and income disparities are economically and politically destabilizing.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Apr 20, 2011 10:44 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 saidthe tax code has been rigged...


    ... to allow for half the households to pay absolutely zero in Federal income taxes.



    Christian73 said
    Also, the current wealth and income disparities are economically and politically destabilizing...


    ... to a society based on socialism.




    LOL ... to a society based on SOCIALISM?????

    We've lived with a progressive tax rate for a century or more
    These tax cuts are GOING TO EXPIRE ....... unless congress does something
    Were we socialists before? in the 90's/
    were we socialists under Bush I
    and under Ronnie when the tax rates were much higher on the wealthy?///
    I never knew Reagan had so much in common with Nikita Kruschev icon_cool.gif
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Apr 20, 2011 11:29 PM GMT
    In our society, disparities in wealth are not politically and economically destabilizing.

    Really??

    Name me one "society" where it's not
    Remember the turn of the century when we had a similar "disparity"?
    When we had the JP Morgans and the Vanderbilts where politics were money deals and it took a Roosevelt to put a stop to it ?

    Not THAT Roosevelt icon_cool.gif

    The Mustachioed Roosevelt

    Wealth Disparity is the very DEFINITION of destabilization
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 20, 2011 11:34 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidIn our society, disparities in wealth are not politically and economically destabilizing.

    In the utopia that is socialism, disparities in wealth are not very helpful in keeping the socialists ideal society going.


    You're so ill-informed about basic history and politics, I can't understand why you post so much on a "News & Politics" board. icon_lol.gif

    Please take a look throughout history and see what most revolutions have in common. I'll give you a hint - it's not religion.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 20, 2011 11:41 PM GMT
    Whats funny to me about the republicans pushing policies to continue the redistribution of wealth up to the rich, is that according to statistics they and the Corps are just hoarding money rather than putting it into development and hiring.

    Supposedly some 2 trillion according to the Obama administration is sitting not being circulated or spent on development and the masses have no cash to spend, because of those same republican policies that brought us to this financial recession. Its simple math, if policies redistribute money to the wealthy top 10% or less, and if the republicans get their wish to cut even more from the masses through cuts in their safety nets, then where is the spending going to come from to increase orders for goods and services?

    There are very few stupid wealthy individuals or Corps. who will be investing in development, expansions or hiring without increased orders for goods and services. But even so the repubs are still trying to put the cart before the horse, the horse being spending for goods and services which pulls along the economy moving it by spending, then comes the cart,

    Again, if the masses are sqeezed by policies to the point that they have no spendable discressionary cash, there will not be increases in orders for goods and services, so the wealthy will not be expanding their businesses or hiring to make more goods nor provide more services. Is that really so hard to understand ?

    This WSJ article should be held as suspect because its just another arm of the FOX unfair and unbalanced far right leaning mouthpieces.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 20, 2011 11:42 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    GQjock said
    Wealth Disparity is the very DEFINITION of destabilization


    Nope. Not in the USA.


    Just because you say things doesn't make them true.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Apr 21, 2011 12:02 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    GQjock said
    Wealth Disparity is the very DEFINITION of destabilization


    Nope. Not in the USA.


    Gee coulda fooled me
    I thought we weren't doin too hot

    Every oligarchy
    Every Greedy little monarchy there ever was
    Every strong man regime where the wealth was tipped vastly toward the top
    Becomes destabilized

    idn't they teach you that in Poly Sci ? Oops ... that's right I take that back icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 21, 2011 12:13 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    rickrick91 said
    The rich have gotten richer while average Americans have been getting the shaft under the Bush/Repub tax cuts.
    Here is the truth about how the super rich aren't paying their fair share.


    Yep. 50% of the households continue to pay zero in Federal income taxes, while the top 10% which already pays 70% of Federal income taxes needs to pay even more Federal income taxes and then that will be "their fair share."

    Why are all you liberals so afraid to just come out and say it: The "rich" have too much money for your liking and you want the government to take more of it away from them to use it for government programs?

    This thing about "the rich not paying their fair share" is liberal lunacy. icon_lol.gif




    I want the government to take more of the wealthy's money TO PAY OFF THE NATIONAL DEBT THAT THE REPUBS BLEW UP WITH THE LAST 30 YEARS OF TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH/TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMICS.

    Republican trickle down economics = right-wing lunacy.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 21, 2011 12:22 AM GMT

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/how-the-wall-street-journ_b_851285.html

    How the Wall Street Journal Distorts the Truth About Taxes

    The Wall Street Journal is the leading mouthpiece for cutting taxes for the rich. The Journal editorial board is fully in the service of that cause. An editorial at the start of this week ("Where the Tax Money Is," April 18, 2011) is a vivid case in point. The Journal claims that IRS data prove the "fiscal futility of raising rates on the top 2%, or even the top 5% or 10% of taxpayers to close the deficit." The IRS data in fact prove exactly the opposite of what the Journal claims.