28 Nov

Higher taxes do not equal more revenue, example #85902479…

Erika Johnsen @ Hot Air:

Let’s put aside for a moment President Obama and the Democrats’ class-warmongering rhetoric about wanting “millionaires and billionaires” to pay their fair share (I’m pretty sure that dubbing families that make over $250k/year “millionaires” is an over-generalization, but yeah, sure), and forget that the projected revenue from hiking taxes on the wealthy is a laughably insincere, piddling effort at solving our wildly out-of-control binge-spending problem. Let’s just focus on the universally acknowledged wisdom that, when you want less of something, one always-viable option is to put a tax on it.

Exhibit A, via the Telegraph:

In the 2009-10 tax year, more than 16,000 people declared an annual income of more than £1 million to HM Revenue and Customs.

This number fell to just 6,000 after Gordon Brown introduced the new 50p top rate of income tax shortly before the last general election. …

George Osborne, the Chancellor, announced in the Budget earlier this year that the 50p top rate will be reduced to 45p from next April.

Since the announcement, the number of people declaring annual incomes of more than £1 million has risen to 10,000. …

Far from raising funds, it actually cost the UK £7 billion in lost tax revenue.

I.e., wealthy Britons probably invested a lot of resources into either reducing their taxable incomes or simply moving abroad — and no doubt our own dear Democrats would label this rational self-interest as malicious greed or a disdainful lack of patriotism. Whatever they want to call it, they can’t disguise the fact that the threat of more of your money being taken from you means you’re going to look for ways to avoid that fate — and when it starts to get really serious, there’s a disincentive to even try and make that much money in the first place.

Read more

       

About Curt

Curt served in the Marine Corps for four years and has been a law enforcement officer in Los Angeles for the last 20 years.

13 Responses to Higher taxes do not equal more revenue, example #85902479…

  1. Nan G says: 1

    People can either move away or re-arrange their finances so as to come in under the new break off point.*
    Supposedly there are tons of rich liberals who just can’t wait to pay more tax….except that they can do so right now …. and they don’t.
    And those limo liberals even move their yachts out of high tax states and into low tax states all while spouting off about how the rich should pay more.

    Killing incentive.
    There’s a recipe for economic growth….NOT!

    *Not unprecedented.
    When ObamaCare lowered their definition of ”full-time work hours” to 30/week many businesses lowered their employees work hours to 28/week.

    ReplyReply
  2. James Raider says: 2

    @Nan G: #1,

    And those limo liberals even move their yachts out of high tax states and into low tax states all while spouting off about how the rich should pay more.

    Absolutely, and Buffett is the biggest of them. His record on minimizing his own taxes has been public for years. And yet, . . . . what does he proclaim and pretend for political influence and ego? Hypocrisy is just not a pretty thing to watch.

    ReplyReply
  3. AND I heard that many elected owe a big amount of tax,
    why don’t they begin by paying their tax, and cut their spending by half in all GOVERNMENT affairs including the WHITE HOUSE,
    when things are hard the family cut raw as the need is, until the good times come back,
    let the elected paid by the PEOPLE begin and cut the idiotic entitlements, burn that thousand page book,
    as an goodwill show,
    then you’will get support, not before,
    it’s like the game you play in LAST VEGAS, SHOW ME YOUR CARD AND I’LL SHOW YOU MINE.

    ReplyReply
  4. Smorgasbord says: 4

    Pretend that you have a car and a house payment due, but you don’t have much in the bank, and all of your credit cards are maxed out. There are two answers to this problem:

    REPUBLICAN ANSWER
    Reduce spending.

    DEMOCRAT ANSWER
    Get another credit card.

    ReplyReply
  5. Liberal1 (Objectivity) says: 5

    @Smorgasbord: Oversimplification. Republicans are fond of comparing the federal budget go a common household budget, but they are incomparable. For example the federal government has the power to tax and legally print money—a household doesn’t.

    ReplyReply
  6. Aqua says: 6

    @Liberal1 (Objectivity):

    For example the federal government has the power to tax and legally print money—a household doesn’t.

    The government derives its power from the consent of the governed.

    That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

    Maybe you should read the Declaration of Independence instead of Marx.

    ReplyReply
  7. Liberal1
    it’s the simple things that are creative,
    they want to complicate it with their ENTITLEMENTS, there are so many, that like some blogger mentionned ; you must be breaking the rule on at least one of them
    by just inhaling air and exhaling it

    ReplyReply
  8. Smorgasbord says: 8

    @Liberal1 (Objectivity): #5
    I only know simple math. No matter how complicated a person makes the situation, it comes down to simple math:

    More money going out than coming in, equals going broke, no matter how long it takes.

    Every time that taxes were cut, the federal revenue went up. Every time that taxes were increase, the federal revenue went down. This has been true for many years. The democrats who have been in congress for many years have lived it and know it. Even the communist countries have reduced the income taxes, because the higher amount led to less revenue.

    Ray Stevens came up with the same solution Obama did. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6TcpfBHlbs

    ReplyReply
  9. any one who know about having money, they also know that ONE MILLION IN OUR DAYS IS NOT THAT MUCH MORE,THAN OTHER,
    because they have more expanses than the lower bracket, that is on every facets, house more expansive ,
    security more expansive or none for lower bracket, and among other their charity funds are bigger,
    their medical expanses are higher, they also have placements that have to be met in time, and their very expansives insurance, and so on , and their children top education. more travel needed for the businesses and their employees pay and security pension ecetera,
    so one million is not much at the end,
    once you have that million, you need to get another to secure the first as a back up for emergency

    ReplyReply
  10. Nan G says: 10

    When Bill Clinton so famously “balanced the budget” with the Internet boom and all the taxes from those stock sales, the GOP and Newt Gingrich passed a budget (yes, Congress used to do that) of $1.7 trillion in expenditures.
    Adjusted for inflation, our federal government would be spending $2.3 trillion today and collecting $2.5 trillion in “revenues,” resulting in a $200 billion surplus.
    Under Obama we are spending $3.8 trillion today while bringing in just a tad over $2 trillion.
    ALL of the raised tax rates on ”the ((WORKING)) rich” only add (at most optimistic) $1.6 trillion over 10 years!!!
    Obama SPENDS over $1.7 trillion more than we give in tax EVERY YEAR!
    His appeal was to emotional segments of our society: women, people who believe they are marginalized, indebted students, people on the dole and gov’t workers.
    That group was enough to get him re-elected.
    But the working ”rich” are not enough to bail them all out of their perceived problems.
    Never will be.
    Remember, historically our taxes collected averaged 18% of GDP.
    Obama thinks he can UP that to collect 22.5% of GPD and spend even more and nobody will change their behavior at all so as to lighten their part of this cost!
    Not possible.
    See the UK where most of the millionaires disappeared after their tax rate went up.
    See CA where the ”takers” now outnumber the taxpayers by a large and growing margin.
    People can be very creative when it comes to THEIR stuff.
    What was that joke in today’s Sunday Funnies?
    “Those two who won the Lottery? They are both FORMER Democrats.”
    Yup.

    ReplyReply
  11. Nan G
    thank you for that,
    I find OBAMA very depressing,
    here CHRISTMAS is on our door, he come in with a speech of warning the people their tax will raise if the REPUBLICAN don’t find an agreement to let him spend more money as he wish,
    what’s another trillion, he doesn’t pay for it, he charge it to THE PEOPLE,
    nice CHRISTMAS GOOD WISHES,
    OH, I forgot we don’t pronounce CHRISTMAS any more, no we call it MERRY FISCAL CLIFF.
    a surprise for his voters, ain’t OBAMA NICE?

    ReplyReply
  12. oh oh oh
    by the way, OBAMA LOST HIS TITLE,
    the most sexy man alive, to the NORTH KOREAN LEADER KIM JON YOUNG,
    LET’s see the young running to NORTH KOREA, to steal him and make him their PRESIDENT,
    OBAMA STAY IN HAWAII, THEY DON’T WANT YOU ANYMORE FOR CHRISTMAS,

    ReplyReply
  13. watching CLINT EASTWOOD, IN ; HANG EM HIGH, COBOY MOVIE ON TELEVISION,
    anyone saw it. he was younger then.
    and it’s a good one.
    I like that TCM CHANNEL,
    just ran in to it last week,
    old movies, and better than today’s movies,

    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>

 

Switch to our mobile site