Every day that Obama is in the White House we get further proof, not that we need it, that all we wants to do is redistribute wealth like a good little Socialist:
Listen to his whole rant here
Amazing.
This from a “Constitutional scholar”
He doesn’t want Congress to get into the “nickle and dime” business…which is in fact THE business they are supposed to conduct. More basic civics classes maybe Mr. Constitutional Scholar? (Like the man really taught anyone about the Constitution….puhlease)
The power of the purse is one of the checks and balances in our government. I mean really….does someone need to tell our President this fact?
Obviously someone does.
“you think we’re stupid?”
When in fact it is Obama who believes us to be stupid. There are no cuts that will be made by this President, instead his unicorns and lollipops will be paid for with higher taxes.
In his budget speech earlier this week, President Obama described his budget plan this way:
It’s an approach that achieves about $2 trillion in spending cuts across the budget. It will lower our interest payments on the debt by $1 trillion. It calls for tax reform to cut about $1 trillion in tax expenditures — spending in the tax code. And it achieves these goals while protecting the middle class, protecting our commitment to seniors and protecting our investments in the future.
Now with all these plans floating around — the debt commission, Paul Ryan’s — Goldman Sachs has tried to do an apples-to-apples comparison over 10 years (not 12 as White House tried to pull off). And here is what it found:
So of the 3.4 percentage points of savings, more than half — 1.9 points — comes from taxes. That’s 56 percent, not the one-third or one-quarter that Obama was talking about. And I am assuming that Goldman is using the White House’s rosier economic forecasts when evaluating Obama’s plan. (Ryan uses the gloomier ones from the Congressional Budget Office.)
What’s the “rosier” economic forecast?
For instance, take the president’s FY 2012 budget. CBO’s analysis of it indicates that it will add about 8.8 trillion in inflation-adjusted dollars to the deficit by 2021. That’s a lot. But it could be a lot more. CBO projects that real economic growth over the next decade will average 2.9 percent per year. If, however, real growth over the next decade mimics what we saw in the last 10 years (1.7 percent on average), my back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests we’d be talking about at least an $11.3 trillion inflation-adjusted deficit. That’s an additional $2.5 trillion just over an assumption about the economy.
More from Goldman Sachs:
Measured against the CBO alternative scenario, the President’s proposal relies more heavily on increased revenue than the other proposals. It assumes that the $1 trillion in proposed revenue increase (over 12 years) does not include the additional $700bn (over ten years) from allowing the upper-income tax provisions to expire; the President’s spending cut proposal is on the same general scale as the external commissions, though somewhat smaller, at around 1.5% of ten-year GDP.
Smoke and mirrors as he continues to spend…
And raise YOUR taxes.
Do you think we’re stupid?
Obviously he does.
UPDATE
Oh btw: Gallup: Obama approval hits all-time low
See author page
@johngalt: #48
That was in The Fair Tax book. Companies in other countries that have corporate taxes would use the USA as their home base of operation since they wouldn’t pay any taxes.
@Smorgasbord:
I see your point. I had forgot that they based the government stipend on the poverty level. That is something that could work, assuming that if the Fair Tax was implemented, it was made as ironclad as possible, regarding that government payment amount.
As for my idea, I don’t think that it necessarily would be all that different, as far as spending money on food, and it is an easy thing to do, with the computer systems stores have nowadays.
Either way, it is a much fairer way to go about applying taxation on a populace than what we currently have. High income earners are continually putting money into tax shelters, just as low income earners aren’t paying anything. The heavy burden is on the middle class, too ‘rich’ to receive the credits the low-income earners receive, but too ‘poor’ to use the tax shelters the high earners use. The Fair Tax touches everyone equitably, concerning percentage of income, since it is based on what people spend, or consume.
The Russian Federation and one former Eastern Bloc Nation (name escapes me now) are prime Tax shelter havens for US businesses at the moment due to corporate taxation rates lower than the US and a flat tax applied at the National level for goods and services sold…
@Blake: #39
What you are saying is that you want to keep the IRS and all of the other agencies and the billions of dollars each year it costs to run a tax system like we have.
The problem with using an income amount to figure taxes like we do now is that they are never adjusted. When our tax code was created, one person could earn enough to take care of his family because they started out at no tax or in the lower tax levels. As inflation came along they would go into the higher brackets. Today’s first time full time employee probably starts out in a tax bracket already. As inflation keeps increasing they are starting out at higher wages, so they are starting out paying a higher percentage tax than the ones were when the tax code was created. Eventually, everyone will be starting out at the maximum tax level. It needs to be adjusted at regular intervals and have the tax brackets separate so you pay the percent on the money earned in that bracket only.
It would work better if the money you earned on each bracket was separate, instead, you are taxed at the higher rate for all of your income. For example, if you earned an amount that you were $0.01 over a tax bracket, you are not taxed at the higher rate for the $0.01 in the higher bracket and the rest in their separate brackets. You are taxed at the higher rate for every penny you earned. That extra penny could cost you several thousand dollars in extra taxes.
When you figure the fact that corporations don’t pay taxes, that they are just a collection agency for the IRS, you have to wonder why should they pay taxes. The extra cost just goes into their products and we pay the higher price.
When you are taxing corporations at a higher rate than other countries there is still an incentive for them to move to lower tax countries. No taxes would keep them here and bring other countries corporations here.
@johngalt: #52
If you allow food and drugs to be exempt from the Fair Tax you will still have to have extra Federal workers to not only keep them separate, but police the ones who can just ring up items as they want. The ones who own the stores can do this easily. Others could pay them to ring them up as food or drugs. The Feds would have to monitor store sales to make sure that the amount of items ordered matches the amount sold.
@Blake: #38
As was suggested before, read The Fair Tax book before you comment any further. The only tax on any item is when you buy it in the store. No other taxes are added. PLEASE READ THE BOOK BEFORE COMMENTING ANY FURTHER.
@ Greg…
Despite Your perspective that quote is still true today.
@Smorgasbord:
Yeah, I went and read through much of it again on the website. As I said, if one could make it an ironclad piece of legislation, with very little, if any, wriggle-room for the politicians to play their class warfare games, then it would be good, even with a ‘prebate’ check. That is the one real concern I have with it, but no matter what, it is many times better than what we have today.
All Greg’s questions are answered on the website, complete with facts and figures. After reading much of the info, and articles, present there, I’d have to question why those who propose even more progressive taxes within the current system wouldn’t be all for it.
@Smorgasbord, #46:
I just had a look at the FairTax.org website. It’s certainly seems like a simple, straightforward idea. Thinking through all the implications isn’t. It’ll take me time to form an opinion.
On the surface at least it sounds more equitable, transparent, and far more easily administered than a value added tax.
@Greg:
Read this for answers to many of your questions:
http://www.fairtax.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=9321&news_iv_ctrl=1521
@johngalt: #58
The legislation has been entered into Congress.
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=news_cosponsor
If enough of us would contact our Federal reps we could get the bill passed.
The reason so many don’t want The Fair Tax is they are making too much money the way the tax code is written. Also, since there wouldn’t be an IRS any more, there wouldn’t be as many Federal workers who the politicians can buy their vote by guaranteeing them higher wages if they vote for that politician.
Let’s get The Fair Tax passed as is first, then, if changes are needed, they can be made later.
@Greg: #59
That is why most politicians don’t like The Fair Tax. It actually reduces government. No IRS and no income tax forms.
@Smorgasbord, #61:
Yup. Every tax consultant, tax attorney, and tax preparer in the country probably hates the idea of simplification–not to mention the lobbiests-for-hire that specialize in promoting loopholes and the special interests that benefit from them.
@Greg: #63
I forgot about them. Thanks for reminding me.
@Greg:
And this is something that doesn’t even apply to only one side or the other. Get rid of the incentives for such action, and see less of an influence by groups not concerned with what’s best for the U.S., but only what is best for them or their clients.
@johngalt: We wouldn’t end up back where we are if we were to make it a constitutional amendment- that would freeze it where it is, and we would need to amend the amendment in order to change it, and that is hard to do- as hard or harder than getting the amendment in the first place.
Regardless of anything else, we need to do something about this- no way in hell is it close to fair now.
@Smorgasbord: If the IRS was abolished, do you mean that these people would have to go get real jobs? Hell, all they know is how to drain someone’s lifeblood- I suppose the Red Cross could use them-
@Blake:
Constitutional amendments are, by design, a hard task to accomplish. What’s more, I don’t think that one should be administered in this case, so that rights already guaranteed by our Constitution, can be adjusted, or limited. We have the right to ‘equal protection’ under the Constitution, yet tax law is not applied equally, in the sense that some get deductions that others do not, and that some end up paying higher taxes than others who make roughly the same income.
No, for a tax system to be truly ‘equal’, the same application of law must be made to all. I believe that the FairTax is the simplest way to accomplish this.
@johngalt: Yes, but in order to change our tax system, I fear we will need to codify it through the amending of the 16th amendment- that is what I was trying to convey.