-
Neighborhood Watch, Anyone?
May 14, 2013 | 19 comments
-
We’re Still Going Backward
April 18, 2013 | 30 comments
-
Street Level Anti-Capitalism
April 8, 2013 | 71 comments
-
Snazzy Sequestered Screeners
March 8, 2013 | 13 comments
-
Welfare’s Failure Amid Red Ink
February 7, 2013 | 23 comments
The Obama Watch
A One-Hit Wonder
Obama’s tax-the-rich tune has gotten old real fast.
“The Macarena” was ranked “The #1 Greatest One-Hit Wonder of All Time” by VH1. The Spanish dance song by Los del Rio became a big international hit in 1995 and 1996. And then it was old.
After 100 listens, Los del Rio needed something new. It didn’t come and they were gone.
I wonder if the same thing is going to happen after hearing President Obama say 100 times that “the rich” aren’t paying enough taxes and that everyone else is being economically exploited.
The line appeared to sound good to a lot of people the first few times. But will it still play after it’s the persistent focus of Obama’s stump speeches for nearly another year?
In any case, if we’re going to be talking about who’s earning what and who isn’t paying enough until November’s presidential election, it seems like a good idea to see how income and the tax burden are actually distributed.
The latest official numbers we have are from Internal Revenue Service reports for calendar year 2009.
The IRS reports show that the top 1 percent of income earners, those making $343,947 and over, earned 16.9 percent of the nation’s adjusted gross income and paid 36.7 percent of all federal individual income taxes.
Mr. Obama doesn’t mention it in his speeches, but the Internal Revenue Service’s 2009 tax data show that the top 5 percent of the nation’s income earners paid a far larger share of total federal individual income taxes than the bottom 95 percent of earners.
The top 5 percent, making $154,643 and over, earned 31.7 percent of the nation’s total adjusted gross income and paid 58.7 percent of all federal individual income taxes while the bottom 95 percent of income earners received 68.3 percent of total income and paid 41.3 percent of all federal individual income taxes.
The bottom 50 percent of income recipients earned 13.5 percent of the nation’s total adjusted gross income in 2009 and paid 2.3 percent of total federal income taxes collected.
President Obama also doesn’t mention what the allegedly “unfair” super-top earners pay. The same IRS data show the top 0.1 percent of income earners (the top 10 percent of the top 1 percent of earners) earned 7.8 percent of the nation’s total adjusted gross income and paid 17.1 percent of the nation’s total federal individual income taxes.
“The average income for a tax return in the top 0.1 percent was $4.4 million in 2009, while the average amount of income taxes paid was $1.07 million, indicating an average effective individual income tax rate of 24.3 percent,” reports the Tax Foundation. Furthermore, “this very top income group has a lower average effective income tax rate than the rest of the top 1 percent of returns because these extremely high-income returns are more likely to have income from capital gains and dividends” — income that “has already been taxed once by the corporate income tax.” In other words, the aforementioned 24.3 percent tax rate considerably understates the actual income tax rate paid by the top 0.1 percent of income earners.
In a sidewalk discussion on income and taxes with “Joe the Plumber” during the 2008 presidential campaign, candidate Obama said, “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”
Clearly, we already do spread it around — lots of it. A debate on where to draw the line should be a rational discussion, considering incentives, efficiency, American competitiveness and impacts on economic growth, so that what results is “good for everybody.”
About the Author
Ralph R. Reiland is the B. Kenneth Simon professor of free enterprise and an associate professor of economics at Robert Morris University in Pittsburgh.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (93) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Ralph R. Reiland
More Articles From The Obama Watch
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/01/03/a-one-hit-wonder
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
oldfart| 1.3.12 @ 6:20AM
Never let the facts get in the way of political BS. Everything said about the Great Pretender has turned to be 180 degrees with the truth. I believe Hugh Chavez has more going for him in the 'brains' department than BO.
Purp| 1.3.12 @ 4:31PM
Except that Ronald Reagan complained in the 80's that a bus driver paying more in taxes versus a millionaire made no sense. The amount in aggregate like this article uses is an statistical trick to hide the true discrepancy in income - but we've caught on to the trick. While I will agree that everyone should pay something, it cannot be a larger share of a smaller wage. If it was good enough for Reagan then, it's good enough for us now. Raise taxes on the wealthy like he did and make this a fairer playing field.
Mike 3/505| 1.3.12 @ 10:46PM
Comprehension problem eh? The wealthy are already paying a greater effective percentage of their income than the "99 percent." What is it about liberals and their inability to do math?
JmsA| 1.4.12 @ 12:01AM
Facts are inconvenient.
Purp| 1.4.12 @ 2:41PM
They should pay more percentage wise - they consume more resources than Grandma on Social Security or a struggling single mother with 2 jobs to put food on the table. What is that YOU don't get about that. 50% of 1,000,000 leaves 50%, or $500,000.00 left to spend - do you think you could eat, pay for housing and other essentials and invest to create jobs at the same time? Of course you could. 10% of 20,000.00 leaves 18,000.00 to feed, clothe, house perhaps a family of 3 or 4. Now which is more likely to be hurting ? $500,000.00 or $18,000.00 ? Can you people not count? What is is about conservatives that don't give a d* about anyone's life or living standard but their own?
Occam's Tool| 1.5.12 @ 1:54PM
When the rich have money, they put it in investments that make poor people money and jobs. What part of investment do Libtards not understand?
Occam's Tool| 1.5.12 @ 1:53PM
Yes, and to quote another 1 trick pony, Steam: "na,na,na,na,
na,na,na,na,
hey, hey, good bye."
c. j. acworth| 1.3.12 @ 6:35AM
The question is will the eventual R nominee have the brains to counter the BS with the facts? Or will he be a Rich Kid with a guilt complex who lets himself be buffaloed by the BS'r in Chief and try to run away from the issue while trying to explain how his health-care takeover is somehow different from Obama's?
Timothy L. Pennell| 1.3.12 @ 7:11AM
Not the "Brains". The BALLS. Do they have the BALLS?
Personally, I don't think they do. They are so afraid of being called a Racist (and they will be) that they will be unwilling to go after this MFer. That's why I believed that Herman Cain was The Guy. They couldn't call him a Racist.
They (Republicans) didn't even point out the DOUBLE STANDARD of the Media's treatment of this Black Republican vs. the treatment of the White Democrat RAPIST : Bill Clinton.
Whoever is the nominee has got to get it in his head: Obama is NOT Black. Obama is RED. His Policies are RED. And our Economy is in the RED.
If he plays that Card, and he will, our guy has to LAUGH in his face, and challenge his Manhood: Why don't you cut it with the Racial Bullsh*t. Act like a man. You wanna cry, cause you think you're getting picked on, because you're Black? You're getting picked on, because you are KILLING Independent George! I mean - this Country. You're KILLING this Country.
Why was I thinking about Seinfeld?
Is Clint right? Are the JEWS using Telepathic Kabbalah Mind Waves, to control the world. Think about it. Seinfeld was a Show about NOTHING, and yet, everybody watched it. That doesn't even make sense.
Ron Paul for President!
Cain would've done that. The others?
Occam's Tool| 1.5.12 @ 1:56PM
TLP:
Yes, I am using telepathic mind waves on you, in between going to the Barbados to control the world's money supply. My Secretary Cheesehead Jack tells me when I have to fly out there.
Thanks for asking ;-).
Occam's Tool| 1.5.12 @ 1:57PM
By the way, GREAT JOB, TLP. I love your stuff.
Sixgun by My Side| 1.3.12 @ 9:56AM
Mr. Reiland,
You said not a word about tax loopholes for the rich. Not one word.
Another skewing of the truth from AmSpec contributors.
Bob K.| 1.3.12 @ 10:19AM
There are tax loopholes for just about everybody. Check with a tax accountant. There is even a tax loophole for those whose income is not high enough to pay income tax. It is called the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC).
LarryK| 1.3.12 @ 10:22AM
That is why the Fir Tax or a flat tax where ALL in the US pay taxes is fair, and why it will never happen.
LarryK| 1.3.12 @ 10:22AM
Fair Tax
Shamus| 1.3.12 @ 10:39AM
Don't tax you
Don't tax me
Tax the guy behind the tree
(The Fir Tax)
Skippy| 1.3.12 @ 5:13PM
Groan...
But great!
Skippy| 1.3.12 @ 5:15PM
That line would play well in a stump speech.
Especially when the audience is getting board.
joystick| 1.3.12 @ 10:46AM
Good point, Sixgun.
buckeyeman| 1.3.12 @ 12:22PM
Moron. Define "loophole". Oh yeah, a tax deduction that YOU cannot take advantage of. A flat tax will not solve the problem because it taxes PROFIT - that's what's left over after your business pays expenses (but why would a loser leftist like "sixgun" understand how a business works? The fair tax taxes everyone and stops the nonsense of gaming the treatment of business expenses.
BTW, I've got MILLIONS offshore thanks to the 831b LOOPHOLE... LMFAO 'cause sixgun's too stoopid to know about it. Stick that in your sixgun and pull the trigger, whydontcha?
Brubaker| 1.3.12 @ 1:22PM
Tax loopholes or not, the amount of taxes paid is the amount of taxes paid. That's not "skewing," it's simple truth.
Al Adab| 1.3.12 @ 2:49PM
What I fail to understand is how so many got a bigger refund than the amount withheld from their pay. Is that not just an example of using the tax code for redistribution?
Skippy| 1.3.12 @ 5:16PM
In brief, yes.
TrueBlue| 1.3.12 @ 2:24PM
The thing is, those numbers are AFTER they make use of the tax loopholes. That's why it's called taxable income. Look at how much you get back at the end of the year, deduct that from the taxes you paid throughout the year, and then find what the actual percentage of your income that you paid is. That's your real tax percentage. Most people don't pay anywhere near what their listed tax percentage is.
I get taxed throughout the year at 25%, but when I file my taxes jointly with my wife at the end of the year I get a chunk of that back because our joint tax rate is only 15%. Most of the lower income households do the same, and get taxed even less (if at all after they get their tax returns). Then you have your deductions for kids, business expenses, and other various write-offs that just about everybody qualifies for.
Mike 3/505| 1.3.12 @ 10:55PM
Yes he did...indirectly by comparing "effective tax rate" to income. Again...this isn't hard...it's just math. The FACT is, the so-called, "rich" are already paying more than their fair share, both in gross dollars and as a percentage of income. If you wish a truly equitable tax...no such thing as "fair," then do the following:
Use taxes on all services, such as roads ... Do that thru fuel taxes...you don't use it, you don't gotta pay.
Stuff that for for the benefit of all...like the Military, everyone pays the same...."head tax." I would pay for myself, my wife & my two teenage daughters.
If you want to put in an income "floor" for the NORAD tax...no sweat...but if you don't pay the head tax, you don't vote in federal elections.
States would be free to adopt their own schemes for state budgets.
Regards,
Mike
Mike 3/505| 1.3.12 @ 10:57PM
Strike NORAD and substitute "head." iPad autocorrect...isn't.
VonMisesJr| 1.3.12 @ 8:01AM
Hollywood superstars earn about two-and-a-half times what top CEO's earn, and sports stars at least as much. Yet OWS loves Michael MooreOn, Oprah and LeBron James.
This logically proves that it is not the top 1% that OWS and Obama hate, it is people who work in captiatlist ventures outside of entertainment and sports. And since Obama can't sing or dance like Hollywood entertainers or shoot like LeBron, they are not a target. But capitalism is a threat to statism and socialism, so capitalist are hated by statist and socialist.
But we don't hate them. They hire us, invent and innovate. DC just impoverishes us, and even the dolts who are easily manipulated are figuring it out.
Purp| 1.3.12 @ 6:13PM
They don't hate capitalism, just unbridled capitalism which leads us to the kinds of meltdowns we had in 2008 and 1929. Adam Smith and Von Mises warned us about this, but we don't care to pay attention to their warnings, only their support of free enterprise and free markets, of which we have neither.
If you take his namesake, you should know what he wrote about, don't you agree?
The Bruce| 1.3.12 @ 9:49PM
Unbridled capitalism? You mean the kind where the Government, Freddy, Fanny, and the FED made banks give risky loans to people that couldn't pay them back? The very think that led to this disaster? That "unbridled" capitalism (that isn't)?
Purp| 1.4.12 @ 2:55PM
First off, braniac, no one forced the banks to do anything. Incentives yes, forced, no. Sorry that dog don't hunt. What you've been told is a bald-faced lie.
Unbridled capitalism is wild, west capitalism where anything goes - like in the Robber Baron days of the late 1800's and early 1900's. Many of our laws, Sherman Anti-Trust Act, the FDA, Child Labor Laws, Public Health Law, etc. came from that era after the abuses of workers became widely known. 7 day working week, 12 hour days, a pittance for wages, unsanitary conditions for food and beverage establishments, diseases rampant, while Oil Magnate John Rockefeller and Banking Meister JP Morgan were in their heyday making millions off others' labor. (By the way, even though they were broken up (Standard Oil for example), these companies still exist today (JP Morgan Chase, for example - so don't bother telling me that regulations bankrupted them or made prices too high, 'cause that's Bull) . Unbridled capitalism also led to Depression after Depression and Financial collapses, 1857, 1907, which we are experiencing now and in the 1930's - because when the controls were removed, the "Boys" will play and abuse the system to fill THEIR pockets at the expense of everyone else. Now, tell me you haven't heard of any of this?
The Concentration of Wealth in fewer and fewer hands in the Capitalist Society is a terrible thing to behold - and we've been warned over and over again by great men like Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, VonMises, F. Hayek, FDR, Dwight D Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama. When all the gold is in the hands of the few, they make the rules - the golden rule is warped.
VonMisesJr| 1.4.12 @ 9:10AM
Perf, I call you Perf since your arguments are full of holes. If you were half as smart as The Bruce, you would increase your intellect infinitely.
Purp| 1.4.12 @ 2:56PM
So, by your own admission by omission, you agree with me and you have not studied your namesake, nor understand truly what he espoused. Okay, I'll accept that. When DO you deal in reality?
Brian Mc| 1.3.12 @ 8:06AM
That a 'service' of this government even knows these very personal numbers is an affront to our Republic. The bully is avoided while we argue over the toys at the playground that is about to be bulldozed. Just so long as the IRS can kick and pummel any and all, there is no such thing as a free market.
Purp| 1.3.12 @ 6:14PM
In this age of multinational corporate rule, there is no free market. They have the gold, they set the rules - the "golden rule".
The Bruce| 1.3.12 @ 9:51PM
Until there is only one brand of car, phone, home, or food to buy, the "free market is dead" argument falls flat on its face.
Purp| 1.4.12 @ 3:00PM
How about 10 brands of milk, but only one company owns all the brands? You don't know very much, do you? Free market my a* ... whether it's the elected with insider trading or the connected getting favorable tax environments (Sears, WalMart, the CME) in exchange for something from the company, there is no free market. The true cost of a gallon of gas is subsidized, as is the true cost of all energy in this country. The free market, baloney. It's a myth promulgated by those who benefit from the government tilting the scale in their favor or against their competitors. As they should - but it's far from a free market. You should know this by now.
Indiana Alex| 1.3.12 @ 9:25AM
There are also several problems with looking at income data. The first problem is that this data is not static. It changes, even for individuals and one can move up or down several brackets in a one or two year span.
The second is that "income" is not a very good measure of wealth. When Obama talks about millionaires and billionaires that don't pay taxes, the point that is missed is that this is a group that really doesn't require much income at all. Just ask Warren Buffett. They own their homes, cars and everything that most would have to make payments on, most of their assets are in Trust Accounts, which aren't taxed, and can be used as virtual income for other purchases.
This also ignores an entire population of retirees that have a great deal of assets, but realize and report very little income.
When we hear income figures used to divide the "haves" and the "have nots" we have to understand the limitations of this analysis. Any decent leader would understand and convey the same.
Lost| 1.3.12 @ 12:27PM
Wow. You have basically said assets should be tax every year as income and every one should have what their neighbor has to be fair. What is sad is you do not understand that those who assets have paid taxes on what they have more than once, ie income tax, sales tax and property tax. It is obvious that you what others have because you can not or will not earn it yourself.
Indiana Alex| 1.3.12 @ 1:10PM
Not at all Moe, all I'm saying is using income figures to determine who is "rich" and who is not by any definition not only doesn't give a proper representation of wealth.
The idea that "millionaires and billionaires" can be punished through the income tax is completely off base, as this group has the best ability to control or "hide" income, and has the least actual need for income in the first place.
TrueBlue | 1.3.12 @ 2:30PM
No reason anyone should be taxed repeatedly on something they own anyway. That's why property taxes are total bull%^. You get stuck paying taxes on something you had to pay for with income that was already taxed to begin with. Even if you're using money that hasn't been considered income for a long time, it was still taxed when it was originally made.
H Abdullah Shabazz| 1.3.12 @ 9:42AM
According to your figures, the top 0.1% pay 25% of their income to the Feds.
25%. Wow.
While the 50% to 95% group pay 24%, when you figure in social security and medicare taxes.
The bottom group, 17%.
Those poor zillionaires!
Bruce Berger| 1.3.12 @ 10:04AM
Payroll taxes, such as Social Security and Medicare, are not the same as income taxes. The payroll taxes provide a benefit for you somewhere down the line, at least in theory.
Purp| 1.3.12 @ 6:18PM
You're kidding, right? How do you think we pay for the Armed Forces, the FBI, the Dept of Homeland Security, State, Defense, Treasury, etc.? After Social Security, Medicare and Defense, the rest of the US Budget is peanuts by comparison. So, basically, you would abolish everything the government does? You wanna think that over again?
Bruce Berger| 1.3.12 @ 6:39PM
Purp,
Get off your high horse. Why don't you bother to read carefully before opening your mouth? I was simply making the point that liberals, when talking about tax burdens, like to lump payroll taxes with income taxes. Payroll taxes are different than income taxes, in that they confer some future benefit to the specific taxpayer, while income taxes pay for the operating budget of the government. I guess my shortened argument was too subtle for you. I don't have the time to spell everything out for you. Sorry about that.
So now on to your idiocy. In one of your numerous rants on Kaminski's recent post you made the claim that there were 3 million more people employed now under Obama than when GWB left office. However, 30 seconds spent on the BLS website shows that employment is down anywhere from 1,621,000 to 1,855,000 (depending on the data series one chooses) from January, 2009 to November, 2011. By the way the number of unemployed Americans is up by 1,319,000 in that time as well.
So please tell how you get an increase of 3 million jobs from those stats.
I have noticed that most of your writing is opinion that you attempt to dress up as fact. Here, in one of the few times you actually cite a statistic you get it quite wrong. I think I have learned my lesson in trying to take any argument you make seriously.
W| 1.3.12 @ 8:00PM
Bruce
Don't accept or believe any "fact" from Purple.
He is, to be charitable, loose or Clintonian with facts. There are too many examples to cite, just read him.
One example, several weeks ago he said Obama passed laws to allow women to sue for equal pay. I pointed out to him this has been the law since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Obama's "law" dealt with an amendment for the statute of limitations.
He is also against waterboarding but approves of Obama killing terrorrists. So I am still waiting for his asnwer to my question of why is it OK to kill terrorrists but not waterboard three of them to obtain info to protect Americans and that led to the kill of Osama.
How about it Purple?
Purp| 1.4.12 @ 3:22PM
First of all, I thanked you for correctly defining the amendment to women's rights in the workplace.
And, I already answered your insane question - Torture is illegal. Killing a terrorist is not. The United States did not sign an International Treaty barring killing a terrorist, nor have we passed any statute making such illegal. You cannot say the same for torture - it is illegal by statute and is banned by International Treaty that our country signed.
Torture is prohibited under 18 U.S.C. § 2340.
The United States is a party to the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which originated in the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1984, and signed by the President Ronald Reagan on April 18, 1988. Ratification by the Senate took place on October 27, 1990.
YOU can look up the facts, just as I have.
W| 1.4.12 @ 4:17PM
Purple
Is it your belief that 18 USC 2340 applies to conduct by the US military and CIA during wartime?
And so it is your position that it is moral to kill a terrorrist, but not moral to waterboard a terrorrist, because of the Treaty?
Occam's Tool| 1.5.12 @ 1:58PM
How about if we kill them through TORTURE? Is that OK?
Purp| 1.4.12 @ 3:02PM
Then clarify your point. you clearly left the implication that non-payroll taxes are not worth anything, and accrue no benefit to any of us.
Purp| 1.4.12 @ 3:24PM
I asked you at the time for a link, and you did not provide it - if you cannot provide the link, the numbers mean nothing. You think I will believe YOU that you got them from BLS. Show me the proof and then we can talk.
Shamus| 1.3.12 @ 11:04AM
Taxing the rich won't solve US fiscal problems.
Even if every dollar above $250 thousand in income were collected by the government, this would only cover 20% of the deficit spending.
This is like a reverse Pareto principle, where easy solutions are ignored in favor of ineffective ones. It's the hallmark of political pandering, and the people proposing it obviously have no interest in cutting any spending whatsoever.
soraya | 1.3.12 @ 3:38PM
but surely 20% is a start and we all have to start somewhere, see it as symbolic and goodwill towards your fellow man etc.
Skippy| 1.3.12 @ 5:21PM
I got your goodwill right here, pal.
The answer is to cut State and Federal spending in half.
Today.
And let the chips fall where they may.
This ship is sinking, and half the passengers are scooping water back into the boat.
Purp| 1.3.12 @ 6:20PM
If you don't love America - leave. You're Republican boys ran up the National Debt and now you howl about how much the government costs. If you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem - so leave.
buckeyeman| 1.3.12 @ 11:13PM
"you're" is a contraction of "you are" and does not mean the same thing as the possessive pronoun "your". Your grammar is as faulty as your thinking processes.
Purp| 1.4.12 @ 3:28PM
Thank You so much for pointing out that typo. And, it's not grammar, it's punctuation.
As you can clearly see I use the correct spelling twice in the same citation. Now, what do you think, I didn't know it in one sentence, but I did in another? Please stop using false equivalencies and elevating a typo to a ridiculous point of argument. You have nothing better to say? Point out where I have "faulty thought processes" - but that would take some thinking, something I'm sure you're/your/ur not accustomed to. Oops there I did again. So how do you like "ur" .... ?
Shamus| 1.5.12 @ 10:26AM
Both parties ran up the debt.
Al Adab| 1.3.12 @ 11:39AM
Perhaps someone can tell me by what moral ethic should one persons property be taxed at a different rate than any others? Does that not violate the equal protection clause?
If, for some unkinown reason, we must tax incomes (something the founders prohibited) then each citizen should pay the same percentage.
Shamus| 1.3.12 @ 12:00PM
Arguments for a progressive tax code are based on a desire to provide a safety net for poorer citizens. The progressive tax probably does not violate the equal protection clause, which relates to persons rather than dollars of income. Any person earning a given income would be subject to the same tax strictures.
Repealing the 16th amendment seems like a good idea to me, however, it's not likely to happen.
There probably will be some effort to reform the tax code over the next few years, but it's not clear what might get done.
Skippy| 1.3.12 @ 5:22PM
From each according to his ability, Al.
Where have I heard that before?
Butch| 1.3.12 @ 5:39PM
Al, the way I start off this argument is to introduce Joe Sobran's "equal tax." I drive on the interstate highway, you drive on the interstate highway; the commies never got east of Tulsa on me, and never got east of Tulsa on you. We share equally in all legitimate government services, we should all pay an equal dollar amount.
This takes them where they never imagined going--starting off with true equality. When they balk at that, I ask how about then, letting me be equal by giving me one vote per dollar of taxes paid. They begin sputtering at my neanderthal fascism because they don't know how to argue against it.
True equality! An equal lump sum for all!
Purp| 1.3.12 @ 6:21PM
Thomas Jefferson himself explained progressive taxation, where those that pay, pay according to their abilities. He wasn't meaning income tax, but property tax, but the concept came from him originally.
jmulcahy| 1.4.12 @ 3:38AM
You mean like this one:
"The multiplication of public offices, increase of expense beyond income, growth and entailment of a public debt, are indications soliciting the employment of the pruning knife." --Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1821. ME 15:325
Cut spending.
Purp| 1.4.12 @ 3:33PM
No, I mean this one:
"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there are in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. "
- Thomas Jefferson, October 28, 1785, an excerpt from a letter to James Madison, ‘Property and Natural Right’.
W| 1.3.12 @ 7:55PM
Al Adab,
The income tax was unconstitutional for a number of reasons which is why the Dems, under Woodrow Wilson, amended the Constitution to provide for a progressive income tax. I believe Lincoln tried the income tax during the Civil War and it was struck down.
The is no moral basis for it except the voters now can elect representatives who will pass laws to take money from higher income earners and give the money to them. Since there are more low income earners than high income earners the Dems can always play the class warfare card.
Radioman777| 1.3.12 @ 10:09AM
The tune Obama sings is the only tune Marxists know, that's why they keep singing it.
RichTex| 1.3.12 @ 10:42AM
Obama views “the rich” as the kulaks which are the class enemies of the proletariat. They must be punished. At least so far, he hasn’t sent them to the Gulag. Actually, reading the history of the Soviet Union gives one a good insight into Obamathought.
Buck Ofama| 1.3.12 @ 10:46AM
We must rid the white house of the commie vermin infestation asap.
Purp| 1.3.12 @ 6:23PM
I thought Bush left the Whitehouse?
buckeyeman| 1.3.12 @ 11:20PM
True conservatives hate most of what the befuddled Mr. Bush did. You bring him up constantly, apparently trying to discredit those with conservative values. Bush was a disaster, but a pretend conservative. I assume you know this already and are intentionally being deceptive. Why don't you try to actually argue in support of you're (sic, mockingly) beloved Marxist redistribution of what others have earned?
Purp| 1.4.12 @ 3:36PM
And, what about Papa Bush - "read my lips" ?
And what about Reagan - raised the debt ceiling 18 times in 8 years ! Or further back - Nixon and the EPA ? Ridiculous, conservatism is a myth.
Shamus| 1.5.12 @ 10:36AM
Conservatism should not be considered a myth, but rather as a part of history. Calvin Coolidge was arguably the last conservative. FDR transformed the US into a big government welfare state by destroying the rule of law.
Oldefarte| 1.3.12 @ 11:08AM
The capitalistic nature of this country must be reemphasized going forward, and a complete dilution/elimination of the historical socialism political theory must be effected. We are a capitalistic nation, not a socialistic one. We've ''''''STUPIDLY'''''' allowed the underclass elements of this country to trojun-horse a Chicago organization street hustler into our white house and the rest is history as they say. We allowed this to happen, folks, you an me. How you say? Easy, by not working hard enough to insure that he would not/could not become president in 2008. We did not educate our fellow employees, church attendees, friends, neighbors etc of the hazards-dangers of his potential actions/dictates going forward, based upon his shoulhavebeenknow personal history. We failed, and we are to blame for this. We can blame Boehner, McConnell and other current Republicans all we want, but the truth is that WE THE PEOPLE allowed this to happen, and it is now up to WE THE PEOPLE to remedy our previous mistake in November!!!!!!!!
Redstateboy| 1.3.12 @ 11:41AM
Gawd!! You think your typical Obamabot even cares about facts and statistics?!!?! They Don't Care!! All they Do care about is gaining access to Obama's "secret stash"
Pat| 1.3.12 @ 3:47PM
Redstateboy: You called it spot on. “Income inequality, don’t you just hate it?” is a perennial Top 40 hit among the Democrats, even “Happy Birthday to You” and “Here Comes Santa Claus” haven’t been sung so often or with such obvious insincerity. Obama doesn’t hate income inequality, his family income is high at present and he’s counting on book deals, speaking engagement fees and kickbacks from presidential pardons to keep his income high in the future. So, Americans have to – and want to - pretend Obama is sincere about taxing the rich, including himself, while knowing the reality couldn’t be farther from the truth. Why must American voters pretend to believe these pretty words actually mean something when knowing all the while his weasel words are merely intended to buy votes?
Obama has been the Dem’s Kentucky Derby winner when it comes to personally promoting income inequality – he’s given away more unearned wealth to those who did nothing to deserve it than all previous Democratic presidents combined – his “total trillions given away” record speaks for itself. Maybe we collectively pretend to believe Obama’s words because there is nothing us voters can do to change our corrupt system.
Yes, we may soon vote Obama out, but after 4 years of Stimulus grants to chosen friends and supporters he’ll be crying all the way to his bank. Washington is a thriving kleptocracy kept in robust good health by voters who cherish a pretty song performed in front of a teleprompter and are willing to pretend the charming illusions our politicians promote actually reflect our combined intentions as clear thinking voters.
cicero| 1.3.12 @ 12:26PM
Wrong argument and wrong focus. As long as we continue to focus on taxation and income to the government, we miss the mark. There will never be enough income for our lords' and masters' needs. They will need more and more just to keep the bread and circuses going, so they can remain in power. What we need is a conservative candidate who will conocentrate on cutting the size and scope of government.
No, reducing the size of government by 10% through attrition is not the answer. Over the first 2 years of the Obama administration, 410,000 workers were added to the Fed payroll. Those have to be cut at once. After that, a mandatory cut of 10% anually must be made until the budget is balanced, AND there is a substantial pay down on the debt. To campaign on less is only to try to convince the voting public (passengers) that your plan to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic are better that the other guys'.
Al Adab| 1.3.12 @ 1:45PM
Cicero:
Don't forget the Czars (derived from Ceasar) How do we ever tolerate the establishment of such extra legal offices?
Indy| 1.3.12 @ 2:13PM
I agree, the focus is wrong and until we change it, we cannot fix our fiscal mess. We need to start with what is the proper role of government, over the weekend, I found a long piece on that very subject, I think some readers here will enjoy it. The piece is long, this talented writer studies history and what I like are the references at the end to support the argument. Anyway, an excerpt:
"First and foremost, the role of a government is to protect individual rights. According to Cicero, the preeminent lawyer of ancient Rome, and the great thinkers of the Enlightenment Era such as John Locke and Thomas Hobbs, the primary role of government is to protect individual life, liberty, and property. To so do, a government must perform three basic functions: (1) Police – to protect individuals from domestic criminals and predators; (2) Military – to protect the community and individuals from foreign threats; and (3) Judiciary – to provide the means for individuals to settle disputes according to established law and without resorting to force. The government of a free people does not regulate its citizens nor does it coerce or influence their behavior in any way. The government of a free people is benevolent and not intrusive. Free and good people should never be afraid of their government. They should never be afraid to criticize it or seek to alter it so that it better suits their liberty needs. And should never be confronted with such voluminous statutes that they can’t reasonably be expected to read or understand them or their implications and then be punished for it."
There is much more especially for history buffs, enjoy.
http://forloveofgodandcountry......overnment/
TrueBlue | 1.3.12 @ 2:42PM
Regardless of the actual tax rate, historically the percentage of GDP remains about the same, plus or minus a few % (~15-20% since 1945). The only thing that changes is the actual dollar amounts brought in. Knowing that it stands to reason that if tax rates are lower, people have more money so everyone is better off, and the government makes more money off income taxes since people are making more. Thus, lower tax rates are better for the government if they actually want to bring in more revenue.
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/revenue_history
The problem however is with the amount the government SPENDS, not in how much they take in. What the Conservatives need to do is show proof that tax rates don't really change the % government takes in, and then show how government spending has increased irregardless of how much they are taking in. Show the American people that the problem is spending, and do it with quick soundbites and pictures because sadly people won't pay attention to a long drawn out fact-based speech. They need to differentiate themselves from the establishment Republicans, pointing out that both sides have screwed up, and what needs to change. People will listen if they admit that the fault is on both sides of the table instead of this "blame the other guy" method.
Butch| 1.3.12 @ 5:51PM
Agreed, Cicero. It costs too much because it tries to do to much. If you reduce the government to functions enumerated in the constitution only, then there go numerous departments and agencies: Education, Energy, Transportation, Housing, EPA, etc. Left would be Defense, State, Treasury, Justice, maybe the Postal Service. Gary Johnson put the reduction at 40 percent, and you haven't even touched Medicare and Social Security.
Such a platform would have to be cleverly packaged, however. "Dismantle the Government" would wow the folks on this site, but it would "scare the moderates."
Bill| 1.3.12 @ 12:30PM
It's not so much that "spreading it around" isn't a good thing; it might actually be, although there are effective arguments against that, too, particularly where it's not given voluntarily; it's that the government steals it from people and then hands it out the way the government thinks is the appropriate way.
My mom's comment on the government stealing the peoples' money was about Social Security, which was signed into law when she was just about turning 30: if they're going to steal your money, they should have the moral integrity to keep it instead of telling you the method by which, they're going to give it back to you.
David| 1.3.12 @ 12:55PM
Forget a flat tax. Implementing that won't get the taxes owed by people who work for cash.
We need a consumption tax - without an income tax. That way the millions of drug dealers, titty dancers, waiters, waitresses, bartenders, bell hops, etc., will finally begin paying their "fair share".
Those are the same people who end up paying zero federal income taxes, and then get thousands every year in the form of the Earned Income Tax Credit.
buckeyeman| 1.3.12 @ 11:31PM
David,
Hey, go easy on the "titty dancers". The real impact comes from business owners who pay tax on profits. This requires voluminous definitions of what is and what is not a valid business expense. Even a much lower rate of taxation will not prevent "gaming" of the tax code through deductions (what the ignorant choose to call "loopholes").
Much insane and wasteful spending is forced upon us entrepreneurs through the tax code in an effort to keep the fruits of our labor from being stolen and redistributed to lazy idiots like Purpel
Guy. So, you're right about the "Fair Tax" but the biggest effect is on business and not waitresses.
Michael A. Gabel| 1.3.12 @ 1:41PM
Arguments by liberal progressives are always false. This is what we always need to remember, as conservatives.
Most imprortant, we need to expose the false arguments and articulately explain why solutions in line with our conservative principles are superior.
To date, only a few like Paul Ryan have been good at this. We need to be better.
David| 1.3.12 @ 1:49PM
Michael Gabel, you can add Rick Santorum to the list of people who can articulate the conservative positions on an entire list of issues to the average voter - and do it in an appealing manner.
TrueBlue | 1.3.12 @ 2:44PM
Now if he could just stand out in the crowd instead of remaining a somewhat subdued personality. The majority of the populace wants the guy that can give that inspiring speech, not just tell them the facts. That's how we ended up with BHO in the first place, people don't tend to listen with their heads.
Flee| 1.3.12 @ 3:45PM
Unfortunately facts never seem to get in the way with Obama and his minions when it comes to taxes. They insist rich don't pay enough but won't say what is enough. It's like global warming with these fools. They want the Earth to be cooled but don't have a specific goal in mind. Feeding their friends with govt juice is the main goal and getting re-elected is Obama's main goal. It is surprising that Obama, if he really feels he has been successful, has the need to raise so much money for his campaign. You would think he brilliant successes would stand on their own with only govt funding which would allow the millions of supporters to keep their change.
Oldefarte| 1.3.12 @ 5:12PM
Read the following and weep. This is only one one example WHY it is critical for this nation's survival for a Republican to be elected president in November:
'....Newsmax..Homeland Security Report Details Visa Push Despite Fraud Risk
Tuesday, January 3, 2012 04:37 PM
Dozens of rank-and-file federal immigration officials say their bosses pressure them to approve visas, even at the risk of fraud and security concerns, according to the news website The Daily. The revelation comes from a new Homeland Security report The Daily obtained stating that high-ranking officials of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services are pressuring rank-and-file officers to rubber-stamp visa applications.More than 60 of 254 immigration officers surveyed “responded that they have been pressured to approve questionable applications,” sometimes “against their will,” according to the 40-page Homeland Security report. The Inspector General’s Office drafted the report in September, but it was not released publicly, The Daily reported.The report does not name any officials, and it indicates that this is a not a new problem for the citizenship and immigration agency. The quantity-vs.-quality problem has been an issue since at least the 1980s, the report indicates.However, it notes, the problem has only gotten worse since the Obama administration appointed Alejandro Mayorkas as director in August 2009, the report notes. Mayorkas was brought on while the administration was trying to pass comprehensive immigration reform.“We recognize their right to interpret things as liberally as possible, but you still have to follow the law,” The Daily quoted one high-ranking official as saying.Agency supervisors who voiced concerns over “employees who focus on fraud or ineligibility” were “evaluated unfairly,” the official said.Veteran agents considered too tough on applicants were given the choice between a demotion or a relocation away from their families. Their cases then were reassigned to more lenient agents who will push them forward, according to the report.“Cases are sometimes taken away from us and given to officers who the supervisors knows wills approve the case,” the report quotes a supervisor as saying.“People are afraid,” said one longtime manager who requested anonymity for fear of being fired. “Integrity only carries people so far, because they’ve got to pay the rent.”
One rank-and-file officer said he was demoted because he had a high denial rate. “They don’t reprimand you. They just move you,” he said.
“They attempted to basically get me to come into line and approve a bunch of cases. And I just wouldn’t compromise myself because the approvals they ordered, they weren’t in line with the laws,” the officer said.The report recommends improvements, including raising the burden of proof and doing away with the popular informal and special appeals practices, which immigration lawyers said would only lengthen an already onerous process, The Daily reported.Mayorkas and Homeland Security press officers declined to comment on the allegations......'
Tony in Central PA| 1.3.12 @ 6:16PM
The " Tax the Rich " assertion is supposed to be the end of the discussion. It will turn the economy around. It will eliminate the deficit. It will dramatically reduce unemployment, or better yet, allow for expanded entitlements that will allow fewer people to work but still have all of the things they want.
There are no facts to back up any of these apparent assumptions of this assertion, but who needs facts, or reason, or even sanity. Our President and his confreres have decided to make friends with the mob. It may prove a winning strategy with an electorate that is becoming increasingly idle and dependent.
The Bruce| 1.3.12 @ 10:05PM
Well, remember--these are the same people that argue that unemployment insurance creates jobs and that every dollar spent on same adds 1.6 dollars to the economy. That alone should demonstrate how nutty these people are; or perhaps just plain disingenuous.
Mike 3/505| 1.3.12 @ 11:15PM
No such thing as a perpetual motion machine...in physics or economics.
Regards,
Mike
POST American| 1.3.12 @ 10:42PM
--------------------BOTTOM LINE----------------------
'90's Show' CON-trolled opposition
Tavistock SAP OP ----ALERT!
ELSEWHERE, as NDAA 1031 was 'quietly'
signed by Obama (-BTW the man who
actually designed the piece while pretending
to be against it) on the last day of 2011
---AFTER it had passed Congress on the
222nd Anniversary of the Bill of Rights.
In the name of 'SICK---CURE---'IT'---he'
secret arrests, permanent 'disappearance'
of American citizens everywhere ---are
NOW authorized.
"We are watching here in Germany.
This is just like what happened in Germany.
Hitler was elected. He MADE himself
dictator by passing laws. This is what's
happening NOW."
-CALLER from Germany
Infowars
(yesterday)
American Spectator has yet to mention
this.
----------------------NOT GOOD-------------------------
Marc Jeric| 1.4.12 @ 5:46AM
Here in Las Vegas the local paper publishes every week a city map showing all reported burglaries and robberies. The burglars and robbers are following faithfully Mulah Obama's economic recipe of "Tax the rich and spread the wealth around". They should be invited to the White House to recive their medals.