15 Apr

Obama – How Dare You Suggest We Cut Taxes…”You Think We’re Stupid?”

                                       

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

About Curt

Curt served in the Marine Corps for four years and has been a law enforcement officer in Los Angeles for the last 24 years.
This entry was posted in Barack Obama, Baracks Broken Promises, Class Warfare, Congress, Constitution, Economy, Obamanomics, Paul Ryan, Politics, Taxes. Bookmark the permalink. Friday, April 15th, 2011 at 2:36 pm
| 728 views

69 Responses to Obama – How Dare You Suggest We Cut Taxes…”You Think We’re Stupid?”

  1. Nan G says: 1

    The New York Daily News is also covering this subject.
    They have a poll on the side.
    They ask:

    To tax or not to tax

    Are you in favor of ending the Bush-era tax cuts for households earning more than $250K or individuals earning above $200K?
    Yes. These people can afford to pay a bit more.
    No. This is completely unfair.
    I don’t know.

    Last time I looked 71 % said No. This is completely unfair.
    They can’t all be ”rich,” can they?

    Obama has completely forgotten that ”poor” is not a static situation.
    People move into and out of ”poverty” all the time in the USA (or did before Obama took office).
    We did.
    Hubby and I came from middle class roots, became poor through college and the Carter inflation era, started a business and are ”rich” now —- at least on paper.

    Others aspire to do the same.
    No wonder the vote is 71% against Obama.

    ReplyReply
  2. Greg says: 2

    The Ryan budget proposal has passed in the House. All but 4 republicans voted in favor of passage. Democratic members unanimously voted against.

    David Corn sums the moment of political suicide up in three short words: “Lemmings, meet cliff.”

    ReplyReply
  3. DrJohn says: 3

    If you have to ask….

    ReplyReply
  4. blogforce one says: 4

    POTUS Obama is an unreconstructed Bolshevik. Need I elaborate? The evidence speaks for itself.

    ReplyReply
  5. Skookum says: 5

    Every time I see him in that Il Duce pose with his chin stuck up in the air, I say to myself this arrogant fool has never been in a serious fight. No one exposes his chin like that; unless, he wants to be knocked out. Obama would be out of contention if we had a legitimate press and TV news; instead of state controlled propaganda bureaus. They are one of the main reasons he can use those arrogant poses that serve only to antagonize the opposition.

    ReplyReply
  6. Rude, Crude and Socially Unacceptable says: 6

    @Greg:
    Well, “Corn” [to you younger people, ‘corn/corny’ used to mean dumb as gay used to mean gay]; Obama Care (and anyone who believes that they are better off with an appointed bureaucrat impersonating a doctor) can take my Medicare and put it where sun does not shine.

    ReplyReply
  7. johngalt says: 7

    @Greg

    Nothing, of course, like the lemmings who read and commented on that article. It’s no surprise to conservatives that you would consider the vote political suicide for the GOP.

    ReplyReply
  8. Old Trooper 2 says: 8

    Editorial: Who’s Turning U.S. Into The Third World?

    http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/569371/201104151858/From-1st-World-To-3rd-World-.htm

    Economy: President Obama says Republicans, if they get their way, will turn the U.S. into a “Third World” nation. Has he looked recently at the course he’s set us on? As psychologists say, it sounds like projection to us.

    One of the cheapest tricks in political rhetoric is to accuse your opponents of doing something bad that you yourself are doing. That’s exactly what President Obama did when he charged that GOP efforts to restore fiscal responsibility would turn us into “a nation of potholes, and our airports would be worse than places … that we used to call the Third World.”

    Never mind that most of what he’s talking about — like “potholes” and airports — have always been local priorities. And Obama is U.S. president, not U.S. mayor.

    But what stuck in our craw was that “Third World” crack. Excuse us, isn’t that the way we’ve been heading under Obama? Consider for a moment these trends:

    • Real earnings have fallen for five straight months, and are down 1% since the end of last year.

    • Consumer price inflation is growing at a 6.1% annual rate over the last three months, while producer prices are rising an even-faster 13%. According to John Williams of the Shadow Government Statistics website, if we measure consumer prices the way we did before 1992, inflation is now running at 10% a year.

    • The U.S. has added $6 trillion to its debt under Obama, a sure sign of being on the road to Third World status. Three years ago, the U.S. had $7.9 trillion in debt. Today, we have $14 trillion. Bankrupt, hyperinflated Zimbabwe couldn’t do any better.

    • The U.S. dollar has fallen so much and foreign nations have so little confidence in our ability to run our fiscal affairs that the “BRIC” nations — the mostly fast-growing former Third World nations of Brazil, Russia, India and China — are talking about replacing the U.S. dollar in foreign trade with the Chinese yuan.

    • Just 45.4% of Americans had jobs last year, the lowest since 1983, according to census data crunched by USA Today. Among men, just 66.8% had work last year, the lowest ever.

    • Obama touts the “recovery” that supposedly began in June of 2009, but a look at the data show that last year’s real private sector GDP was in fact still down 1.1% from its peak in 2007 — so all of the “expansion” has been in government, not the private sector.

    • While we’re at it, under Obama, spending has risen farther and faster than under any president in history. At current rates, government at all levels will take up more than half of all economic activity by 2050.

    Can’t happen here, you say? In 1920, Argentina was one of the five richest countries on Earth. Then it followed policies similar to Obama’s — kowtowing to unions, government control of industry, price controls. It crashed, burned and never really recovered.

    We’re headed down that road. Today, government spending is at a record 25% of GDP, while government regulation costs the U.S. economy $1.7 trillion a year.

    As Vice President Biden might say, “That’s real Third World, man.”

    Yes, It does appear that Obama thinks that We are stupid.

    ReplyReply
  9. Greta says: 9

    I think the Republican Party needs to put out a plan that does not overpromise so it can be delivered, and put a stake in the ground to the American People. If you want to see this type of cuts, you need to get on the phones, send emails, visit with your representatives, and make your voices heard loud and clear that this is what you want. This message has to get out and I would suggest using every form of media including the blog sites. Challenge the media to tell the truth on what is proposed and have solid backing on every point. Let the people know that his might be their last chance to stop big government not only with spending, but with unending mandates and regulations killing jobs. If Obama wants the elections to be about big government and high taxes, telling the American people what product they will have to buy next, cutting defense in time of war, and government control of every sector of the economy toward socialism, then the Republicans should have a clear alternative in every area. They should have a simple healthcare reform that is under 100 pages so no one can say it is the way it is today or ObamaCare. A very good contract with America showing one side Obama plan and the alternative commitment to follow through as happned last time. Remember, there was a change in the house giving republicans power for the first time in 40 years and what happened. Clinton agenda for big government healthcare ended and healthcare costs dropped for about 5 years, he finally signed welfare reform saying the era of big government was over based on the votes of the people, and we got a balanced budget. We had a contract and kept it. We need a new one now that the people can expect if they give the party the support needed to take control.

    ReplyReply
  10. Randy says: 10

    Restoring the country to health is like taking an old neglected orchard and nursing it back into full production. Some branches need to be cur clear back to the trunk. (eliminated) Some branches can be moderately pruned to stimulate and support new growth At no time does one cut off the roots that provides the necessary nutrition of the tree.

    Using the constitution as a guide to eliminate government spending streams is a good idea. It may mean that the branch is not pruned in a single year, but should be scheduled for a future operation. That gives people time to adapt. Cutting off the roots or those who provide jobs and nurish the economy assures the tree will not survive!

    ReplyReply
  11. Hard Right says: 11

    Comrade greg continues with his one note tune; attack! Notice he fails to address the thread subject? It’s not an accident. When he can’t refute information he launches an attack meant to pull the thread off subject.

    As for the lemming remark, that is an example of extreme projection on the left’s part.

    ReplyReply
  12. Aqua says: 12

    @ Greg
    Doesn’t seem to matter Greg; Obama isn’t going to pay attention to any law the republicans pass. You say he doesn’t use signing statements, well he just issued one saying he will not abide by the provisions in the recently passed budget he approved. Class act there.

    http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/04/president-obama-issues-signing-statement-indicating-he-wont-abide-by-provision-in-budget-bill.html

    ReplyReply
  13. Old Trooper 2 says: 13

    Priorities, Hey Dude…Wheres My Bat Phone?

    Obama Disappointed With Lack of ‘Cool’ Phone in Oval Office

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/15/obama-disappointed-lack-cool-phone-oval-office/

    “The Oval Office, I always thought I was going to have really cool phones and stuff,” he said during a small fundraising event at a Chicago restaurant. “I’m like, c’mon guys, I’m the president of the United States. Where’s the fancy buttons and stuff and the big screen comes up? It doesn’t happen.”

    ReplyReply
  14. Hard Right says: 14

    @Aqua:

    Hey Aqua, guess what? Obama was against signing statements too! Liberal hypocrisy (redundant) rears it’s head. From the link you posted.

    During his presidential campaign, then-Senator Obama was quite critical of the Bush administration’s uses of signing statements telling the Boston Globe in 2007 that the “problem” with the Bush administration “is that it has attached signing statements to legislation in an effort to change the meaning of the legislation, to avoid enforcing certain provisions of the legislation that the President does not like, and to raise implausible or dubious constitutional objections to the legislation.”

    http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/04/president-obama-issues-signing-statement-indicating-he-wont-abide-by-provision-in-budget-bill.html

    ReplyReply
  15. Old Trooper 2 says: 15

    A Taxpayer Can Dream

    ReplyReply
  16. johngalt says: 16

    @Hard Right:

    I just saw that as well. A week or so ago I documented Obama’s use of signing statements, even under the objections of Greg. To Greg’s credit, he later admitted Obama’s use of those statements is similar to what Bush was castigated for.

    I have no particular objection to the use of signing statements, however, it makes more sense for the President to veto legislation that contains elements he, and his staff, feel limits his power unconstitutionally, and send it back so that any contentious elements of a particular legislation can be reconciled. But that is just me.

    It is, though, another example of the hypocrisy of Obama. I’ve lost count of the exact number of issues he’s been hypocritical over. I should have just counted the ones where he was not.

    ReplyReply
  17. Greg says: 17

    @Hard Right, #11:

    Comrade greg continues with his one note tune; attack! Notice he fails to address the thread subject? It’s not an accident. When he can’t refute information he launches an attack meant to pull the thread off subject.

    The thread subject seems to mention tax cuts. Has it escaped your notice that the Ryan budget House republicans just passed is in fact another high-end tax cut bill?

    The cuts for the wealthiest that this bill contains are much greater than the Bush tax cuts. During the Bush administration, a republican majority cut the top rate by 4.6 percent. The House majority has now passed a bill that would cut top rates by a further 10 percent on top of that.

    There’s another word in the thread subject that might be applied to the idea that tax cuts that would now total 15% might somehow balance the budget when we’re already dealing with enormous deficits.

    By the way… What most Americans will get from the Ryan budget is an increased share of the tax burden. That will come in the form of a Value Added Tax that will weigh most heavily on mainstream consumers. You all know how business passes taxes on in the form of increased prices for goods and services, right? You’re always pointing that out. Well, the final consumer is where the cumulative total of the VAT finally lands. It just won’t look like a tax increase at that point. It will look like a price increase. This is what is known as camouflage.

    In return for picking up more of the tab, the average American will have less long-term security: a voucher plan instead of Medicare coverage; rising consumer prices; reduced environmental protection, product safety, and food and drug safety. Much of the social safety net will also be greatly diminished or gone: Medicaid; food stamps; unemployment insurance.

    The wealthiest and corporate America will not be much inconvenienced by any of this. What they’ll get will be additional deep tax cuts–when they’re already subject to some of the lowest tax rates in history.

    I really can’t grasp why so obvious a scam doesn’t bother you more.

    ReplyReply
  18. Aqua says: 18

    @ Greg
    Greg, your comprehension of math confounds me. Let’s take Warren Buffett, that’s what Obama did in his speech. Buffett admitted in front of congress that he paid 17% in taxes, (I believe this was 2009). Now you and I know he doesn’t get taxed at that rate. The top tax rate is what, 35%. Buffett is taking advantage of loopholes in the tax code put in place by both parties. GE used loopholes in the corporate tax code to pay a whopping 0% in taxes. The top corporate tax rate is 35%.
    Ryan wants to lower the top corporate and individual tax rate to 25%. Now here’s the math question and I know it’s tricky; with no loopholes under Ryan’s proposal and a top tax rate of 25%, will Buffett and GE pay more in taxes or less? Feel free to use a calculator if you’d like.

    ReplyReply
  19. Greg says: 19

    @Aqua, #18:

    Eliminate the loopholes. Calculate what the tax rates should be. These are two issues, not one. The surrender of loopholes that have introduced gross unfairness into the tax system is not a bargaining chip to be used by those who have chronically abused them.

    ReplyReply
  20. Aqua says: 20

    @ Greg

    The surrender of loopholes that have introduced gross unfairness into the tax system is not a bargaining chip to be used by those who have chronically abused them.

    You’re saying republicans are the ones that abused the loopholes? Buffett is a democrat and so is Immelt. Both I cited. Bruce Springsteen, a huge lib and champion of the “working man” has a honey bee farm tucked into the corner of his estate to take advantage of some tax loophole. Reagan tried to eliminate loopholes when he lowered the tax rate, but Tip O’Neal would only let a few go. Now, who abuses them? Give me some sources.

    ReplyReply
  21. Greg says: 21

    You’re saying republicans are the ones that abused the loopholes?

    Nope. On the contrary, I assume that political affiliation has little or nothing to do with it. Build a loophole and they will come–they being anyone who can figure out how to take advantage of it.

    ReplyReply
  22. Aqua says: 22

    @ Greg
    Fair enough, I’ll cede that point. Are you saying Ryan’s plan does not address that point or that the highest rate isn’t high enough? If it’s not hig enough for you what do you base that on. If someone making say $500,000 a year can get their effective rate down to 20% using loopholes, and eliminating loopholes means they now would pay 5% more, isn’t that better than the 4.6% increase you want with the elimination of the Bush tax cuts?

    ReplyReply
  23. Smorgasbord says: 23

    This from a “Constitutional scholar”

    Can you prove he was a constitutional scholar? Why isn’t his picture in his yearbook? Why doesn’t anyone in his class remember him?

    Obama and the other liberals live by the motto, “We don’t have to fool all of the people all of the time. We only have to fool enough of them long enough to get elected.”

    ReplyReply
  24. Trosp says: 24

    One has to recall that there was this Jerusalem’s Western Wall incident where Obama’s prayer was intercepted and was later published. It seems to me, this “you think we’re stupid” remark that was supposed to be a private one is of the same MO.

    ReplyReply
  25. Randy says: 25

    @Greg: Maybe you missed something Greg. When a minority of the populations pays for government expenditures that support the majority, then the life of the country is limited. Placing the tax burden on only a small percentage of the population allows the majority to continue to vote for more give-aways. Why do you think that government employees lobby for tax increases and then get wage increases while the poor working slob keeps paying out taxes to support them. Unless a higher percentage of the population pay income taxes, there can never be any reform of the tax code or the out of control spending.

    ReplyReply
  26. Randy says: 26

    @Trosp: Obama never does anything in public that he wants to remain private. I would bet he had someone distribute a copy of the message.

    ReplyReply
  27. Nan G says: 27

    @Randy: @Greg: Maybe you missed something Greg. When a minority of the populations pays for government expenditures that support the majority, then the life of the country is limited. Placing the tax burden on only a small percentage of the population allows the majority to continue to vote for more give-aways. Why do you think that government employees lobby for tax increases and then get wage increases while the poor working slob keeps paying out taxes to support them. Unless a higher percentage of the population pay income taxes, there can never be any reform of the tax code or the out of control spending.

    Good point, Randy.
    Question: Who among us has ever got a job from a poor person?
    Thought not.

    This year 47% of US households will pay zero in federal income tax.
    Only 5 years ago it was only 40%.

    What will it be by 2012?

    And get this:
    25% of US households get 75% of their income from the federal government.
    Another 20% receives 40% of their financial support from it.

    Obama told us this was his plan….when….without a handy teleprompter he answered Joe the Plumber’s question saying he wanted to spread the wealth around.

    Here’s the issue:
    How receptive to cutting taxes which they do not pay, or cutting government spending, from which they benefit, is a majority voting block going to be in the future?

    Democracy’s most insidious enemy is the gradual devolution into the tyranny of the majority where 51% of the populace can vote again and again to empty the pockets of the other 49%.

    But those are Obama’s constituents.
    And he knows how to get more of them.
    Helping the poor is NOT Obama’s plan.
    Gaining more government control over more of our economy is Obama’s plan.
    He’s just using the poor (his useful idiots) to get from here to there.

    ReplyReply
  28. Greg says: 28

    @Randy, #25:

    Maybe you missed something Greg. When a minority of the populations pays for government expenditures that support the majority, then the life of the country is limited. Placing the tax burden on only a small percentage of the population allows the majority to continue to vote for more give-aways. Why do you think that government employees lobby for tax increases and then get wage increases while the poor working slob keeps paying out taxes to support them. Unless a higher percentage of the population pay income taxes, there can never be any reform of the tax code or the out of control spending.

    Are taxes, in fact, disproportionately paid by the rich?

    The answer seems to be yes–provided you look only at federal income taxes. If you look at the distribution of the nation’s total tax burden, however–including payroll taxes, gasoline taxes, states taxes, county taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, etc–a very different picture emerges. Refer to the chart at the bottom of page 2 of this April 15, 2011 document from Citizens for Tax Justice, showing the Total Effective Tax Rates. As a percentage of each income group’s total income, the tax burden is distributed far more evenly than a focus on federal taxes alone would suggest. The wealthiest, in fact, pay a percentage share of their total income that is not all that much greater than the middle class; the lowest income quintile carries an effective tax burden equal to 16.2% of income–a tax burden that might be argued to be very heavy, when you consider that it’s directly competing with costs for the essentials of life rather than the costs of a very affluent lifestyle.

    Shifting part of federal revenue collections from income tax to a VAT–a consumption tax–will move an additional portion of the total effective tax burden downward, since a greater percentage of the lower-income person’s total income necessarily goes toward consumption of essential items. The portion of taxes shifted to a VAT wouldn’t be going away; they would just be disguised when the average person pays them, as a higher price for necessary goods and services.

    The Ryan budget would at the same time drastically reduce the social support system that lower-income people–including the middle class–a some point depend upon.

    What will the average person do, when they’ve got a fixed premium support “voucher” that doesn’t begin to cover the actual cost of medical insurance in old age? In a free market system, any for-profit insurance plan that covers the costs of adequate health care services for the most at-risk segment of the population would have to be very expensive.

    What about old age income security? Do we really believe some free-market investment scheme can guarantee the elderly enough to live on, and still somehow operate at a profit for the people running it?

    A lot of people hate the socialist, redistributive components that have been part of of our capitalist economy for over 70 years, and would like to see them disappear entirely. The problem is that the people who depend upon them–most of us, at some point in our lives–won’t disappear.

    Worse still, this all seems to be happening in conjunction with an orchestrated plan to disempower working Americans. Over the past 30 years, working Americans have seen employee pension plans vanish entirely, or responsibility for them dumped on their government by the private corporations that made the promises. Job security has become a thing of the past, with a wave of outsourcing and offshoring that have increased corporate profits while costing millions of American workers their jobs and the nation vital parts of its manufacturing base. Wages have stagnated for most and declined for many, while unions that represented worker interests have come under increasingly aggressive attack. We’re now seeing the same pattern emerging in the public sector. The exaggerated disparity between public and private sector pay is used as an argument that public sector workers are paid too much and have too many benefits, rather than to raise questions about what has been happening to private sector pay and benefits. It’s been calculated that republican spending cuts will likely result in the loss of 700,000 jobs over the next two years–many from the public sector. The timing of that is extraordinarily bad. Possibly it will be sufficient to stop the nation’s steadily strengthening economic recovery dead in its tracks and throw it into reverse.

    Who benefits from all of this?

    ReplyReply
  29. Randy says: 29

    @Greg: As usual, you missed the point!

    ReplyReply
  30. Greg says: 30

    That point might rest on a misconception concerning how the total effective tax burden is actually spread out at present.

    ReplyReply
  31. johngalt says: 31

    @Greg:

    Greg, the disproportionate tax system is worse than is commonly stated on here. Yes, the top 1% of income earners pay 40% of total tax revenue from income taxes. However, only around 47% of Americans are employed at present. That equates to roughly 141Million workers. 1% of 141Million is 1.4Million, or, .5% of total Americans. That means that .5% of Americans pays roughly 40% of the taxes going to government programs that 159Million, plus the roughly 50% of employed Americans paying no taxes, or 70Million. Stated another way, 1.4Million people pay 40% of the money used, from income taxes, to pay for the services provided to 229Million Americans who don’t pay anything. Now, tell us again how it isn’t “fair” that the “rich” got a tax cut extension too.

    ReplyReply
  32. Mr. Irons says: 32

    One point you missed Johngalt:

    Of those who are currently working, roughly half of that (about 48%) of the active work force does not pay taxes via various loopholes or legal processes. So the burden is heavier than it shows.

    ReplyReply
  33. Blake says: 33

    Anyone who can’t see that the difference between Ryan’s budget and Barrie’s, is the difference between eating beans and eating nothing. Beans might not be your cup of tea, but they WILL keep you alive. Barrie’s budget, on the other hand……
    I mean face facts people, WE ARE BROKE- now, I don’t know where you come from, but where I come from, that constitutes an emergency- and STILL, Ryan’s budget didn’t begin to address Social Security.
    One might think that this would need to be addressed in a serious fashion, but you saw how Bush was excoriated by the Reps as well as the liberals in 2004-2005 when he tried. Anyone who WON’T take on SS should, in my opinion, be ousted from Congress, because if this isn’t reformed also, and in a fundamental way soon, there will not be a nation left.
    People poo-poo this thought, because, in their minds, the US is as firm as the ground you stand on- but ask Japan about THAT fallacy-

    ReplyReply
  34. Blake says: 34

    @johngalt: John, I am in favor of a 5%/ 10%/ 25% tax tiers instead of the cumbersome 80,000 pages of non- understandable regs we now have.
    A 5/10/25 plan, WITH NO LOOPHOLES, would go a long way towards balancing the budget.
    I would be in favor of removing any and all tax regs that hamsttring the small business owner.
    I have been laid off twice now, simply because the small cabinet shops I worked at had a slowdown in sales (darn that housing market) and they also were not sure of their tax liabilities, so, “last hired, first fired”- but I can’t draw unemployment, since most all “trades” jobs hire “sub- contract” labor, wherein I am my own “boss”. This sucks several ways- one, I have no taxes taken by my boss and held in a W-2 (one might think, “cool!”, until 4/15 rolls around, and you have to pay all of your taxes (sucks to be poor)- but , as your own boss, you also have to double (and pay) your SS dues (double suck, since I doubt I will live long enough to see my benefits). Thus, I have a little “loophole” envy for the likes of GE and Jeffery Immelt, whose company made over 5 BILLION dollars, and yet, not only PAID NO TAXES, but got a multi-million dollar TAX CREDIT for “investing” in green jobs.
    This, combined with being in Obama’s cabinet as a “Jobs” Czar, gives Immelt the title of “REACH-AROUND KING”.

    ReplyReply
  35. Old Trooper 2 says: 35

    On Taxes…

    “In 2009, Obama took itemized deductions of $514,819, a foreign tax credit of $59,372, and a deduction for interest on his home of $52,195. He was also able to take a deduction for $49,000 he contributed to his self-employed retirement fund. If he had not taken these deductions, he would have paid taxes on an additional $675,386, which in his income bracket would have meant he owed somewhere in the neighborhood of $200,000 more in taxes at the top marginal tax rate of 35 percent. Furthermore, he instructed the Nobel committee to donate his entire $1.4 million Nobel Prize directly to 10 charities, thereby avoiding the necessity of declaring the money as income on which he would have owed an additional $490,000 in taxes. If the president is so appalled at the rich and their ability to hire accountants to take advantage of each and every deduction, why doesn’t he simply take the standard deduction on his tax return, like most Americans?” –columnist Linda Chavez

    Happy Wealth Redistribution Day!

    ReplyReply
  36. johngalt says: 36

    @Blake:

    I am actually much more in favor of a tax like the “fair tax”, which is essentially, a national sales tax, but for the end user of a product. I am not so sure about their idea of a monthly ‘stipend’, or payment, from the government covering the ‘needs’ of the typical family of four. It seems to me that any time you allow the government leeway to determine who gets what, that abuses of the system follow.

    I’d like to see a system of a national sales tax, in lieu of an income tax, much like the fair tax is described, however, items such as food and medicines are exempt from taxation. The tax on items such as cars and clothing might be higher, but then there are no government checks handed out. It would be interesting to see how much the tax would need to be to cover the $2Trillion plus amount of revenue the government is expected to take in this fiscal year. The total GDP is expected to reach nearly $16Trillion, but non-durable, which includes food, equates to roughly $2Trillion of that spending. A $2.5 Trillion revenue from a $14Trillion GDP minus non-durable goods, gives us a tax rate of somewhere around 17-18% on durable goods and services. That $40,000 sticker price on a vehicle would result in $6,800-$7,200 in taxes, however, the sticker price itself would drop as well considering that the raw materials purchased by the manufacturer would be devoid of taxation, meaning the actual cost for the manufacturer to make the final product would be less.

    It wouldn’t be a perfect system of taxation, but it certainly would be a much fairer way of taxation. You’d only pay, in taxes, on what you consume, and the result would be a dissolving of any type of class warfare, as sane people would realize that the more a “rich” person has to spend, and does spend, the better off the government treasury ends up. Just a thought.

    ReplyReply
  37. Greg says: 37

    @Mr. Irons, #32:

    Of those who are currently working, roughly half of that (about 48%) of the active work force does not pay taxes via various loopholes or legal processes.

    Are you familiar with the term, working poor? Those are people who work regularly, sometimes holding multiple jobs, who still can’t earn enough to lift themselves and their families above the poverty level.

    While they may not pay federal taxes, their effective tax rate–sales taxes, state taxes, payroll taxes, etc–comes to around 16.2% of their gross earnings. With Ryan’s VAT that percentage will become even higher.

    @johngalt, #36:

    It wouldn’t be a perfect system of taxation, but it certainly would be a much fairer way of taxation.

    How is it fairer? Nearly 100% of the low-income person’s earnings are expended on the purchase of items necessary for a modest lifestyle. A consumption tax raises the costs of all of the basics of life for everyone, while removing a lower threshold below which no taxes are collected. Those barely getting by already would be taking on even more of the total tax burden.

    ReplyReply
  38. Blake says: 38

    @johngalt: You are mostly right, but a national sales tax is cumulative. At every stage of a car’s development, it would have a tax on the part used- brakes, steering wheel, cruise control, etc.
    So you can see that the end product would be probably pricier thgan you describe.
    I do think that whatever form the new tax takes, ther should be a requirement that everyone have something in the pot, that is, if they want to be qualified to vote on how to use these taxes- if you want to vote, you must have a job- otherwise, you are voting on someone else’s dime, and that aint right.

    ReplyReply
  39. Blake says: 39

    @Greg: That is why I favor the 5%/ 10%/ 25% progressive tax- everyone EXCEPT those below the beginning threshold of 16,000 dollars would have skin in the game-
    $16,000- $50,000—- 5% of gross earnings
    %50,001- 500,000—- 10% of gross earnings
    $500,001— 25% of gross earnings
    This would include corporations as well as people, and with no loopholes, would close our budget gap in short time, if you combine it with cuts in things we really do not need, such as Tropical Rainforests in Idaho, and turtle tunnels in Florida.
    These things can be created using private funds, and SHOULD BE.

    ReplyReply
  40. johngalt says: 40

    @Blake:

    The Fair Tax is not cumulative, in it’s current idea form. It places the tax only on the end product. Auto brakes? Those purchased by a manufacturer of cars does not pay a tax on the item. A garage, putting new brakes on a car would, as well as a ‘do-it-yourselfer’ purchasing new brake pads from an OReilly’s. Read up on the Fair Tax to see what it entails exactly. As I said, though, the one thing they propose that I cannot agree with is the monthly stipend to all households, as a kind of ‘refund’ of taxes on those items deemed a ‘need’, and used by the average family. I believe my way, that I stated above, of not taxing food or medicine at all, is one way to do this more effectively. Currently, there are some states who place no state sales tax on food items, while taxing everything else, so there is no reason to believe it couldn’t be accomplished on the national level.

    ReplyReply
  41. johngalt says: 41

    @Greg:

    How is it fairer? Nearly 100% of the low-income person’s earnings are expended on the purchase of items necessary for a modest lifestyle. A consumption tax raises the costs of all of the basics of life for everyone, while removing a lower threshold below which no taxes are collected. Those barely getting by already would be taking on even more of the total tax burden.

    You don’t get out much, do you? I’ve seen so-called ‘poor’ people driving around nicer vehicles than I own. I’ve seen kids from ‘poor’ families wearing nicer shoes than my kids do. You don’t have any proof, or statistics to back up your claim you cited above. And, in case you missed it, I suggested that no taxes be levied on food or medicines(which I admit can cover a wide range of items other than ‘pills’), so even if your assertion was correct, 100% of a ‘poor’ person’s income wouldn’t be spent on taxed items.

    What’s more, a consumption tax, such as the Fair Tax, is not a cumulative tax, on all phases of production for a product. It is only taxed at the end, where a consumer purchases the item. That means that a manufacturer doesn’t pay tax on, say, the rubber they use for the soles of shoes, or the cloth material used to make a t-shirt, or the steel used to make a car. And it has been suggested, that without those taxes adding to the price to manufacture products, that the end price to a consumer, even with a somewhat ‘high’ tax rate of 17-18%, would be nearly identical, or even less, than what it is today.

    I fail to see how those just getting by would share more of the tax burden. Are they purchasing new bass boats? Are they shopping at the high end clothing stores? Are they purchasing the high end, restaurant quality cookware? Your claims are groundless. A true consumption tax would end up with those who purchase the high-end items paying more in taxes than those who do not.

    Answer this, Greg: Just how high a percentage of Americans do you wish to keep from paying NO tax whatsoever? Right now, only roughly 50% of Americans are employed, and out of those, roughly 50% owe no income taxes at the end of the year, some even gain money from the government. So, only a quarter of Americans pay taxes that are used by all 300Million of us. Tell me how that is fair.

    ReplyReply
  42. Randy says: 42

    @johngalt: John, the fair tax would not be fair on the poor. They would pay too much tax on their wide screen TVs and their X boxes. As for cars, ust drop by the high schools now days and see what these kids from poor areas drive. I have asked Greg repeatedly to define “poor”. Even Walter Williams describes the poor today as having two TVs, microwave, washer and dryer, and two cars. Many own their own homes. What we describe as poor in the US would be well off in other countries.

    ReplyReply
  43. johngalt says: 43

    @Blake:

    I like you proposal, with one BIG exception. Whenever you allow the government wriggle-room like that, a way will always be available for them to pit Americans against one another due to economic class issues. Those percentages will change, more ranges will be added, and we end up exactly where we are today, with the higher income brackets paying nearly all of the income taxes. Not saying that it definitely would happen, but that is similar to how the income tax system started out, and look where that has got us.

    With my idea, that I borrowed heavily from the Fair Tax people, if Congress went to raise the tax rate, everyone would be affected, as would all politicians, by their electorate. It would truly make it so that everyone would have ‘skin in the game’.

    ReplyReply
  44. Smorgasbord says: 44

    @johngalt: #40
    I’m a believer in the Fair Tax. It should have been called the Federal Sales Tax so people would understand what it is. The problem with exempting food, drugs, etc., from the tax is it creates more work for others keeping the things separate, meaning more people on the Federal payroll. It also lets people ring up items that should be taxed so that it isn’t taxed. The system has always been like that, where the ones who do the actual selling can wring it up however they want.

    To me, the monthly payments to every household is the best way to end the welfare ripoff. The way it works now we are paying people not to work. With The Fair Tax way the people are getting the poverty level amount, but they can earn all they want and not loose the payments. This encourages them to go out and make as much as they want. The system we have now encourages them NOT to look for extra income or they will loose their welfare money.

    ReplyReply
  45. johngalt says: 45

    @Randy:

    Well, speaking in today’s terms, as far as what a ‘poor’ person pays in taxes, one could say that it isn’t fair. However, the ‘poor’ would still end up paying less percentage in taxes, as to total income, than the ‘rich’ would, if my idea was implemented. For example: Let’s assume the average family of four spends $250 every two weeks on food items. That equates to $6500 a year. We have two families, one that brings in $500k, the other $50k. Subtracting the food, which wouldn’t be taxed, we end up with $493,500 for one, and $43,500 for the other. Now, assuming they both spend 90% of their left over incomes on taxable items, the one $500k family pays $75,505 in taxes. The $50k family pays $6,655 in taxes. As a percentage of total income, the $500k family pays 15.1%, while the $50k family pays 13.3%. The tax burden is still shifted to the higher income earners, assuming most spend nearly all they earn, and that food costs are relatively equal.

    What I have proposed is a true consumption tax, and the family who brings in more income, has more to spend, and will therefore pay higher taxes, in total dollar amounts. No deductions. No ‘loopholes’. Companies would be free to manufacture their products without the concern for high corporate taxes, bringing jobs back to the U.S. And any increase in tax rates would be felt by everyone, and thus, every politician. It’s about as fair a way to go as one can get.

    ReplyReply
  46. Smorgasbord says: 46

    @Greg: #37
    Before you condemn The Fair Tax you should read up on it. Without going into the details of how it works, after The Fair Tax would be enacted, the prices of the items sold would be the same. The price would not go up. The difference is that since businesses wouldn’t be paying ANY taxes at all, they would be selling their products for less. The Fair Tax would be added at the point of sail, making the items the same price as they were before, except that you will see how much tax you pay on each receipt.

    The IRS and the funding for it would be eliminated, you wouldn’t have to fill out Federal Income Tax forms, and the buildings the Federal government rents to store all the tax forms would be eliminated.

    Even the super rich who don’t pay taxes now will start paying them each time they buy something. The illegals will even start paying taxes for the first time.

    ReplyReply
  47. johngalt says: 47

    @Smorgasbord:

    Two points:
    One; There are states now, such as mine, where the state sales tax is not applicable to most food items. It’s easier than you would think to separate them all out. Adding in medicines to the non-taxed items would be a plus for those who purchase medicines, particularly those who use a lot of them.

    Two; The problem with a government stipend, is that it would be too easy for pols to pander to the lower income families, and change the tax law to allow for a higher monthly payment based on lower incomes. I’m more for taking as much ‘decision’ making, or possible decision making, out of the process entirely, and thus, removing as much pandering to certain groups of people by politicians as possible. Just a thought. I used to agree with your comment, but after thinking about how the politicians place blame and attack the ‘rich’, to pander to the lower income people, thus dividing them amongst economic classes, I changed my mind on that. For a tax system to be truly fair, it needs to be one where people pay in, based on what they earn, no matter how much they earn, with no special privileges or benefits going to anyone of any particular class, where any change to the rate affects everyone, and as foolproof as possible. That’s why I advocate not taxing certain items, that everyone uses daily, and at roughly the same usage.

    ReplyReply
  48. johngalt says: 48

    @Smorgasbord:

    Another point for Greg, is that without any corporate taxes, one incentive for companies to ship jobs overseas is eliminated entirely. Not only that, but in my estimation, companies would bring jobs back that went overseas, and more jobs would be available, meaning more revenue for the government.

    ReplyReply
  49. Mr. Irons says: 49

    @Greg:

    And here we go again, with you being a moron. Yes I’m familiar with the working poor by being in that bracket and working up in my position only to be knocked down by the exact socialist politicans you defend who hate certain industries yet that’s a different matter, but almost 48 percent of the work force that is not paying taxes by legal measures are not part of the working poor. You may believe what ever you wish but payment datas and IRS tax collection datas indicate that almost half of the 50,000 dollar range to 250,000 dollar range workers in this Nation do not pay taxes. Or for that matter those in the “Rich” range, such as Obama’s corporate backer GE CEO and CFO, getting off on various income and corporate taxes by legal measures.

    And ontop of that I’ve already pointed out how various State/Federal employees themselves get exemptions or buffers legally from taxation in one manner or another. Apparently you can’t retain such information I’ve pointed out or you wouldn’t be swinging in the dark here.

    Thank you for trying at being aware of the tax code, taxes collected for the previous fiscal period and IRS data released, but please try again.

    ReplyReply
  50. Smorgasbord says: 50

    @johngalt: #47

    The problem with a government stipend, is that it would be too easy for pols to pander to the lower income families, and change the tax law to allow for a higher monthly payment based on lower incomes.

    The Fair Tax suggests using the poverty level in figuring the payments to families. As the poverty level goes up or down, so does the payments to the families.

    For a tax system to be truly fair, it needs to be one where people pay in, based on what they earn, no matter how much they earn, with no special privileges or benefits going to anyone of any particular class, where any change to the rate affects everyone, and as foolproof as possible. That’s why I advocate not taxing certain items, that everyone uses daily, and at roughly the same usage.

    So, what you are saying is that the rich can have their high priced food that I don’t even know how to spell without paying taxes on them? It would be too complicated to keep different categories of food that are not taxed or taxed. What you are not figuring in is that when you allow deductions, others are paying more taxes than they would if all paid the same taxes.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>