-
Time to Go for the Kill
May 22, 2013 | 65 comments
-
Obamacare Implodes
May 15, 2013 | 41 comments
-
Obama’s Rising Inequality
May 8, 2013 | 101 comments
-
Downsize the Liberals
May 1, 2013 | 53 comments
-
Fight Back! Privatize the FAA!
April 24, 2013 | 65 comments
The Obama Watch
The December Surprise
Obama will never deliver on the middle-class tax cuts he promised. Get used to it.
Remember this?
“I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”
That was the central pledge on which Barack Obama was elected President. He pledged to extend the Bush tax cuts for everyone making less than $250,000 per year, but to let them expire and raise tax rates for “the rich,” which he defined as those making more than $250,000 per year.
President Obama and the Democrats have had two years to make good on this pledge. And now they have failed. Last week, House and Senate Democrats decided not to hold a vote on extending the Bush tax cuts before the election in November. As a result, a tax increase of $4 trillion is now scheduled to go into effect on January 1, the largest tax increase in world history. And most of that is on the middle class and lower income workers.
The bottom tax rate of 10% would increase by 50% to 15%. The other tax brackets would rise by similar amounts as well. The child tax credit would shrink by one-half. The marriage penalty, taxing a couple more than if they had remained single, would go back into effect. For a family of four earning $50,000 in income, the income tax burden would rise by nearly $3,000 in 2011 alone, according to a study by the tax accounting firm Deloitte Tax LLP. For a small business owner earning $100,000 a year, the income tax burden would rise by $4,500 per year.
This is apart from all the further taxes in Obamacare, and the other tax increases the Democrats have adopted over the past two years. The Alternative Minimum Tax will also apply to another 25 million middle class taxpayers next year, further increasing their tax rates.
In his weekly radio address last Saturday, President Obama continued his deceptive rhetoric to mislead voters about all of this, saying, “Instead of cutting taxes for the wealthiest few — tax breaks we cannot afford — I’ve called for tax cuts for middle class families.” But if Bush and the Republicans cut taxes only for the wealthiest few, then why is the expiration of their cuts raising taxes on the middle class and even more modest income earners, as just shown above? And while President Obama did indeed “call for tax cuts for middle class families,” that is how he got elected in fact, it was Bush and the Republicans who actually did cut taxes for middle class families, while Obama and the Democrats have failed to make good on even continuing those tax cuts.
Not to worry, the Democrats say, they will come back and extend the Bush tax cuts for the middle class in the lame duck session after the election. But why after the election? If they have not done it in the last two years, why can they be trusted to do it if the voters give them another two years? Has this Pelosi/Reid crew of surly pirates proved worthy of such trust? After they are reelected, if they don’t make good on their promise in December, you will be stuck with them and the thorough socialist nostrums of today’s Democrat Party for the next two years.
Or is the real desire of the Democrats to forget about those Bush tax cuts altogether, because they want the money for even more government spending to buy even more votes for their Big Government political machine? As the Wall Street Journal explained on Monday:
Keep in mind that this is the not-so-secret desire of many on the left who think the country ‘can’t afford’ to let Americans keep so much of their own money. Peter Orszag has already admitted this since leaving his post as White House budget director. What these Democrats really mean is that they think the only way to pay for their spending plans is by soaking the middle class — because that is where the real money is.
The December Surprise
President Obama himself gave a veiled indication Monday that the Democrats may, in fact, be planning a “December surprise” for voters, after the election. In denouncing the Republicans’ Pledge to America, discussed further below, President Obama said, “They propose $4 trillion worth of tax cuts and $16 billion in spending cuts. And then they say we’re going to somehow magically balance the budget. That’s not a serious approach.”
That $4 trillion in tax cuts mostly includes the middle class provisions Obama has pledged to extend. The tax increases on the rich (those greedy overachievers earning over $250,000 a year with their excessive work habits) are estimated by the government itself to raise only $700 billion.
What Obama is suggesting here is that extending the middle class tax cuts needs to be offset in some way. In other words, allowing the middle class to keep trillions of its own money needs to be “paid for.” And don’t think that after a lifetime of extreme neo-socialism President Obama is talking about trillions in spending cuts. (You need the Tea Party for that).
What is scheduled for December 1 is the report of President Obama’s Debt Commission. After that, as well as after the election, is when Democrats now propose to take their vote on making good on their campaign pledge to the middle class. The December surprise will be to propose an offsetting tax increase on the middle class to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, such as a Value Added Tax (VAT), which House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other top Democrats have already endorsed. That, the Democrats will say, is the serious, responsible approach, relying on the report of the Debt Commission to back them up.
About the Author
Peter Ferrara is Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy at the Heartland Institute, General Counsel of the American Civil Rights Union, Senior Fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, and Senior Policy Advisor on Entitlements and Budget Policy at the National Tax Limitation Foundation. He served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan, and as Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States under President George H.W. Bush.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (149) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Peter Ferrara
More Articles From The Obama Watch
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/09/29/the-december-surprise
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Darin| 9.29.10 @ 7:10AM
Anyone paying attention knew when he said it it wasn't true. The lie was exposed some time ago. Remember the tax increases on cigarettes? There are lots of people making less than $250K/year who smoke.
It's not and never has been about taxes. It's about control. The firm belief by liberals that we are too stupid to run our own lives and thus must be controlled "for our own good." Everything liberals do reeks of an air of superiority. Personally I think it's a foul stench.
vtwin| 9.29.10 @ 8:06AM
The “foul stench” is Mitch McConnell who said through a spokesman that “every Senate Republican has pledged to oppose [filibuster] President Barack Obama's tax-cutting plan” which would lower income taxes for ALL American tax payers on the first $250,000 of income.
its called a mandate| 9.29.10 @ 8:35AM
and no its not a night on the town in frisco....
the republicans will have a mandate to stop every single thing the kook democrats try to do after november first...and start undoing everything else on january one....
34 days till we kick you in the balls [if you have any]
Monkey Wretch| 9.29.10 @ 9:02AM
But don't we need to raise taxes?
If we let Bush cuts expire and impose a VAT, then maybe we could keep our government spending up (provided the Chinese keep lending us money).
vtwin| 9.29.10 @ 12:15PM
Yes, I agree we need to raise taxes to deal with the national debt, the results of the thirty-year failure called supply-side economics. But I would suggest a progressive tax on the assets of wealthy individuals -cash, stocks, bonds, real estate, precious metal- over a VAT tax. This I think would not only benefit the nation by lowering the crippling national debt but would also address growing income inequity problem.
joli| 9.29.10 @ 2:12PM
Growing income inequity problem? Are you serious? Income inequity between whom-- Those who work and those who don't work? Or those who work and those who work for the government?
vtwin| 9.29.10 @ 3:09PM
The income inequality in the United States or don’t you read anything other than TAS?
http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-UStopincomes-2008.pdf
Doorgunner| 9.29.10 @ 3:31PM
I'll say it again...
Every assertion you've ever made here -as pertains to individual incomes and the economy as a whole- is easily refuted by a quick perusal of stats at the Bureau of Economic Analysis' website.
Every. Single. Assertion.
You're either a shameless liar or the dumbest sonofabitch to compose a sentence.
Anthony| 9.29.10 @ 3:51PM
Careful Doorgunner, or you'll get Vtwin, our one tough dude of a Frisco Hell's Angel mad at you. You don't want that because Vtwin and the boys will mount their mall scooters and come looking for you. They'll find your body not outside a bar, but inside a bath house.
Vtwin has changed the image of Hell's Angels considerably, I never knew they rode mall scooters rather than Harleys and went around using phrases like "income inequity problem". This must be a kinder and gentler Hell's Angels we're dealing with here.
My how times have changed.
TR| 9.29.10 @ 5:29PM
You destroy your own vacant thoughts when you refer us to a Berkely site. Yeah, Berkely will be balanced. Income inequality? What kind of idiot are you ?? Don't answer that , we all see it plain as day. An idiot first class.
So, I am left to conclude that you believe that a street sweeper should have an income equal to a nuclear physicist. Income equality.
Why do you even post your drivel day after day, putting yourself up to public ridicule over your simplistic and transparently failed marxist repetition? You exemplify the brain damaged mind of the left in this nation. Go ride your bicycle, chasing the motorcycle riders around San Fransisco. Let us know when one of them hears your bell ringing. Moron.
sandy m| 9.30.10 @ 12:53AM
This troll is all over the comment boards spreading the Obama doctrine. I've seen him everywhere......always the same tripe. Ignore him and maybe he will move on. ...just another paid "pubic servant"...er...I mean "public"
Warrior | 9.29.10 @ 2:30PM
vtwin, you truly are a jackass. Taxes do not need to be raised, spending needs to be reduced. There is no such thing as an "income equity problem." Take your sorry ass out an apply yourself instead of sitting your parents basement in your soiled undergarments posting on this blog. If lazy individuals like you would simply spend as much time learning a trade, investing in a business, or working to gain knowledge and experience which can be applied to make the individual more valuable to the employer, it would change your position to keeping the governments hands off of your earned income. May I suggest to you euthanasia so you won't be such a drag on the productive members of society.
Curtis Rasmussen| 9.29.10 @ 2:34PM
Class warfare idiot alert.
Look up the laffer curve, moron. There is a point where excessive taxation reduces receipts, the opposite of the intended purpose. Unless, of course, destroying the economy is the real goal.
How many times does this relationship have to be proven before the flickering candle goes off in your pea brain?
Oh, that's right. Vtwit is a propaganda troll that will never listen to reason. My bad.
ROBERT| 9.29.10 @ 3:01PM
The VAT tax started in Europe at modest rates and inexorably increased precisely as it will should it be enacted here. I agree that a VAT tax would be far superior to the federal income tax in that it would spread the tax rate over the majority of American citizens rather than savaging the income and equity of those who create jobs, work harder and are, therefore, wealthier.
There are two problems with a VAT tax.First Anyone who thinks this government will use any part of the VAT tax to pay off the deficit needs to take a look at past performance of both parties. It will not be used to pay of the debt but to increase the size and power of the socialist welfare state, just as both parties have done with all tax increases. While things may change it is critical to note that the Republicans and Democrats have only one constituency: the welfare state. If you are not its beneficiary and supporter you are, by definition its victim. If the VAT tax is used to further spending then America is finished and freedom, justice and equality of opportunity destroyed.
There is one last problem with VAT tax. Caligula, in a fouler than usual mood, said of Rome: "If you had but one throat, I would strangle you." For Americans that would be the VAT tax.
Alan Brooks| 9.29.10 @ 9:32PM
"Yes, I agree we need to raise taxes to deal with the national debt, the results of the thirty-year failure called supply-side economics.""
But please don't blame Reagan for these pigheads at AS; if nothing else he bankrupted the Soviet Empire.
vtwin| 9.30.10 @ 3:16PM
The first person I want taxes raised on is me! I want 100% of all my income, including all the gravy from Uncle Sugar and George Soros taken out of my pocket right now!!!
JmsA| 9.29.10 @ 9:24AM
vitwin,
Stay tuned. There's a reality check coming real soon. Have you learned yet that goverment Social Security and Medicare projections are based on statistical actuarial analysis? Taxes are going up for everyone, not because of Republicans, but because of congressional Democrats who can't cover 2008 electoral promise checks written by the One. Like I said, stay tuned, things are bound to get very interesting now that everyone knows taxes are going up on the Democrats' watch.
Michael| 9.29.10 @ 10:20AM
vtwin, Obama has no tax-cutting plan, it's either extend the Bush tax cuts (rates stay the same) or let them expire (rates go up). Nowhere does Obama cut taxes. Also, tax credits are not tax cuts.
Anthony| 9.29.10 @ 11:02AM
Hey folks, vtwin's back. Gee vtwin, you left us last night with so many unanswered questions.
So did you and your fellow Frisco Hell's Angels have your morning ride yet, or will you be riding dirty a little later in the day? You do ride dirty don't you, or are you afraid to discuss it with your many friends here at TAS?
Scribonius Curio| 9.29.10 @ 11:10AM
I hear the steam baths are nice this time of year.
Anthony| 9.29.10 @ 11:21AM
I don't think San Franciso zoning regulations allow for Frisco bikers to take their bikes into the bath houses. However, I could be wrong on this.
What say you vtwin?
TR| 9.29.10 @ 11:12AM
Hey bicycle boy, heck's angel rider, obamao has no tax cutting plan. As is his normal method of lies and deceit, his "plan" is merely to extend a portion of the Bush tax cuts. He has demanded his minions refer to the Bush tax cuts as the obamao tax cuts, but it doesn't change fact.
The fouls stench is coming from your unwashed self.
RacerJim| 9.29.10 @ 11:49AM
The real foul stench is Obama, to wit: virtually everyone running for election in November is staying as far away as possible from Obama.
Negro X| 9.29.10 @ 6:41PM
vtwin moron, The democrats hold a majority in the house and senate, you are an idiot.
vtwin| 9.30.10 @ 3:13PM
El dummo is back! Yeah, me, in the flesh! I can't read, can't think and don't care!
Aindyin| 9.30.10 @ 10:21PM
VT your a fool, at best obama will only keep the current tax rates in place. This is NOT a tax cut and if you think it is you are not only a fool but a stupid fool.
figus janus| 9.29.10 @ 7:18AM
Why is it our congress has done and does whatever they want? Does anyone out there realize that when it comes to our politicians. They only care what we think in an election year. Is it not weird or funny(in my estimation) that the Republicans become conservative and Democrat become moderates in an election year? Well the Dems like to sound and talk like conservatives. When not one politician has done anything to curb waste, fraud, abuse of power or spending.
The Republicans have only put out this agreement to get all us conservatives to vote for them again. I say we show them that if your a Ruling Class Elite you no longer have a free ticket to destroy our Country!!! If you want smaller government, lower taxes, less wasteful spending you ARE a Tea Party-er!!!!
Go out there and get everyone you know to go out and vote well informed, NO matter who they vote for!!!
Shamus| 9.29.10 @ 7:26AM
The good news is that the public is not willing to accept any tax increases. The bad news is that the tax increase happens automatically. This could be a flash point which forces Obama to veto lower taxes. The bad news for Obama is that his veto could be overturned.
RCV| 9.29.10 @ 12:07PM
The bad news for you, Shamus, is that you don't understand the Constitution. It takes a 2/3 vote of both houses to overide a veto, and that is not going to happen. The tax cuts can be extended for most Americans if the GOP will just stop acting only to protect the interests of its billionaire friends at the expense of everyone else.
Shamus| 9.29.10 @ 12:51PM
My guess is that Democrats will wind up voting to overturn Obama's veto.
The popularity which he enjoyed at the start of his term is gone, and people in his party are campaigning on their opposition to his program. Unless the economy quickly starts to improve, Obama is going to be the skeleton at the feast.
Alan Brooks| 9.29.10 @ 9:35PM
"The popularity which he enjoyed at the start of his term is gone"
That always happens, you numbnuts.
Rayu| 9.29.10 @ 12:51PM
Still harping on the "billionaires,": I see. Tell me, why shouldn't those "billionaires" deserve an extension that the rest of use deserve? Are they some kind of super-rich villain, ones who are deserving of inequitable treatment? If so, why?
RCV| 9.29.10 @ 12:58PM
Because we can't afford it at this time and they don't need it.
vtwin| 9.29.10 @ 1:19PM
Yes and the country is $13 trillion in debt.
Curtis Rasmussen| 9.29.10 @ 3:33PM
And what caused the record debt that exeeds all prior debt combined!!! back to the infancy of the United States?
Answer: A massive increase in Federal spending in the last 2 years. The debt has quadrupled under Obama.
What is the leftist's answer to getting this under control? Tax people more instead of reigning in the out of control spending.
Nunya| 9.29.10 @ 4:40PM
Apparently there are some on this board who've never taken an economics class. I've discussed this before, but I continue to see people like RCV and vtwin espouse a policy that will only hurt our economy. Tax increases don't always have the intended effect that lawmakers want, and they alway slow the economy by their very nature. Depending on the severity of the increase, historically we have seen tax revenues DECREASE after a tax increase was put into effect. People have less money to spend, so they spend less. Economics 101.
We have to STOP SPENDING. That's the ONLY way to avoid a double-dip recession, followed by (potentially) hyper inflation. Having the government spend money to "stimulate" the economy is ridiculous, and has never worked--neither here, nor Japan, nor Europe . It's like communism--it doesn't work no matter WHO is in charge.
Increasing taxes now will be the death knell to the economy. If Obozo allows this, we'll be at 15%+ U3 unemployment (that's the one showing we're hovering around 9.6% now). U6 unemployment is currently around 16%, it could double, making this recession worse than the great depression. But, then again Obozo is a true communist anyway, he wants this to happen.
Greetings from the Left Coast| 9.29.10 @ 5:26PM
Bill Clinton raised taxes and the economy created 21 million jobs during the eight years of his administration. George Bush cut taxes and the economy created less than 3 million jobs in his eight years. Perhaps it is you “who’s never taken an economics class.”
Nunya| 9.29.10 @ 5:42PM
Sorry Leftie, but you would be wrong on that point. As to your comments about the prior Presidents, I don't have the time or inclination to disprove what you claim.
RCV| 9.29.10 @ 6:09PM
I guess Alan Greenspan -- an acolyte of Ayn Rand's -- must also be a true communist as well.
Curtis Rasmussen| 9.29.10 @ 6:37PM
Why do trolls always allude to or point directly at people who are no longer in office? The problem exists now. The problem emanates from socialists in charge right now. Stop redirecting.
Oh, I forgot. We're talking trolls here. Never mind.
Negro X| 9.29.10 @ 6:43PM
RVC and your retarded brother vtwin,
How many poor people create jobs?
RCV| 9.29.10 @ 11:33PM
Well, that convinces me! Let's rack up anothervtrillion in debt for the billionaires.
vtwin| 9.30.10 @ 3:19PM
...and most of it is because of me!
Shamus| 9.29.10 @ 1:21PM
Greenspan says we can't afford any reductions in rates. I can see some merit in his position.
carnot| 9.29.10 @ 12:57PM
or that Obama responds to middle class interests. this one is going to be his albatross in 2012!!! yahoo for us. but too bad for us...it's gonna hurt bigtime.
rainmaker1145| 9.29.10 @ 7:43AM
This will reduce private-sector investment even further and increase unemployment dramatically. If the increase is only $50 billion we are talking almost a full half point increase in unemployment - the rate would jump to 10.2%. Put the VAT on top of that and you end up with 12% unemployment (their measuring system) and 21% real unemployment. Hold on to your hats.
JFGalt| 9.29.10 @ 8:08AM
Just wait till you see what will happen with a VAT in place. At least for the first year or so people will STOP SPENDING on anything other than food or fuel. The shock of a massive tax on everything that you buy will lock things up and you will see stores close and massive layoffs. But what do they care.
vtwin| 9.29.10 @ 8:22AM
“Just wait…people will STOP SPENDING … you will see stores close and massive layoffs.”
Hello McFly, we don’t have to wait it is happening now because of the Bush Recession.
Scribonius Curio| 9.29.10 @ 8:26AM
Democrats caused the recession by giving away houses to their deadbeat voters.
Gimmiecrats persuaded productive people to take a break rather than donate all their property to the looters.
vtwin| 9.29.10 @ 8:39AM
“Democrats caused the recession by giving away houses.”
With home foreclosures rates at an “all-time high” who do you think is taking the houses back, the Republicans?
Scribonius Curio| 9.29.10 @ 9:06AM
No, you silly fellow.
It's the banks and the Fed, and they'd much rather have your money than your vote. As Obama has said, he was elected to bail out fat cat bankers. He'll be handsomely rewarded once their next flunky replaces him.
tdiinva| 9.29.10 @ 9:14AM
Newsflash to vtwin:
Secretary Geithner said that Fannie/Freddie were responsible for "2/3" of the housing bubble. In other words had the Democrats not stonewalled the Bush administration's reforms there wouldn't have been a bubble and no crash. Just as you cannot be 1/3 pregnant you can't have 1/3 of a crash.
And of course everybody's favorite gay dinosaur Barney of the Frank recently had the thought that maybe we would be better off with the F-troop twins and you know not everybody can afford to buy a house. Translation for the mentally slow...What did you expect me to say in an election year...that we Democrats caused the crash? Get real...oh yeah I was on the F2 payroll so I did what they payed me for.
JP| 9.29.10 @ 9:45AM
Ried and Pelosi have run Congress since Jan 2007 (hint almost 4 years). The recession began on thier watch. This is a Dem Recession.
Anthony| 9.29.10 @ 11:42AM
Hmmm, Vtwin there appears to be an opportunity for you and your Hell's Angels to take over some forclosures for your new club house and Harleys.
Oh, I forgot, you're in Frisco, home of the uber rich Left, like Getty and the boys. There are no forclosures where there are no bitter clingers who cling to their guns and their religion, isn't that right vtwin?
You do ride a Harley, don't you vtwin?
Redstateboy| 9.29.10 @ 11:47AM
The Wealth of the Sinner laid up for the Just.
vtwin| 9.30.10 @ 3:25PM
Silly me! I forgot that the house crisis got it's start during the Clinton administration with help from ACORN. And congress has been under democrat control since 2007. My how time flies!
nancy pelosi| 9.29.10 @ 8:37AM
good job...dont mention unemployment was 4.5% when i took over...
when you're done here swing by the office, my boots need a good licking.
JmsA| 9.29.10 @ 9:27AM
vitwin,
Didn't you hear? Bush's recession ended in 06/2009. This is the One's puppy now. Get used to it. By the way, I just thought I remind you once again: Actuarial Medicare and Social Security projections are based on statistics; they're not business reports, as you claimed.
RacerJim| 9.29.10 @ 11:53AM
Hey vtwin: FYI "the Bush recession" was recently pronounced over back in July '09 so all the store closings and massive layoffs since then have happened because of Obama.
Ghastlyone| 9.29.10 @ 11:55AM
Hold on one sec there Mr. Vtwit. Did you just say this is the Bush Recession? Well which is it? Because usaully you always blame our current economic mess on Reagan?
vtwin| 9.30.10 @ 3:22PM
Silly me. All my government handouts were responsible and all I want is more!
Maxwell| 9.29.10 @ 8:35AM
Actually I started to notice many empty stores in strip malls on Route 1 (central Jersey) a few years ago. At this stage of my life (61) I'm not adding to my life but throwing things away.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 9.29.10 @ 7:43AM
Now the public falls prey to the greatest lie of all. When the debt/fiscal commission releases it's report it will be chock full of new taxes and will include suggested cuts in government spending.
Most of the taxes will be passed, a few token spending cuts will be made, and the musical chairs of lies will continue inside the beltway.
The only difference between the musical chairs inside the beltway and the musical chairs in the real world is that when the music stops in D.C. all the elitists in D.C. find a chair, no one is left out.
ggoblue| 9.29.10 @ 8:39AM
dont worry brother, the tsunami on nov 2nd will make everything else obsolete....the dems can wipe their asses with that commission report.
Bubba| 9.29.10 @ 8:02AM
It's just a game of good cop/ bad cop, it's a WWF wrestling match where the fans cheer on the good guy or bad guy and pay and pay to watch the show.
A VAT is coming, they will buy off most of the population who have little money to buy stuff besides food with. The upper middle class spends most of the money on stuff and think they are middle class.
The government has no choice but to nail the upper middle class and well off retired people by nailing them with a VAT.
The spoiled people who made out good the last few decades can stomp their feet and throw mass tea party temper tantrums all they want, it's not going to do any good because the bill is due so they are going to pay for decades of being irresponsable.
Electing a bunch of tea party hero's won't change anything because once those people get educated they will support a VAT also.
People believed Obomba could somehow solve the problem and they wouldn't feel any pain, it's totally impossible at this point to not pay the bill.
We could add 30 million $40k jobs to the economy and it's only $1.2 Trillion in gross wages so even collecting 25% of those additional wages in taxes ( $300 Billion) wouldn't put a dent in the federal,state & local debt and over spending.
Kinbing Zune| 9.29.10 @ 8:37AM
Greedy government pigs will squander any amount of money you give them. VAT is just an excuse to enslave the populace.
Youbetcha| 9.29.10 @ 3:16PM
Amen, Kinbing
J Kelley| 9.29.10 @ 8:03AM
Obama keeps talking about giving tax cuts to the folks who make under 250 thousand. Nobody gets a tax cut, their taxes stay the same. Unless the tax cuts expire. Then taxes go up. Perhaps this is why Obama thinkes Fox News is destructive to the Country. Without Fox informing the people maybe they would not know this. For sure they would find out from the State run media.
Rmm| 9.29.10 @ 8:27AM
Never trust a Democrat who comes acalling about cutting taxes. So it goes with Obozo, who set up the middle-class with his phony pledge.
The WSJ published a graph the other day showing that the standard of living has flat-lined for the middle class since 1972. What can we expect now, if we have been treading water for the past three decades?
Chalkdust| 9.29.10 @ 8:37AM
I suggest that most of the Congressional demoncrats who are survivors of the November bloodbath will not be so quick (with the exception of the black caucus) to join Obama in a mass ritual sepicu in 2012 by enacting lame duck new tax increases. They may be powerless to persuade Obama to extend the Bush tax cuts, but laying a VAT tax on the American people is a reach.
Bruce| 9.29.10 @ 8:38AM
The author wrote "The bottom tax rate of 10% would rise by a third to 15%." Actually the bottom tax rate will rise by 1/2 not 1/3. 1/2 of 10 = 5; 10 + 5 = 15. 1/3 of 10 = 3.33 10 + 3.33 = 13.33
Ray| 9.29.10 @ 12:57PM
It depends on how you do the math. .15 (15 percent) - .10 (ten percent) = .05 (5 percent) or 1/3 of 15 percent.
joli| 9.29.10 @ 2:27PM
Math much?
15 is 50% more than 10, so the increase from 10% to 15% is a 50% increase.
If you're decreasing from 15% to 10%, then yes, it is a decrease of 1/3, or 33%. But we're not talking about a reduction.
Youbetcha| 9.29.10 @ 3:58PM
Yup.
Redstateboy| 9.29.10 @ 8:43AM
Hussien and his Slave Party is all so much easier to understand if you accept (and I do) Congressman Joe Wilsons admonisition:
"You Lie!"
Mimi| 9.29.10 @ 8:54AM
We Americans, all want to live in a thriving economy...with the least thwarting from Government. We are embarking, slowly to change the "ways" of the GRAND-SPENDERS.
We have, right now a stagnant...mess. A moratorium on ending ALL of The Bush Tax should occur. That will give us time to go the "FAIR tax route. I like the Fair tax more than the Flat tax , because it will eliminate the IRS.
Our economy I feel will improve after N0v.2 just by eliminating TOTAL control by the DEMS. The President is irresponsible in attacking..High Earners. and Business. He is hurting all of AMERICA and especially the poorest among us. After the election we will know if he has the ability and temperament, courage, and character to change.
Thanks Peter for the factual and informative article. God Bless your great mind and words.
joli| 9.29.10 @ 2:28PM
We already know he doesn't.
Mel Torme| 9.29.10 @ 9:10AM
"The bottom tax rate of 10% would rise by a third to 15%."
Not possible, Peter. Either you mean the rate will rise by 1/2, 50 %, or the rate will go up to 13.3%. Knowing the scum our congress is made of, I am pretty sure you meant the former.
Hey, I'm still on the 1st page, Peter! ;-) Nah, I like your work a lot and read your articles first or second. The Spectator should just make an effort to keep idiots like that Andrew Cline off of the site. At least I don't have to waste time refuting stupidity this morning.
Good article (so far). Thanks.
Mel Torme| 9.29.10 @ 9:24AM
OK, now I read the whole thing including Bruce's comment (before mine). Sorry for the repetition.
ncatty| 9.29.10 @ 9:25AM
Stop using the term tax "cuts" and start using the term tax "rates." A person can pay more taxes even if the rate goes down, so the term tax cuts is inaccurate. It is Democrat taxspeak.
Shamus| 9.29.10 @ 10:05AM
The actual amount of taxes paid by those in the top bracket stays about the same even when the top rate is changed. This is probably due to the propensity for top earners to avoid taxes, either through loopholes or by moving assets offshore.
Taxpayers are willing to pay a portion of their earnings in tax but only a limited one. The optimal rate for revenue maximization is around 20%. Higher rates motivate tax avoidance, and people in the top tax bracket have demonstrated better ability to manage assets than government bureaucrats.
Nunya| 9.29.10 @ 4:51PM
Shamus, you're absolutey right. That is the reason that often raising tax rates does not have the result the lawmakers intend. Keep in mind that the wealthy HIRE people to minimize their tax bill, something that most of us cannot do--until we sit in front of H&R block in April.
For some reason there are folks on this board that don't understand that simple fact.
gp| 9.29.10 @ 10:25AM
Ferrara writes: "The bottom tax rate of 10% would rise by a third to 15%" Actually, going from 10% to 15% is an increase by _half_, not just a third.
Scribonius Curio| 9.29.10 @ 11:13AM
Don't be so harsh. The poor man went to union schools.
Optimist| 9.29.10 @ 10:30AM
As an economist I can say "assume a republican victory" the "lame Ducks,"(especially the "Blue Dogs") can then vote their hearts and would likely avenge the lack of support they got by blocking Nancy's Nepharious Plans.
Tim*| 9.29.10 @ 10:36AM
Class Warfare Specialist Obama Plans To Punish " The HENRY's " .
HENRY 's : Very successful households (two-income couples, mostly), on the young side, who are making $250,000-$500,000 a year but don't have a whole lot in the way of assets — and may have big housing and/or education debts — don't feel particularly rich, and bear just about the heaviest tax burden of any income group.
The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates .
We Remember On November 2nd .
vtwin| 9.29.10 @ 1:00PM
Actually they would benefit from what Mitch McConnell calls “President Barack Obama's tax-cutting plan” on their first $250,000 of income.
Tim*| 9.29.10 @ 2:05PM
Obama Ain't Cuttin' Anybody's Taxes And Hasn't .
Tax Credits Ain't Tax Cuts .
The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates .
Rise Up !
vtwin| 9.29.10 @ 2:58PM
“Tax Credits Ain't Tax Cuts”
Shakespeare?
Romeo and Juliet?
A rose by any other name?
Ring any bells?
RCV| 9.29.10 @ 3:10PM
Timmie still on his parents' tax return so he doesn't quite get this stuff. The salary Jim DeMented pays him is under the table.
Tim*| 9.29.10 @ 3:30PM
Duuuhhh !
Duuuhhh , Economic Obama Buffoons !
A tax cut might result in you owing zero taxes, but a tax credit can give you a "refund" of money you never paid in the first place.
RCV| 9.29.10 @ 4:19PM
Q.E.D.
Tim*| 9.29.10 @ 5:06PM
Vice Versa LawBoy .
pparently , LawBoy doesn't grasp the difference between Refundable Tax Credits and Non-Refundable Tax Credits .
vtwin| 9.30.10 @ 3:27PM
My rose smells BAD!
Rick| 9.29.10 @ 10:50AM
The "Bottom Tax Rate" if it goes to 15 % from 10 % is a fifty per cent increase, not one third. It is 5% increase divided by the 10 % base rate.
Ray| 9.29.10 @ 1:05PM
Actually everyone is wrong as it would be a 5 percent increase. You have to remember that "percent' is a fraction of total.
10 percent means 10 out of every one hundred.
15 percent means 15 out of every one hundred.
The difference between 10 out of every one hundred and 15 out of every one hundred is 5 out of every one hundred, or 5 percent.
vtwin| 9.29.10 @ 1:16PM
Sorry Ray, an increse form 10% to 15% is a 50% increase of the orginal percentage.
10% of $1.00 is $0.10
15% of $1.00 is $0.15
50% of $0.10 is $0.05
Rick is right.
Ray| 9.29.10 @ 1:19PM
I know, I'm just teasing everyone who's so fixated on the "correct" description of the increase.
Ray| 9.29.10 @ 1:22PM
Here's a calculation that's sure to twist the mind:
.10 times .05 equals .15. That's a 1/3 increase.
Ray| 9.29.10 @ 1:23PM
I forgot the important calulation .15/.05=.333... or 1/3
Ray| 9.29.10 @ 1:29PM
Opps, that should be "plus" and not "times." Ok, enough of the math today. Heh.
davelnaf| 9.29.10 @ 10:55AM
If dems lose both houses of Congress the Obama agenda is shut down and over, unless that is Republicans finds reason to play along with the current ruinous policies. This is unlikely because, of course, the primary way both parties want to achieve the same thing—become election-proof—is radically different. This is the theory, anyway. Republicans know that in order to save the country (and save their jobs) they will have no choice but to repeal the entire Obama agenda, not to mention down-size government and make what is left run more efficiently. It’s a tall order. But, as has already been mentioned, they will have no choice in the matter.
Howard| 9.29.10 @ 11:00AM
The VAT is what the Democrats really want. It is the vehicle their European Social Democrat brethren use to fund the "cradle to grave" entitlements. It starts off at a low rate, say 1% or 2%. Then over time, as more "emergencies" arise, it will be increased "temporarily". Of course it will remain permanently. The media, academia, and other leftists will cry out about the damage to be done to all kinds of victims. And the RINO's will go along, because income tax rates will be bargained to a lower amount (though still high). A Faustian bargain.
vtwin| 9.29.10 @ 11:04AM
http://farm1.static.flickr.com.....e17626.jpg
Scribonius Curio| 9.29.10 @ 11:22AM
I've never seen this done with farm animals before.
vtwin| 9.29.10 @ 1:06PM
Scribonius Curio, it looks like you are using my name to post comments so you can respond?
Weak!
Scribonius Curio| 9.29.10 @ 1:26PM
Can't you do that yourself? Why must I do everything?
vtwin| 9.29.10 @ 6:46PM
I enough sex with animals almost as much as I enjoy sodomizing young, crippled, retarded boys, it's great self-esteem builder, it make me feels a man.
Allah in waiting| 9.29.10 @ 8:30PM
I'm waiting for you. Hows a nice trip to the center of my mind with the entrance of hell awaiting, you twisted freak.
Paul from SA| 9.29.10 @ 11:15AM
They were lying the whole time -- Democrats have been saying for years they were tax cuts for the rich. Well, they were tax cuts for ALL income tax payers (plus estate, cap gains, dividends and expanded deductions).
Democrats want to raises taxes, and blaming the GOP for their tax increases was their plan all along.
Anthony| 9.29.10 @ 11:17AM
President Obozo will never deliver on his "middle class tax cuts" because 1) it goes against his Marxist philosophy which purpose is to ensnare and entrap the middle class. 2) Obozo is anti - capitalism, hence he is philosophicly unwilling or unable to comprehend that tax cuts for businesses are the backbone of job and capital creation. 3) A vibrant economy is an anathama to Obozo's Marxist hegemony, as it reduces the people's reliance on government. 4) Obozo and his Ivy league ideologues are still stuck on stupid, as they insist that their Keynesian way of thinking requires that tax cuts "be paid for".
November is coming and Obozo's Marxist utopia is crumbling, which is why the rats are deserting him in droves, except vtwin, the Hell's Angel from Frisco. ( I still get a hoot out of this one, vtwin)
Scribonious Curio| 9.29.10 @ 12:57PM
Oscar Wilde said he'd turn over a new leaf right after he got to the bottom on the page.
vtwin| 9.29.10 @ 1:06PM
Scribonius Curio, it looks like you are using my name to post comments so you can respond?
Weak!
Scribonius Curio| 9.29.10 @ 1:29PM
I'm a frayed knot. But how do I know whether your real comment is the first or the second? Perhaps your evil twin is acting up.
C.K. Amos| 9.29.10 @ 12:41PM
Barack Obama is a pathological liar, a political chameleon who calculates everything and who connects to no one. And his ignorance of economics and capital creating and growth is stunning.
carnot| 9.29.10 @ 12:59PM
no..it's happening because of the Pelosi/Reid/Obama spending orgy since 2006. dwarfs anything the R Congress did.
carnot| 9.29.10 @ 1:00PM
and wait for the sunami of inflation about to hit......watch the dollar!
Youbetcha| 9.29.10 @ 4:06PM
We're in for a rough ride . . .
Jim O'Brien| 9.29.10 @ 1:22PM
The Democrats have controlled Congress since January 3, 2007. The national debt level on December 31, 2006 was $8.6 trillion, and it is now $13.5 trillion per the online national debt clock. http://www.usdebtclock.org/
So while the Democrats have controlled Congress the debt has increased by $4.9 trillion, or 57% in just 3 years and 9 months. The debt per taxpayer is about $121,577, and the debt per citizen is about $43,571. About 6 months ago the debt per citizen was slightly less than $40,000. This is a path leading to economic disaster, which will undermine our national security and freedom. Federal spending should be cut by $2 trillion "yesterday". The Fair Tax legislation previously introduced in Congress, but held up by Rep. Rangel (D-NY) et. al., should be enacted. It would completely abolish the federal income tax system and the IRS, replacing revenue with a simple national sales tax (not a VAT) on new goods and all services. See www.fairtax.org
Scribonious Curio| 9.29.10 @ 1:24PM
vtwin, you talkin' to me?
http://flywithbats.files.wordp.....s_01-1.jpg
Chuck| 9.29.10 @ 2:38PM
You say: "The bottom tax rate of 10% would rise by a third to 15%"
Actually it will increase by a half, not a third. But you're forgiven for not being a mathematician :)
Fredrick Ward| 9.29.10 @ 3:01PM
Anyone who is surprised that Obama and his cohorts are not cutting taxes should really look into getting some psychological help. He has been talking about tax increases for the entirety of his presidency, and now we are supposed to be shocked that he will raise taxes across the board? Heh. That man, and all who follow his same ideology, is a doom to this nation.
cradle to grave| 9.29.10 @ 3:12PM
I want free public education, spare no exspense, it's for the children and don't forget when I'm 65 I earned social security and medicare.
I want plenty of cheap labor to expoilt so I can get rich and don't want to pay them much of anything, they aren't worth it and I don't want to pay taxes.
Let the peasants live in shacks, I'm great and deserve a first class lifestyle and they only deserve a bowl of rice if they can work and make life good for me.
The filthy no good peasants expect me to pay, I pay more than my fair share.
etwin| 9.29.10 @ 4:10PM
If you have no education, then you've been truant. Grow up an stop being a child. Illegal Mexican immigrants will provide all of the cheap labor you require. But do be sure to pay your taxes, even if you don't want to. Remember, you're no John Kerry. Your yacht will be fully taxed. Surely it's true that your filthy peasants deserve no more than a bowl of rice and an ugly episode with vtwin, but don't be unpleasant to them. Just because they're lower class doesn't mean they're inhuman.
Oldefarte| 9.29.10 @ 3:49PM
In the words of Joe Wilson, THEY LIE! Obviously the intent will be for Democrats to do nothing to reinstate the tax cuts for ANYONE, let all of the tax cuts expire and therefore reap the benefits of having everyone's taxes increase!!!!!!!!!!!
Emma| 9.29.10 @ 4:12PM
"Get used to it"? .... that the tax cuts won't be forthcoming.....??? Who on earth ever believed him in the first place? Good grief. Need to find those fools and end their right to vote.
chris haynes| 9.29.10 @ 4:38PM
Revenues are about $2.3 trillion. Expenses are $3.5.
Due alone to the rising number of old people they will rise to $4.7 trillion.
So you got a $2.4 trillion gap. You either cut expenses 50% or double taxes.
Yes, the Democrats have no plan. But what's the Republican plan?
Shamus| 9.29.10 @ 5:06PM
My guess is that they have no real plan.
The obvious things to do are to cut spending across the board, including military spending. Entitlements need to include a means test to ensure that we're not paying Donald Trump any Social Security or Medicare. Federal workers need to have a one month unpaid furlough next August and we need to have a hiring freeze for the next ten years. Government needs to start selling off assets and stupid programs like NEA need to be terminated.
It's possible to fix our problems, but the idiots in government today can't do it.
Nunya| 9.29.10 @ 5:52PM
Shamus, it's not that the "idiots in government today can't do it", it's that they don't want to.
The progressives in both parties want to continue to grow the government because they want power. It has nothing to do with "caring for granny in her golden years", or "the children", or any of the other blather we keep hearing from the ruling class. It's about power and money, plain and simple.
We the People need to get this under control, or we will lose this Republic. The leftists have been lying to us and gaining power for over 100 years, we don't have that long to get things straight, IMHO.
George True| 9.29.10 @ 5:07PM
If anyone (including Vtwin) really wants to know how Obama feels about taxes, an interview he had with Charlie Gibson in 2008 is very enlightening. Gibson brought up Obama's proposal to raise the capital gains tax from 15% to 28%. He asked Obama how he could justify that, considering that over 100 million Americans owned stocks, bonds, and mutual funds. Obama replied that it was a matter of "fairness". He said that the top 50 hedge fund managers were not paying their "fair share". So in other words, he was willing to almost double the taxation on 100 million Americans just to make sure that those 50 "rich guys" paid their fair share (assuming his story was actually true, and not just pulled out of this air). That is downright chilling when you think about it.
As far as the Bush tax cuts are concerned, it was never a "tax cut for the rich". That claim is provably wrong, and therefore is and always has been an outrageous lie. The "rich" had a reduction in their marginal tax rate from 39.6% to 36%, or a reduction of 9% compared to what they had been paying before . Marginal tax rates for the majority of middle income earners were reduced from 25% to 15%, or a reduction of 40% in their rate of taxation, which is over FOUR TIMES the reduction given to "the rich". This does not include the elimination of the marriage penalty for married couples filing jointly, or the enhancements in the earned income tax credit. When you factor these things in, many working couples and families earning between 30K-80K had their taxes cut by half or more.
Dems would say that this is still unfair, because the rich guy still gets a bigger break than the average working stiff. Well, no not really. The "rich" are already paying way, way more than their "fair share". The top one percent of earners pay 40% of income taxes. The top 10% pay 80% of all income taxes. The bottom 40% of earners pay NOTHING. The middle 50% of earners pay 20% of the taxes.
Yes, it is true that if the guy who earns $500K got a 3.9% reduction, that translates to $18,000. While the guy who earns $50K saw a reduction of $5000. The reason is because a 9% reduction of taxes on $500K is always going to equal more than a 50% reduction of taxes on $50K. That's because the 500K earner is already paying TWENTY FIVE TIMES more in taxes than the 50K earner is. So it is only a "tax cut for the rich" in the sense that the "rich" guy earns ten times as much, so he is paying many times more in taxes than what the little guy even earns. Thus, even a miniscule reduction in the tax rate for high income earners would save him more than what the little guys saves with a 50% reduction.
By no stretch of the imagination does the above constitute a "tax cut for the rich". For it to even be a fair tax system, the so-called "rich" would have to be given the same tax rate as everybody else. For a tax rate structure to truly be a "tax break for the rich", you would need to have LOWER tax rates for "the rich". Or maybe a system where income up to a certain amount, say 250K, was taxed the same as everybody else, but income over that amount was taxed at a lower rate. Then you could legitimately say that the tax rate was a break for the rich. But our current system, even with the Bush tax cuts, is not only NOT friendly to "the rich", it is extremely unfriendly, predatory, confiscatory, and punishing.
By the way, I am not rich. I am not even well to do. After decades of working, life is still a struggle. But I still hope to join the ranks of the well to do one of these days, and when I finally arrive there, it would be nice not to be rewarded for decades of struggle by having a third to half of it immediately confiscated. Just saying.
John II| 9.29.10 @ 5:53PM
Just saying, beautifully too.
My all-time favorite story in American political history is goes back to the McGovern campaign of 1972, which goes back pretty far, considering that McGovern was America's last lefty politician who was also a nice man and merely befuddled, unlike the current crop of thugs.
When McGovern was working the crowd at an auto plant, he came up to a worker who conspicuously folded his arms when the candidate reached out to shake his hand. McGovern moved on, but one of his aides came up to the worker and asked, "Is there something wrong?"
"Nope," the worker replied. "I just won't shake the hand of any politician who wants to soak the rich. And McGovern wants to soak the rich."
"Well--yes, if you like to put it that way," said the aide. "But so what? You're not rich, are you?"
"Nope," the worker answered, "I'm not rich. But some day one of my kids may be."
Mimi| 9.29.10 @ 5:37PM
The "Are you serious? Are you kidding?" NANCY PELOSI ......Just today denied the American people via their Rep. in congress to vote on an extention of the Bush tax cuts.
John Boenar, said that he had the votes to pass it. Why Nancy? did you not want the American people to have this? We regret that you chose politics again over the will of the people. We will remember in November, and hopfully so will the Americans in your district in San Francisco.!!!
Oldefarte| 9.30.10 @ 11:08AM
Mimi, Please read my earliar post......the Democrats WANT THE ADDED GOVERNMENT INCOME FROM LETTING ALL TAXES INCREASE, and will [by simply doing nothing be able to accompolish same, since the tax cuts expire AUTOMATICALLY if no legislation concerning same is passed]!!!!!!!!!
wes in MT| 9.29.10 @ 5:43PM
A democrat lying and raising taxes . . . . no surprise there. Damn looter class.
Tassie| 9.29.10 @ 6:12PM
I am a Romanian living in New Zealand and I have learned, when America is weak the whole free world is weak. So for all of us living in the free world, please,help us all and get rid of the democrats and Obama.
Thank you, America!
emo| 9.29.10 @ 6:57PM
Go ahead and raise taxes on everyone Bambi. Tank the economy and create a revolt that will make Bush's 1990 tax increase look tame by comparison.
NOTE: What matters in a Presidential election is how the economy was not in the election year, but in the prior year.
1992 4% GDP growth
1991 1% GDP growth
1976 4% GDP growth
1975 1% GDP growth
1999 6% GDP growth
2000 3% GDP growth
Voters perceptions on the economy change very very slowly. A strong recovery like 1976 or 1992 is ignored because voters are still suffering from the previous year. Likewise the economy was deteriorating sharply by Nov 2000, but the party of 1999 was still fresh in everyone wallet.
PJ| 9.29.10 @ 8:12PM
Thank you Mr Ferrara for a succinct article. If what you are writing is at least 1/2 way true & if it comes to fruition, I would then think the dollar would collapse. Forget about any decent way of life in America for many years.
What amazes me is the blind determination Obama & ilk are using to ram their tax & spend agenda down the American public's throat. We mustn't forget the extravagant lifestyle they're living while many of us, schmoes, are laid off or underemployed.
My question is who will make a "killing" when the dollar collapses if Obama has his way? I seem to have read somewhere that George Soros (the man who made a fortune betting against the British pound in the early '90s.) has been visiting the White House a lot. Any guesses?
J Tucker| 9.30.10 @ 12:45AM
What Obama is doing here, is blackmailing the country, by saying that Congress will pass those tax cuts he promised, after the elections in the lame duck session! This is actually criminal!! And, not only that, I is actually really, really twisted!!! This make me more scarred of him than I already was!!
Yosemeti Sam| 9.30.10 @ 3:08AM
Turnaround 'fair play' juxtapose:
Yo, BHO lies - American jobs die!
RazzWV| 9.30.10 @ 7:29AM
Somehow we need to take away the liberals power to spend our money. I begrudge every dime that I am forced to pay to this gov to support their socialist program.
Mel Torme| 9.30.10 @ 8:48AM
I see Peter has corrected the article on the 10 % to 15 % increase. Why did you not put the 50 % rise in the low bracket in the text, Peter? Do you thing TAS readers are too stupid to understand this? Or, are you still used to writing articles to be read by all government-skooled Americans? I think we could have handled it; though I'm not speaking for poor vtwin.
This small math point is something that the LSM messes up all the time. Most reporters have no math background at all, so it's to be expected: they will write that the lower bracket under that proposal will see a "5 %" increase!! They could say a "5 percentage POINT" increase, but they don't either through bias or stupidity - it is hard to distinguish the two these days. (It is hard to extinguish the two also).
One more thing:
Don't be an asshole by following the Wall Street Journal's habit of always writing changes backwards, either. They will write " requires a raise in the lower bracket to 15 % from 10 %". It's like those a-holes over there read from right to left. WTF? Don't start that here - just a word to the wise. If you do, you will see my readership go to zero from 1 hour/wk. (Do you see how dicked up that is?)
Mel Torme| 9.30.10 @ 9:00AM
Dang!.... Don't know how I missed the 50 % when I refreshed. I think I was reading a different line. OK, good on you, Peter. Thanks for fixing it. Now, we can figure out how much we will get reamed a little for easily ("easily" is modifying "find out", not "reamed", BTW)
Oldefarte| 9.30.10 @ 11:13AM
Get a life, Mel, and wuit being so nitpicky.......the point is that TAXES WILL INCREASE UPON YOU, ME AND EVERY OTHER TAXPAYER THANKS TO THE DEMOCRATS. Whether it's 5% or 6% is insignificant!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mel Torme| 10.2.10 @ 5:01PM
Hey, Fartknocker, you still don't get the math do you? The point is, it's 50 %, not 5 or 6 %! 50 % vs. 5 % is a 1000% error. That is not insignificant.
I think you might get the math more if it were a cut to your salary of 50 % vs. 5 or 6 %.
I also see that Mr. Ferrara kindly corrected it. That's why I and another poster (Bruce, I think) pointed it out, so he would. I don't like good conservative columnists to look stupid due to math errors. I don't think you, Oldfarte, need math errors to look stupid in print, but they are sure not helping you.
Frickin' morons, all over the intertubes.
dareisay| 10.3.10 @ 10:45PM
Since our elite politicians stole, yes I say stole, our S.S. funds, $2.5 trillion and the only thing left are IOU's....then they dipped their greedy hands into the Medicare funds.
Now they tell our senior citizens they have to sacrifice, on medical treatments and quite possibly much less S.S.
Our politicians cannot be trusted with our money!
They keep taking and taking, then send it to foreign countries year after year!
Foreign aid should only be used for natural disasters, not to feed some foreign leader!
Then there is the money to the U.N., IMF, special interest organizations, grants to study why Asian women have sex after drinking, study a frog, money to illegals, it goes on and on....and it's things that our Founders never once thought citizens should pay for!
On top of that, we have local & State taxes which are now going up!
And it is all because we cannot trust our politicians to handle our money with care!
My ancestor came here in 1747, left his country as a serf.....I do not want my family to become serfs to this government!
If the Feds need revenue, then stop banning coal, oil, farming, fishing in Maine, etc.
Get out of our way and let our people work!
weddingdress | 7.7.11 @ 5:29AM
I also see that Mr. Ferrara kindly corrected it. That's why I and another poster (Bruce, I think) pointed it out, so he would. I don't like good conservative columnists to look stupid due to math errors. I don't think you, Oldfarte, need math errors to look stupid in print, but they are sure not helping you.