The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

The Obama Watch

Obama’s Taxes and America’s Jobs

By on 4.20.11 @ 6:08AM

As the former go up the latter will come tumbling down.

Between President Obama’s political campaign speech on the budget last week, and House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s thorough 2012 budget proposal, which the Republican House has already begun enacting, federal tax and spending issues have been fatefully framed for 2012.

Ryan’s 2012 budget proposes to return federal taxes to their long run postwar historical average over the last 60 years of 18.3% of GDP. In sharp contrast, what Mr. Obama is proposing is to raise federal taxes well above that long-term historical average, to pay for much more federal spending well above the historical average.

So the issue for 2012 is joined. Do the American people want Mr. Obama’s much bigger federal government with much higher taxes and much higher federal spending than the long-term trend over the past 60 years? Or do they want Mr. Ryan’s traditional, American, limited government of the postwar era, with the traditional American prosperity we have enjoyed during that time?

President Obama’s Tax Piracy

The context for considering this question is that in 2007, even before President Obama was elected, official IRS data showed that the top 1% of income earners were already paying more in federal income taxes than the bottom 95% of income earners combined. Moreover, the top 3% of income earners were already paying more in federal income taxes than the bottom 97% combined. This is what the pre-Obama income tax system would generate once normal economic growth is restored.

Already scheduled in current law for 2013 is the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, which President Obama last week refused to renew for single workers making over $200,000 a year, and couples making over $250,000, whom he disparaged as “millionaires and billionaires.” Also scheduled to go into effect in 2013 under current law are all the tax increases of Obamacare. Together, these job killing tax policies would result in a sharp increase in the tax rates on the nation’s small businesses, job creators, and investors for virtually every major federal tax.

The top income tax rate would increase by nearly 20%, counting the slashed income tax deductions President Obama already proposed in his February budget. The capital gains tax rate would increase by nearly 60%, counting the new Obamacare taxes on investment income. The total tax rate on corporate dividends would increase by three times altogether. The Medicare payroll tax rate would also increase by 62% for these taxpayers.

That adds up to a top federal tax rate of 44.8% on wage income, not counting the capital gains tax or tax on corporate dividends. Counting state income taxes, the top tax rate on wage income alone for most of the American people would be 50% to 55%. In Paul Ryan’s Wisconsin, President Obama’s tax piracy would add up to a top rate of 52.55%.

Ryan’s budget repeals all of President Obama’s already scheduled tax increases. So these Obama tax increases, if allowed to remain in law, would raise taxes above the long-term, postwar, historical average of federal taxes that Ryan restores. But there’s more.

President Obama noted in his speech last week that his 2012 budget already calls “for limiting itemized deductions for the wealthiest 2% of Americans — a reform that would reduce the deficit by $320 billion over ten years.” This $320 billion tax increase would be above Ryan’s long-term, postwar, historical average as well.

But President Obama last week called for raising taxes even more by denying still more regular deductions to these taxpayers, saying “But to reduce the deficit, I believe we should go further.” He indicated that involves another tax increase of $1 trillion beyond what was already proposed in his budget. That would further increase taxes beyond Ryan’s long-term, postwar, historical average.

President Obama, however, was still not done raising taxes. He called as well for an automatic tax increase trigger that would raise taxes still further in 2014 if “our debt is not projected to fall as a share of the economy.” With these automatic tax increases, the tax burden would grow still more beyond Ryan’s long-term historical average.

In addition, American business currently suffers virtually the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world at nearly 40%, counting state corporate rates on average. Even in the left-leaning European Union, the corporate tax rate has been reduced from 38% to 24% over the last 15 years, with lower corporate tax rates from China to India to Canada as well, leaving American business uncompetitive in the world. Yet, President Obama was oblivious to this and the resulting job killing effects in his budget speech last week, devoting just one sentence to a vague, rhetorical call for “corporate tax reform.” Indeed, he proposed in his 2012 budget still more tax increases on American businesses, which are already built into the nevertheless still disastrous projections of deficits and debt in that budget.

Does this sound to you like fair tax policies likely to promote jobs and economic growth?

Tax Piracy Won’t Reduce the Deficit

Page: 1 2 3  

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 (99) |

jothepro| 4.20.11 @ 6:42AM

Tax the rich, feed the poor
Till there are no rich no more

vtwin| 4.20.11 @ 10:06AM

Clinton raised taxes, best post WWII economy, left surplus.
Bush cut taxes, worst economy since Great Depression, left deficit.

Don’t be fooled by Peter Ferrara, benefactor of the rich, tax cuts create deficits NOT jobs.

Deborah D | 4.20.11 @ 10:43AM

The only reason Clinton "left surplus" is because he had a Republican Congress that reined him in.

Don't be fooled by vtwin, he's a socialist.

George S| 4.20.11 @ 11:14AM

Polite correction: the capital gains tax rate was reduced to 20% from 28% in 1997. That is the only reason Clinton left "a surplus".

When Clinton raised taxes in 1993, revenues to the treasury increased by a hundred billion a year until 1998. Then the annual increase jumped to 200 billion, courtesy of the capital gains tax reduction. But spending rate increases remained constant from 1993 to 2001. After 2001, spending went through the roof, peaking in 2004 -- but the increased tax receipts from the economy kept the deficit in check. In fact, after 2004 the deficit was on a downward trend (400 billion to 160 billion) until 2008 when it jumped 300 billion to 460 billion.

(Imagine that, vtwin, the deficit was 160 billion in 2007 and still a meager 460 billion in 2008. Unemployment was less than 5%.)

Then Obama took over and blew the doors off everything. What is left out of the equation is what exactly did happen in 2008? Were the markets tampered with? I am not a coincidence believer.

ENOUGH ROPE| 4.21.11 @ 1:13AM

Obama is a MARXIST THUG and a SMILING LIAR.

Drunken Sailor| 4.20.11 @ 11:12AM

Clinton's surplus come down to 2 factors.

1. Republican lead Congress
2. Dot-Com Bubble

Old Soldier| 4.20.11 @ 12:43PM

3. The Feds finished paying off HW Bush's S&L bailout early in Clinton's term.
4. The U.S. was still riding the growth wave started with Reagan's tax cuts.

Shamus| 4.20.11 @ 12:29PM

It wasn't Clinton that left the surplus. He was busy with bimbo eruptions.

It was Al Gore's discovery of the internet that created the cash gusher to fund the surplus.

Ghastlyone| 4.20.11 @ 2:51PM

I'm officially convinced Twin is a fuckin retard.

I notice every leftist that talk about their goldenboy Clinton always conveniently leave out the real people that were running the show...the Republican controlled congress.

Then when they talk about Bush and how bad he left the economy, they conveniently leave out the worthless leftists running congress since 2006, with hefty numbers to boot. They had near filibuster proof numbers.

But no, it was all Bush's fault, not the completely dominated liberal controlled congress Bush had to deal with.

Shermans riding again!| 4.20.11 @ 5:44PM

Awesome! Needed the laugh.

Ghastlyone| 4.20.11 @ 2:58PM

So Twin, answer this then...

If high taxes create surpluses like you say, then what's the problem with high tax states such as California, Illinois, New Jersey, etc?

Wierd that the highest taxed states are also the ones completely bankrupt. Oceans of red ink, high unemployment, crime, and poverty.

But but...it can't be Republican's fault, since these states are completely dominated, and run by leftists.

I'll be here all day waiting for your comical answer to this.

Marxfreesociety| 4.20.11 @ 6:37PM

Great post ghastley!

TexanMike| 4.20.11 @ 3:45PM

It amazes me that GWBush hasn't been on a ballot in almost SEVEN YEARS but his name still comes up with Obamites defending his holy kingdom and passing blame.
Bottom line: if Obama can't taken responsibility for himself and his job by now, he never will.

CT Yankee| 4.20.11 @ 9:59PM

Do not forget the Clinton "surplus" did not account for the drawdown of the SS trust. This is a cash accounting gimmick used to increase future liabilities and give the illusion of a budget surplus. Of course, if a business used this same procedure they would be in violation of generally accepted accounting principles.

jothepro| 4.21.11 @ 10:41AM

vtwin, you are an arrogant ass and a simpleton. you should change your NAME to vtlose !!!!!!!!!!!

wodiej| 4.20.11 @ 7:30AM

This man is off his nut. To quote Albert Einstein:

"insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results." And there you have it.

Obama has a combined problem of arrogance, ignorance and a lack of reasoning ability. 57% disapprove of his handling of the economy. 60+% of Independents now disapprove of his overall job performance. He can invite all the immigration advocates to the WH that he wants, his union thug buddies and all of his entitlement masses to his corner. It will still not be enough to subvert the will of the American people who work, produce and make this country who prosperous who will vote him out of office in 12.

vtwin| 4.20.11 @ 10:15AM

Poll News: Even 70% of "Tea Party Supporters" agree with the President and oppose Medicare Cuts.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blo.....-cuts.aspx

Looks like four more years?

Deborah D | 4.20.11 @ 10:44AM

There's no way Obama will get any Tea Party voters, so dream on.

Drunken Sailor| 4.20.11 @ 11:16AM

You do realize that Slate is owned by the Washington Post, a decidedly left leaning orginazation second only to the New York Times, don't you?

Deborah D | 4.20.11 @ 11:38AM

Yes, and Sailor, isn't the Washington Post where Ezra Klein, he of JournOlist fame, spouts his leftist "views"? and aren't they still basically "journOlisting" their ideas -- just not on that website any longer?

Drunken Sailor| 4.20.11 @ 11:43AM

Shhhhh, You'll hurt Vtwins feelings by pointint out his hero's biased agenda.

Paul| 4.20.11 @ 12:02PM

The president cut Medicare by 500 Billion! What the hell are you talking about?

Clint| 4.20.11 @ 12:20PM

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 23% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Thirty-nine percent (39%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -16

Trinacria| 4.20.11 @ 2:14PM

In an incautious departure from my long held belief that one should never engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent, I hasten to note that vtwin has employed the use of the classic liberal tactic of using a true statement to make a false accusation. By way of example, consider the following statement: "90% of Tea Party members agree with President Obama that we should not sarifice old people and handicapped children to balance our budget." True statement, false implication. What's the implication? If BO is against it, it must mean that the GOP is for it. The same false implication is made in the statement regarding Medicare - there's nothing in the Ryan budget that supports a cut in Medicare benefits to anyone currently receiving it, nor even anyone scheduled to begin receiving it in the next 10 years. Yet like most lazy liberals, vtwin has elected not to actually do the work of reading the proposed budget and making an informed judgement, but rather pull the same tired tricks from the liberal playbook to spin the issue. Pity.

Curtis Rasmussen| 4.20.11 @ 3:42PM

It's the straw man argument. Liberals imply that conservatives want to throw the disabled, disadvantaged, and elderly under the bus, yet no one here stated or would support such a ridiculous assertion.

Liberals assert that tax cuts equate to throwing the elderly under the bus. This is the fallacy and complete lie. If you argue that you don't want to throw them under the bus, then the libtards will claim that you agree with them, and by extension, are against tax cuts. Arguing that you want the same thing on a false assertion means that you agree with the whole assertion in their twisted minds.

Don't allow VTWIT or any of the other liberal brainless knee-jerk reactionaries to attack you by defending against a straw man statement that you never made.

Trinacria| 4.20.11 @ 3:30PM

In an incautious departure from my long held belief that one should never engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent, I hasten to note that vtwin has employed the use of the classic liberal tactic of using a true statement to make a false accusation. By way of example, consider the following statement: "90% of Tea Party members agree with President Obama that we should not sarifice old people and handicapped children to balance our budget." True statement, false implication. What's the implication? If BO is against it, it must mean that the GOP is for it. The same false implication is made in the statement regarding Medicare - there's nothing in the Ryan budget that supports a cut in Medicare benefits to anyone currently receiving it, nor even anyone scheduled to begin receiving it in the next 10 years. Yet like most lazy liberals, vtwin has elected not to actually do the work of reading the proposed budget and making an informed judgement, but rather pull the same tired tricks from the liberal playbook to spin the issue. Pity

RN in Houston| 4.20.11 @ 3:54PM

Vtwin, answer this. Do you know what you and Obama have in common? You are both professional agitators and completely clueless of how a market economy works.

martin j smith| 4.20.11 @ 7:33AM

The road to Obama started with GWB with an assist from the Republican Leadershit and John McCaine.
I think we have to face the truth. Those of us who oppose Obama are NOT going to find real support in the CURRENT Republican leadership. A Political Party that wants to show the American People a DIFFERENT APPROACH would not be silent when Obama speaks. They would have their own pressers, their own various spokespeople and disagree with Obama's approach. Gee that is extreme !!!!!!!!!!!! What we have are a bunch of losers. Change is hard and if Conservative minded people want change they must not look for immediate solutions but invest in LONG TERM WORK of organizing ,drumming the drumbeat and finding creative ways of showing and exposing the lies of the left. Complaining about Obama may be therapeutic but not politically sufficient by itself.
Sorry folks, you need to take a lesson from Alinksy
and throw it back at the Socialists.

emilio lizardo| 4.20.11 @ 7:35AM

this is an overly simplistic analysis. The larger problem is at the corporate level when companies like GE pay zero federal taxes, receive billions from the government, sit atop mountains of money while investing and outsourcing jobs and overseas while their CEO is a top economic advisor to Obama. I suspect there are others corporations like GE who generously bonus their
leadership through the largesse of the taxpayer and pay no taxes themselves.

Old Soldier| 4.20.11 @ 12:49PM

Maybe if we didn't have the highest corporate income tax in the world and a tax code so convoluted it is open to debate, corporations would hire people and pay taxes in the U.S.

The Bank of America thing is a joke. They didn't make a profit in 2010, so they didn't pay income taxes. That's the way it's always been. They still paid payroll, sales, and real estate taxes.

Deborah D | 4.20.11 @ 7:45AM

Heck, he's only "spreading the wealth around." Is it his fault if that ultimately spreads poverty around? He's trying to level the playing field...eliminating the middle class because you can't have a communist country with a middle class.

"As Obama understands all too well, one of the hallmarks of all socialist countries is the absence of an independent middle class. From the Bolshevik experiment in Russia to socialist Venezuela today, it is necessary for communist leaders to eliminate that class of citizens who are not dependent on government for their welfare." http://www.americanthinker.com.....class.html

The EPA's cap and trade mess also hurts the middle class, as you so noted before, Mr. Ferrara: "The increased costs are supposed to cause this decreased consumption. This decreased consumption amounts to a decline in the standard of living of the middle class. " http://spectator.org/archives/.....e-middle-c

He wants us with out hands out begging for our food, our energy, our jobs. He wants to be Hugo Chavez (at least). So, he doesn't care if raising taxes eliminates our jobs. That's a feature, not a bug to him IMHO.

And, in a new book out by James R. Keena, We’ve Been Had – How Obama and the Radicals Conned Middle Class America:

"In just four years, the Obama administration will add nine trillion dollars to the public debt. The poor won’t pay this debt, because they can’t. The rich collectively don’t make that much money. That leaves the middle class holding the proverbial bag for an impending disaster."

If you're in the middle class, and you vote for this guy, you're out of your mind. Plain and simple.

Grzmlyk| 4.20.11 @ 10:39AM

Deborah, you nailed it in a nutshell.

Anyone who wants to know the object of Obama and his fellow nihilists, all you have to do is read Animal Farm.

In the case of trolls here like VTWIT, I suggest they have someone read it to them.

Bottom line: Leftists and their crony capitalist buddies live like kings and the people are enslaved to serve the New Oligarchy.

The tragedy of Western Civilization is that they've finally succeeded in knocking out the underpinnings that held the American Experiment up. All that's left is for the edifice to hit the ground.

It will be no consolation when they find that the resulting blightscape will in no way resemble the global fiefdom they envision.

Speedypete| 4.20.11 @ 7:52AM

Fox News had Economist Laffer on and some woman that argued against him that increasing taxes will spur growth. Mr. Laffer stated again that every cycle in our nation when tax rates increase even slightly growth slows. What we need are incentives like reduced government regulations and red tape and more disguised tariffs like our most friendly nation trading status partners do to us, to bring manufacturing back.

Gordon W.| 4.20.11 @ 10:05AM

What tariffs do you imply nations with "most favored nation" status implement against us? The department of commerce is pretty keen at protecting the nations industries, even when it isn't legally permissible (recent example is US steal, we got blasted for that and our auto industry got gutted).

I love how Fox gets ridiculous oppenents to their stated view. I would like to ask Laffer what tax rate would maximize revenue. Most empirical date puts the number between 32% and 70%.

Kishego| 4.20.11 @ 2:42PM

What a load of shite. There is no data that shows 32% as the "optimal" tax rate. If there were, that is all you would here of from the libtards in the msm.

martin j smith| 4.20.11 @ 7:53AM

Deborah D: You are right on the money. But, perhaps I fret too much ? Many of our fellow citizens are STUPID and basically regurgitate MARXISTS SLOGANS they are fed by the MSM and their so called educators at whatever level they are supposedly in.
Getting out the message of what WILL HAPPEN and that OBAMA IS A LIAR is critical.
THEN THERE IS THIS; WHAT OF OUR CANDIDATES CAN BEAT OBAMA ?
Thus, to come the the nib of the jist: Beating Obama is a MUST!!!!!!! if we are to survive !!!!!!!!!
And that will depend on how many "get it".

Deborah D | 4.20.11 @ 8:05AM

Hey Martin -- I agree with your assessment above that we need conservatives to get their points out in the public and in easy to understand language. I think part of the reason Trump is resonating is because there is such a lack of straight talk on the Republican side. If Republicans don't get where our country is headed, then the American people won't. It's up to us -- each and every one of us -- to get the message out any way we can. Hang in there, Martin, Americans are getting it--very slowly.

Eric Cartman| 4.20.11 @ 9:59AM

You're on a streak, here DD. Two in a row! Can't the Republicans find one, JUST ONE, person that can take it to the Democrats with a smile as he/she twists the knife? A person with wit and charm instead of some old Fudd-type guy trying to be nice. (I'm speaking of active Republicans in elected positions - not Rush or Palin or the other talks shows. I'm sick of them having to pick up the sword for the Weak and Stupid Party all the time). Trump is applauded because he's actually saying something about the lying little weasel and his gang of thugs. Obama isn't God (although he plays Him on TV), he's a liar - and not a good one at that. The Republicans are slinking back to their jellyfish spine mode. As long as they are playing the invertebrates, Obama will bread them, deep fry them and serve them with a delicious mango/aioli sauce - Michelle willing, of course. Mayo is a killer!

Louis Jenkins| 4.20.11 @ 8:13AM

I would have to agree with Martin above. We must stand toe to toe with the Democrats and Obama, and whip them. Whip them hard and fast, for America hasn't much time left, if any. The problem is MSM lets it be known from time to time that a few people are being hired, and Americans who watch that stuff breathe a little easier. I cannot do that, for it is just a drop in the bucket. Our conservative leadership is still shuffling their shoes so we have no clear leader, and this leader must have savy to win. Conservative leader, where art thou?

Pineapple1| 4.20.11 @ 8:29AM

He is still governing New Jersey.

Maxwell| 4.20.11 @ 9:31AM

Oh please Pineapples, we have gun control (no CCW in Jersey and Chris Christie is very anti gun) cap and trade, and open borders. While CC has a very large mouth, in Jersey if you open a can of Republican out comes a Democrat.

Mike Carroll a true Consertative was nominated for a positon as a judge. In less than a week CC folded on him because the bar association was not happy. Mr. Carroll is now just runing for re election from his district.

Dee See| 4.20.11 @ 8:42AM

---And still not a single word about
raising revenue via FINALLY removing the
'tax free status' of the awesomely sinister,
EUGENICS driven and driving 'benny violent'
'chair-IT-Abel' capstone foundations and NGO's.

NOT A WORD

Mimi| 4.20.11 @ 9:11AM

We will DEFEAT OBAMA in 2012 if he doesn't resign FIRST ! The Standard & Poor news is only the beginning. I agree with Peter that it was done in response to the partisan speech of April 13th. This President is NOT serious and his LOVE and dependency of HUMILIATING those he invites to front row seats..ie SCOTUS and GOP young guns is and will be his DOWNFALL!!!

Gordon W.| 4.20.11 @ 9:52AM

Question 11-14 explains why the S&P might downgrade our status below france and Germany. http://www.zerohedge.com/artic.....rence-call

Gordon W.| 4.20.11 @ 9:47AM

OK. This article is obnoxious. The first page is full of numbers which are disengenious and assertions which are false. I will take the one which I can easily figure out (the others make assumptions which are not clear from the article). The article states that our corporate tax rate of 40% is the highest. False. The highest bracket within our tax schedule is 35% and is the third largest in the world, but when compared to economies of a similar size and nature is generally indistinguishable. That is from a CBO report page 14: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/69x.....ateTax.pdf

Then it says raising taxes makes jobs flee the country. But earlier in the article it wants the capital gains tax to be lowered rather than raised. If you don't want jobs to flee the country, you need to raise the capital gains tax.

Then the article bring up averages through out history of when the country was doing well. This is a ridiculous argument to make: we were successful with these rates, so we should go back to these rates. The world is different and our economy is different. A dynamic world demands dynamic solutions.

George S| 4.20.11 @ 10:49AM

Page 22 shows the US corporate rate at 39.3% and not "nearly 40%, counting state corporate rates on average" as the author says. Good catch!

Albert| 4.20.11 @ 10:50AM

"Then it says raising taxes makes jobs flee the country. But earlier in the article it wants the capital gains tax to be lowered rather than raised. If you don't want jobs to flee the country, you need to raise the capital gains tax."

You need to explain this "logic." The Government taking more of other people's money keeps jobs in the US? Really? On what planet? Profits mean reinvestment which means expansion which means jobs. Taxes on profits stops this process, production goes where taxes are lower, and jobs follow. This is not complicated. It is BASIC economics.

Grzmlyk| 4.20.11 @ 11:01AM

If a dynamic world demands dynamic solutions, why are our solutions always the same old sclerotic, destructive, "eat the rich" bullshit that has been peddled since the 1820s?

The entire solution the left comes up with is private sector bad, more government good. No matter how often this has proven to do nothing but gut nations' vitality and spread misery, you idiots keep spreading it using Keynesian hogwash to shove it down the throats of taxpayers.

BTW, corporations do not pay taxes. Consumers do.

DRed| 4.20.11 @ 11:32AM

Exactly. The solution to every problem is lower taxes.

Grzmlyk| 4.20.11 @ 11:42AM

No, you're right. The solution to every problem is bigger government! It's worked so well in the past, right, freeloadher?

DRed| 4.20.11 @ 11:54AM

What? Who said anything about bigger government? Grizzy-you may be hearing voices. I was just pointing out that in a dynamic world demanding dynamic solutions, it's obvious that the answer to any problem is to cut taxes.

Grzmlyk| 4.20.11 @ 12:05PM

Who said anything bout the answer to any problem being to cut taxes?

The answer to too much government is to cut taxes.

And one plus one equals two. You can look it up.

skip| 4.20.11 @ 1:29PM

American patriotic geniuses DRed, Gordon W., vtwin, RCV, jharp, Clinton, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Frank, Obama, and others simply will not allow the half of Americans who don't pay any taxes to bear the burden of the other half who aren't paying their fair share.

DRed| 4.20.11 @ 2:07PM

Well, what's a fair share in skippyland? And I'm no genius, but I do know that it's not true that half of Americans don't pay any taxes. As Grizzy says, one plus one equals two. You can look it up.

skip| 4.20.11 @ 2:24PM

Look it up, say at the Tax Foundation?

Discover in 2007 the top 50% paid 97.11% of all income taxes, while the bottom 50% paid 2.89% of all income taxes, which decreased to 2.70% in 2008?

Discover in 2007 the top 1% of income earners paid more income taxes than the bottom 95% combined?

Is this what's fair in DReddyland?

Grzmlyk| 4.20.11 @ 2:31PM

"Fair" is how ever much it will rquire of your money to throw at utter abstractions to make DRed Bolshevik feel he's morally superior to YOU.

And he doesn't care how much of your money it takes.

Isn't he generous?

skip| 4.20.11 @ 2:47PM

Whether it is 'fair' or not is to considerable extant beside the point.

The real point is that this inequality under the law with respect to income tax collection is unconstitutional.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal"

This is the basis of our constitutional guarantee of equality under the law.

The constitution also provides a government in the form of a Republic where the body of citizens not paying their equal share under the law are excluded from the body of citizens entitled to vote.

What would really be both fair and constitutional would be for the bottom 50% to not be entitled to vote.

And now, a word from one of our avenging crooked foolish pawns (cue DRed):

Grzmlyk| 4.20.11 @ 3:12PM

Let me just appropriate a famous line from the great movie "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre" in summarizing liberals' philosophy vis a vis our founding fathers:

"Constitution? Constitution? We don' need no stinkin' Constitution."

And just as the bandito does in the movie, DRed Bolshevik will be happy to put a gun to your head and take what YOU have earned from the sweat of your brow.

Liberals don't give a rat's ass about the Constitution - unless, of course, they're hypocritically invoking it while attempting to shove a new law down our throats, such as Roe v. Wade or the Kelo decision.

To a Liberal in Good Standing, the Constitution is just a yellow piece of parchment with ink on it somewhere in the bowels of our government, the instrument by which America became evil and greedy and bigoted and homophobic and . . . did I mention evil?

What's important is that we hand over all of our wealth to the banditos because they clearly are better at determining what's "fair." Why, they tell us so all the time.

So hand it over and get right with Gaia.

Apurate, amigo, por favor.

DRed| 4.20.11 @ 2:59PM

Well, no, I wouldn't have used the Tax Foundation. As usual, you've refused to answer a question of mine. But I'll play along. You haven't given me enough facts to answer your question. If the top 1% of income earners earn more than the bottom 95%, then it certainly wouldn't strike me as unjust if they paid more in taxes than them. I'd also want to consider more than just federal income tax.

DRed| 4.20.11 @ 3:09PM

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

That's actually from the constitution, skip. So you couldn't be more wrong. Furthermore, I don't know where you came up with your ludicrous assertion that the constitution excluded citizens not paying their equal share from the vote. Here:
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
That's the constitution. Why don't you read it and get back to me before you embarrass yourself further.

skip| 4.20.11 @ 3:16PM

So it was just conincidence only property owners could vote in the government established by the Constitution.

If you could comprehend the term 'embarrassment' you would never, ever, be able to sleep.

DRed| 4.20.11 @ 3:30PM

"The constitution also provides a government in the form of a Republic where the body of citizens not paying their equal share under the law are excluded from the body of citizens entitled to vote."

Where? Point out the part of the constitution that does that. Take your time and read the whole thing-I'll wait.

skip| 4.20.11 @ 3:57PM

How is it the Founding Fathers established a Constitutional Republic, began exercising their individual rights under the Constitution they established to protect these individual rights, starting with elections by a body of citizens entitled to vote, this body of citizens entitled to vote exclusively property owners with an actual financial stake in the nation, this body of citizens entitled to vote excluding all individuals with no actual financial stake in the nation?

I'll wait.

As far as 'looking it up' goes, look up here at AmSpec how every point you have ever made that I have responded to has been successfully refuted, yet you consistently fail to acknowledge these self-evident truths by inevitably changing the subject.

I call you on your pathetic attempt to yet again avoid accountability for your positions.

skip| 4.20.11 @ 3:14PM

Of course you wouldn't use the Tax Foundation. Why use a reputable organization that uses actual data from the IRS? And, you've never seen referenced by the huffington post, media matters, or msnbc?

In 2007 income taxes paid were $1,115,504,000,000.

The top 1% earned $450,926,000,000.

The bottom 95% earned $664,578,000,000.

You recently stated you are no genius, but do these numbers indicate the top 1% earned more than the bottom 95%?

This is based on the 141,070,971 individuals who had a positive adjusted gross income.

You, of course, would know all this if you had just looked it up yourself.

skip| 4.20.11 @ 4:19PM

In my eternal quest for intelligence and honesty, let me clarify my presentation of data at 3:14 pm, in which I mangled taxes paid and income earned.

The top 1% paid $450,926,000,000 in income taxes.

The bottom 99% paid $664,578,000,000 in income taxes.

The bottom 95% paid $439,211,000,000 in income taxes.

The top 1% earned $2,008,259,000,000 in income.

The bottom 95% earned $5,503,958,000,000 in income.

Of the 141,070,971 individuals claiming a positive gross income, the top 1% earned 22.8% of the total income of $8,798,500,000,000.

The bottom 95% earned 62.5% of the total income of $8,798,000,000.

Yet the top 1% paid more income tax than the bottom 95% combined.

And DRed would have caught this had he just looked it up.

skip| 4.20.11 @ 3:40PM

You want to consider as equal taxes to income, taxes that are purely voluntary?

Such as voluntary taxes paid on tobacco, a product which if not used would vastly reduce 'health care costs'.

Such as voluntary taxes paid on alcohol, a product which if not used would vastly expand 'tolerance'.

Such as voluntary taxes paid on lottery tickets, a product which if not used would vastly expand 'savings'.

How is it you had enough 'intelligence' to even find American Spectator and its comments sections to begin with?

Grzmlyk| 4.20.11 @ 2:19PM

Agreed. Moreover, they either believe, or want to believe, or want others to believe, that Marxism works. It's just that simple.

Not only has it failed spectacularly everywhere it's been implemented regardless of the guise under which it hides its cancerous, existential malignity, but it is, in and of itself, immoral.

VTWIT and DRedcommie and Gordo WhackJob and Kerry and Gore and Krugman and all the others fall into one of four categories of liberal:

1) The Fools - the true believers who comprise our youth (both actuarial and the legions of adults that refuse to grow up), the starry-eyed artists and trust-fund babies and those well off enough to indulge the most decadent of sybaritic luxuries: Scratching the glorious itch of vanity, sparing no expense (using other people's money, of course) to show the world how compassionate or morally superior or smart or selfless or unbound by the mere laws of the universe THEY are;

2) The Avengers - the angry swath of people for whom resentment of others, be it for their wealth, their skin color, their religion, their ability to contribute to society, their status, or their natural gifts, is their reason for getting up in the morning. The Avengers are bound and determined to use their righteous indignation and moral outrage to make things right, god dammit, and grab that pound of flesh they are convinced the world owes them. They're only too happy to destroy whatever comes between them and their objective; hell, the more they can plunder and vandalize and loot and steal and disrupt, the better they are! - If it's not already painfully obvious, Obama falls under this category.

3) The Pawns – this large group is the Nanny State’s building blocks: the rank-and-file union members, the welfare layabouts, the ignorant and uneducated, and the legions of newly-anointed victim groups who are recipients of government handouts and subsidies and largesse. These hapless individuals are inculcated with the prime directive that they dare not wean themselves off the government teat - and as such, they are reliable foot soldiers in Leviathan's army who attach themselves to the productive class like a leech to a bloated artery.

4) The Crooks - the con men, the charlatans, the predatory lobbyists, the crony capitalists, the cynical politicians - those people who know damned well that there's no such thing as social justice, there are no Utopias, there is no ultimate "fairness" in this universe - but they happily exploit this delusion in the Fools, the Pawns and the Avengers in order to achieve their own ends - which are always either wealth or power for themselves.

There is no other kind of liberal.

skip| 4.20.11 @ 2:29PM

Liberalism is wholly lacking in intelligence and wholly lacking in honesty, has not produced a policy of benefit to this nation, has only produced policies harmful to this nation.

Grzmlyk| 4.20.11 @ 2:37PM

Skip you are so right - rule Number One of liberalism is that, in order to get it to work at all, you have to set aside the causal universe, immutable truths, the rules of logic and empirical results - or force others to do so.

But man, if you can pull that off, you are totally one of the GOOD people, dude. It's such a trip to be untethered to reality. Moral masturbation all the livelong day, dude.

skip| 4.20.11 @ 2:55PM

Our problem is that we recognize unalienable rights can only be endowed by our Creator, when any liberal knows rights can only be granted by men, provided they are the kind of good men that will not allow the half of Americans who don't pay any taxes to bear the burden of the other half who aren't paying their fair share .

DRed| 4.20.11 @ 3:11PM

Skippy, there you go again. Your idea that half of Americans don't pay any taxes is just not true. Surely you understand that income tax is not the only tax we pay, no?

Grzmlyk| 4.20.11 @ 3:15PM

What do you do for a living, sport?

Why aren't you paying your fair share?

DRed| 4.20.11 @ 3:22PM

Because people like you won't let the government raise taxes on people like me.

Grzmlyk| 4.20.11 @ 3:37PM

You know what? You are free to write a check to Uncle Sam for whatever sum your foolish and/or dishonest heart desires. Really.

But my guess is you get your rocks off more by being a troll, harrassing honest taxpayers and braying that it's other people's responsibility to build the phony Utopia you pretend to want to build.

And why should you pay more? You've done enough just by, sniff, sniff, caring about all those downtrodden types you've never met and who are exist only as pristine abstractions in the great vanity of your mind.

I'll bet you make more than I do - why is it fair that you get to bring home more pay than I do? I work very, very hard. I have a family. It's just not fair that you make more than I do.

Now, if you were honest, and were willing to put your money where your mouth is, you'd give me the difference between what you make and what I make. I mean, I deserve a big screen TV and rib eye steaks too, don't I? And my ratty little car! Someone's gotta pay me, dude; I see myself in a Volvo.

And it's my constitutional right to take a yearly excursion to Vegas, isn't it? And you're not gonna expect me to go without a little walking around money, are you?

We could set up a Paypal arrangement.

Sounds fair to me.

Pay me.

Margie| 4.20.11 @ 10:02PM

GRZ,

Porterhouse is even better ya know. :^)

And I once owned a Volvo. I used to call it my Army tank. I'm liking the s-40, and that c-30 looks pretty nice, too.

Betcha you'd go for the c-70.

skip| 4.20.11 @ 3:28PM

Let me get this straight.

I state liberals will not allow the half who does not pay any taxes to bear the burden of the other half who aren't paying their fair share.

You state I am wrong and should look it up.

I provide proof the bottom half in 2008 only paid 2.70% of all income taxes, and worse the top 1% pay more than the bottom 95%.

You state this would be logical if the top 1% earned more than the bottom 95%, an assumption you make without looking it up.

I state proof showing the top 1% in fact earn about 40% of what the bottom 95% earn.

You state my statement the bottom half pay nothing is wrong despite the proof I provide which you don't look up.

And, you state this nation wasn't even founded as a Constitutional Republic to boot?

I call Grzmlyk, what DO you do for a living, and I raise Grzmlyk, how DO you sleep at night?

Grzmlyk| 4.20.11 @ 4:00PM

It's time for DRed to put his money where his mendacious mouth is.

Pay me, DRed. That's FAIR. Pay your fair share.

Seriously. Why should I take home less than you do? What makes you deserve more than I? You don't. By your own admission you don't.

For that matter, why does Al Gore live in a 27,000 square foot house? why does Michael Moore play the stock market and hoard his millions while hiring non-union people to work on his films so he can pay low wages? Why does John Kerry lie about where his yacht is moored so he can avoid paying taxes? Why did Timmy Geithner cheat on his income taxes? Why did Tom Daschle?

Why is it you assholes are only generous with money you steal from others?

Inquiring minds want to know.

DRed| 4.20.11 @ 4:32PM

Grizle, I'm not a socialist. When did I say that it wasn't fair that some people earned more than others?

skip| 4.20.11 @ 4:34PM

Yet another:

Grounded
Retort
Zinging
Mendacious
Liberal
Yellow
Knavery

The tragedy being the targets lack the intelligence and honesty to be able to comprehend it.

Or is that the comedy of it.

Occam's Tool| 4.20.11 @ 4:34PM

Dea Skip and Mr. G:
The point on taxes is very simple: taxes should be used to raise money for necessary services of the Government, like, say, dropping nukes on Iranian nuclear plants. They should NOT be used as a societal change mechanism at all, and, in the hands of Presidents like our current one, Vermin T Maggot, attorney at law, they are quite dangerous.

Does that make sense? Do you think it's simple enough for the Twin and the Commie?

skip| 4.20.11 @ 4:43PM

Like you, I repeatedly point out defense spending and much foreigh policy is constitutional, while all welfare spending is unconstitutional.

Liberals, wholly lacking in intelligence and wholly lacking in honesty, are forever attempting to reduce constitutional defense spending in order to not only preserve but increase unconstitutional welfare spending.

Liberals, wholly lacking in intelligence and wholly lacking in honesty, are forever not just promoting, but forming, establishing, insuring, providing, and securing not the general welfare but the specific welfare.

Satan's Paradox:

Liberals and liberalism are the tools with which to destroy the greatest nation ever known by destroying the liberties of social, political, and economic rights; but those liberals are insufferable to tolerate for all eternity in as confining space as hell.

Even satan can't stand them.

DRed| 4.20.11 @ 4:55PM

Does that mean I get to go to heaven? Occam too?

skip| 4.20.11 @ 6:21PM

"No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6)

Only Jesus Christ of Nazareth decides that one. Ask Him.

"I saw satan fall like lightning from heaven." (Luke 10:18)

"He who is not with Me is against Me" (Luke 11:23)

Any follower of a religion that considers Jesus just one of the many prophets of that religion is intellectually dishonest.
It is intellectually dishonest to consider Jesus just a good man or just a prophet.
Jesus Himself removed this possibility. Jesus can only intellectually honestly be considered Lord, liar, or lunatic.
Did Jesus in fact witness the expulsion from heaven of the angel lucifer by God Almighty, or not? He is either telling the truth, lying, or such a crazy loony lunatic, He would be a liberal in today's society.
Either way, it is absurd to consider Him just another prophet.

"I will establish My covenant as an everlasting covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you" (Gensis 17:7)

The Jews are God's chosen people and get a pass on the Jesus is Lord prophet issue. Regardless, Jesus will decide on the Jews as He will decide on everyone.

I wouldn't want to be a nonChristian or a nonJew. But, again, that will be up to Jesus and Jesus alone.

martin j smith| 4.20.11 @ 9:59AM

So Gordon W, why not lay your cards on the table ? What DO you believe in ?

smc| 4.20.11 @ 10:41AM

26% -- yet Paul Ryan's proposed 25% is horrific!? What is it going take for the masses to see the nonsense?

On a separate note:
BOYCOTT FACEBOOK! (and you'll probably feel safer too)
I just deactivated my account.
I think it is really weird and kind of scary that Obama is now in bed with FB.

Why not town hall meetings at a TOWN HALL? Village square? A public forum? Why FB headquarters or any major corporation for that matter – why?
Crony-capitalism is bad enough but when governments buddy-up with media sources I find it a little creepy – especially one that has tons of personal information in a database!
Last time around it was GE(MSNBC) and Google and I thought it was pretty Soros-esque then.

So, I’m signing-off for good – at the very least as a protest, but also because I don't trust that soical media site is now in bed with government. Very creepy!

Next we’ll see FB paying $0 in taxes.

Who Cares?| 4.20.11 @ 11:01AM

Insanity can mean doing the same thing and expecting different results?

How does that apply to ranting comments, or even and especially well thought out and researched attempts to understand the nuts and bolts of the D.C. factory---as it regularly deposits its excrement, like a good a-hole?

Ah, but I admit it---it sure is FUN to have my say!

It’s like Victor Davis Hanson puts it regarding how California is collapsing---we’re living off the fumes of the creations of previous REAL WORKERS.

To every season-----our season is heavy on the consume and light on the produce, especially when it comes to infrastructure:

Tis the DESTROYING season!

Oldefarte| 4.20.11 @ 12:55PM

Great article, as usual, Peter! Moronic idiot-fools such as VTWIN that completely follow [along with all Democrats] Barry the Pied Piper off of the political/financial cliff are truly sad [and their extreme STUPIDITY is astounding]. Additionally, some so-called conservatives here amazingly play right into THE BARACKSTER'S playbook by agonizing/chastizing Republicans for their self-admitted meager concessions from DC's Democrats over the most recent short-term budget battle. When will these fools come to their senses and realize that if El Chosen One and his band of Democrat-thieves are allowed another term in the WH, there will definately be no USA in existence thereafter? These DOMESTIC TERRORISTS have for the most part already captured this country and are now in the process of tearing it apart [and its total destruction is probable, though not a certainty]. ITS NOW, folks! There may be no tomorrow. WAKE UP! Quit arguing over those bad ol Republicans like Cantor, Boehner etc; and open your eyes to the fact that this country is now under seige, and only you can determine its possible survival upon November 2012's elections. TAXES: Democrats think that all privately earned income belongs to the government [to Democrats], and not to those who worked 24-7 to EARN IT. MEDICARE: Democrats have already begun the assault upon this medical program for SENIORS [who also EARNED IT] in order to replace it with their legislated WELFARECARE [in which those 30 million previously uninsured indigents that will now become eligible for same have NOT EARNED IT AND NEVER WILL]. As Peter indicates, folks, GET YOUR COLLECTIVE HEADS IN THE GAME AND WAKE UP TO WHAT IS OCCURRING IN THIS COUNTRY...........PLEASE [for my sake and for yours]!!!!!!!!!!!

Bladerunner1954| 4.20.11 @ 4:58PM

Obama, confronted with the sobering fiscal future of the United States, paused; lit a Kool; tool a deep lungful of smoke; then exhaled and replied with a laugh:

"Let those slugs eat Brazilian arugula!"

jackc| 4.21.11 @ 12:24PM

Air-traffic controllers asleep
Government agencies asleep
Obama and his cohorts asleep for 2 years - continue to sleep!!
Wake up America
Fire Obama
Hire Trumph
For effective CHANGE

jackc| 4.21.11 @ 11:39PM

Time for charlatans masquerading as politicians, bureaucrats, messiahs, and the president to exit.
Save America from the Obama virus
A virus for socialism, poverty and the demise of the American spirit
Poverty is NEVER eradicated by impoverishing the successful
Fire Obama - President Hussein.
Hire Trump
Soon - for change and hope.

Rev Trask| 4.22.11 @ 9:44AM

What a steaming pile Mr Ferrara has dumped in front of us. We know supply-side is pure fantasy, and we also know that when middle-class taxes were cut in 1993 along with a small tax increase for the wealthy, the economy took off.

axbucxdu| 4.23.11 @ 1:14PM

From one steaming pile to another:

"When, on the contrary, I show, a little elaborately, as in the ensuing chapter, that to create wealth will increase the national income and that a large proportion of any increase in the national income will accrue to an Exchequer, amongst whose largest outgoings is the payment of incomes to those who are unemployed and whose receipts are a proportion of the incomes of those who are occupied...

Nor should the argument seem strange that taxation may be so high as to defeat its object, and that, given sufficient time to gather the fruits, a reduction of taxation will run a better chance than an increase of balancing the budget. For to take the opposite view today is to resemble a manufacturer who, running at a loss, decides to raise his price, and when his declining sales increase the loss, wrapping himself in the rectitude of plain arithmetic, decides that prudence requires him to raise the price still more--and who, when at last his account is balanced with nought on both sides, is still found righteously declaring that it would have been the act of a gambler to reduce the price when you were already making a loss.

Special thanks to John Maynard Keynes, The Collected Writings of John Maynard Keynes (London: Macmillan, Cambridge University Press, 1972).

Oldefarte| 4.24.11 @ 2:46PM

There an enlightening story on the NYT's magazine secton concerning Obama's mother and her influences upon him, FYI!!!!

niedersjobs.com | 6.10.11 @ 10:15AM

Tax breaks are always nice but if we are going to get out of this recession then we need to get the price of gasoline back down in the low $2.00 range. The money that people aren't spending on gas will convert into consumer goods and more jobs will be created. The only people making great money right now is the oil companies.

Christian Louboutin | 6.23.11 @ 6:14AM

Ryan's 2012 budget proposes to return federal taxes to their long run postwar historical average over the last 60 years of 18.3% of GDP. In sharp contrast, what Mr.

Creative Recreation | 8.10.11 @ 10:03PM

is good

More Articles by Peter Ferrara

More Articles From The Obama Watch

Anyone Still Believe Me?

May 21, 2013 | Aaron Goldstein

Obama’s Far Left Hand

May 15, 2013 | George Neumayr

That Is What We Do

May 14, 2013 | Jay D. Homnick

Turning on Obama

May 7, 2013 | Ross Kaminsky

President Obama and ‘Uncaring’ Pro-Lifers

May 2, 2013 | Owen Strachan

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/04/20/obamas-taxes-and-americas-jobs

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

From the Obama Ministry of Truth

Ben Stein|51 comments

Despite the WaPost, Benghazi Is a Major Scandal

Quin Hillyer|45 comments

IRS Union Chief Stonewalls

Jeffrey Lord|55 comments

McCain-Feingold Gave Us the IRS Scandal

Ross Kaminsky|102 comments

Anyone Still Believe Me?

Aaron Goldstein|30 comments

The Book We Still Can’t Spare

Lars Walker|46 comments

Delivering Serbs to the Wolves

Doug Bandow|18 comments

Wincing at Cumberbatch

James Bowman|9 comments

The Spectacle Blog

UPDATED: More on Lerner Pleading the Fifth

Kaylin Bugos | 4:27PM

Did Virginia Republicans Just Elect Terry McAuliffe?

Ross Kaminsky | 3:41PM

Lois Lerner Will Take the Fifth

Ross Kaminsky | 3:27PM

Cook Insists: No Income Shifting, Tax Avoidance

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 3:01PM

Democrats Outraged Over IRS, But Not the Right Aspect of It

Kaylin Bugos | 2:10PM

What Happens If the Uninsured Can’t Register Under Obamacare?

Patrick Ryan | 1:22PM

Whitehouse Berates Republicans for Causing Tornadoes

Claire Healey | 1:11PM

UPDATED: Former IRS Chief Refuses to Apologize

Kaylin Bugos | 12:45PM

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.