Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Fiscal Cliff? Tax the Rich
Townhall.com ^ | November 10, 2012 | John Ransom

Posted on 11/10/2012 4:07:54 AM PST by Kaslin

Barack Obama wants you to know that the rich are out of control.

And I partially agree. It’s a matter of fairness.

After thinking about it for a few years, he has finally figured out that our economic problems have a very simple explanation: There are too many rich people.

I know of at least one too many. The one occupying the White House? Way too rich.

(Editor's note: I'm taking a few days off. I'll see you guys again on Tuesday)

Too many rich people are causing a jobless “recovery.” Having too many rich people caused gas prices to go up, the stock market to go down and the housing bubble to burst. Too many rich people meant that a peaceful demonstration against America in Benghazi turned into terrorism. 

The rich, Obama would have you believe, are probably responsible for the next ice age too.   

Rich people, it seems, run up huge budget deficits on silly things like entitlement spending disguised as healthcare reform, green energy swindles disguised as “jobs programs” and road projects that benefit the Illinois Asphalt Contractors Association -bada-bing!

Rich people demand trillions in stimulus spending, huge mortgage entitlements for people who can’t make house payments and bloated pension programs for public workers. 

Rich people get special treatment from banks that they are supposed to be regulating; they encourage the Federal Reserve Bank to print more money and they borrow gigantic sums from the Chinese.

The rich people are out of control, Obama tells us.

In order to get them back under control, they have to be taxed.

Obama and his friends want to tax impose a super-tax on the 4 million household making more than $250,000 per year to solve the so-called "fiscal cliff" where tax cuts expire and the federal government is forced to cut spending, just as they agreed to.

Former Clinton administration Labor Secretary Robert Reich writes: “From the 1940s until 1980, the top income-tax rate on the highest earners in America was at least 70 percent. In the 1950s, it was 91 percent. Now it's 35 percent. Even if you include deductions and credits, the rich are paying a far lower share of their incomes in taxes than at any time since World War II.”

And that’s just not fair, say liberals.

“Fair” can also be called the Obama Doctrine.

The Obama Doctrine says that we have to tax the rich in the interest of fairness. We’d all have less money, for sure.  We’d all get to wait in line for rationed toilet paper, rationed food and rationed healthcare but fairness would rule the land.*

Sure, the whole Land of Opportunity thing worked for 300 years, but what about the next 300 years?

Maybe instead America can be the Yeah, We’re the Land of Opportunity, But Don’t Get Carried Away With It, O.K.?

Or maybe we can be the Land of Fairness.  

Certainly if those darn rich people would just stop being rich, then we’d have no budget problems at all.

Some of the rich are guiltily admitting as much. They’ve banded together into United for a Fair Economy. They’ve signed a pledge pleading with the government to tax the rich more.

“Seattle-based Judy Pigott, one of the heirs to her grandfather’s company that builds Peterbilt trucks and other heavy equipment, was one of the first people to sign the Pledge,” said a press release from the organization last year.

“’If we even kept what was in place from the end of the Reagan years and into those of Bush I,’” says Pigott, “’I suspect we’d not be in a budget crisis now. Let’s do what it takes to support all of us, since it takes all of us to keep this nation going.’”

You see, it takes a village to tax the rich.

Of course, Ms. Pigott is probably relying on her considerable economic experience as an heiress to come to that conclusion.

Economists and historians disagree with Ms. Pigott:  “The historical evidence suggests that capital gains tax reductions tend to increase tax revenue,’ says Shahira ElBogdady Knight an economist with the Congressional Joint Economic Study Committee.

“When capital gains tax rates were lowered in 1978 and again in 1981, revenue climbed steadily. Conversely, when the tax rate was increased in 1987, revenue began declining despite forecasters predictions it would increase. For instance, capital gains tax revenue in 1985 equaled $36.4 billion after adjusting for inflation, yet $36.2 billion was collected in 1994 under a higher tax rate. In other words, tax revenue in 1994 was slightly less than it was in 1985 even though the economy was larger, the tax rate was higher, and the stock market was stronger in 1994.”

But what about fairness? asks Obama.

Oh, well here’s the answer:

In the interest of fairness, there is one guy who needs to be taxed, and taxed at the same rate they he has taxed our patience for nearly four years long.

Because the rich guy in the White House is out of control.

I say tax him. And then tax him again, until he stops taxing us.

That seems fair to me. 

*Actual Fairness to be determined by the executive office under paragraph 5, subsection 2 of the U.S. Citizens Fairness Act also known as ObamaFair.  


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: idiotsdidntvote4mitt

1 posted on 11/10/2012 4:08:01 AM PST by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Taxing the rich is a policy that will fail quickly.

They didn’t get to be rich by being stupid sheep.

The herd will bolt and revenues will decrease.

Can you say depression?


2 posted on 11/10/2012 4:15:55 AM PST by cgbg (HLM--"Democracy is the theory that people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Kaslin, I apoligize for not reading the article. I just can’t stomach what Obama has to say anymore.
having said that, I’ll say this. When was the last time you’ve heard “we have a deal.” and actually ever seen the budget cuts enacted? Fact is, the tax increases always get etched in stone and enacted, yet cuts fall by the wayside and NEVER HAPPEN
Sorry, I’ve lost faith in all of them left and right.
Even if we go over the cliff, the cuts will never happen.


3 posted on 11/10/2012 4:28:02 AM PST by Undecided 2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Of course we all understand that now “the rich” means anyone with a job.


4 posted on 11/10/2012 4:33:56 AM PST by Artie (We are surrounded by MORONS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Undecided 2012

“Sorry, I’ve lost faith in all of them left and right.
Even if we go over the cliff, the cuts will never happen.”

I agree. When we do go over the cliff the next step is
confiscation of corporate capital and all those personal
retirement accounts. The plan is to loot America of all
it’s wealth. Looks like WWIII is going to be fought right
here on American soil.


5 posted on 11/10/2012 4:37:27 AM PST by Slambat (The right to keep and bear arms. Anything one man can carry, drive or pull.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: cgbg

“The herd will bolt and revenues will decrease.”

California and France...Biggie-Sized.


6 posted on 11/10/2012 4:50:51 AM PST by moovova
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Tax the rich eh....and just how well did that work out for the new French president....?


7 posted on 11/10/2012 4:57:58 AM PST by spokeshave (The only people better off today than 4 years ago are the Prisoners at Guantanamo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: moovova

Yeah, kill the cow to get one more drop of milk to distribute.
Kenyan brillllliance!


8 posted on 11/10/2012 4:59:31 AM PST by Leo Carpathian (FReeeeepissed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Obama’s commandment: Thou shall covet the money of anybody who makes over $250,000 a year.
Absolutely satanic and I hear no ministers sounding this alarm.


9 posted on 11/10/2012 5:02:14 AM PST by all the best (`~!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cgbg

Sure the rich can cut back staff and decrease salaries of their employees to make up for the tax increase.

But what happens to the non employee customers who are else making less?
How do they continue to buy your product .
Checkmate.


10 posted on 11/10/2012 5:08:00 AM PST by Morris70
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: all the best

Maybe we need a “Star” tax, for actors and athletes .. say 50% on earnings per movie/season... ;)


11 posted on 11/10/2012 5:30:39 AM PST by YankeeMagic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I think Boener should propose high taxes on things like windfall profits on blockbuster movies. Take the battle to them and let them squeal about their sacred cows getting slaughtered.


12 posted on 11/10/2012 5:34:40 AM PST by beef (Who Killed Kennewick Man?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: YankeeMagic
Maybe we need a “Star” tax, for actors and athletes ..
say 50% on earnings per movie/season... ;)


13 posted on 11/10/2012 5:35:05 AM PST by HangnJudge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: YankeeMagic

Well, “Tax the rich” to me at least, means tax all those who make more than $250,000 and that WOULD INCLUDE the self-proclaimed stars and athletes, would it not?

Screw them into the ground with high taxes because IMO, they contribute NOTHING directly to the gross national product.


14 posted on 11/10/2012 5:35:18 AM PST by Progov
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: YankeeMagic

Maybe we need a “Star” tax, for actors and athletes .. say 50% on earnings per movie/season...

Absolutely, all forms of entertainment. They are nonessential products that make a lot of money. Things that they want to tax, like oil, are essential.


15 posted on 11/10/2012 5:38:00 AM PST by beef (Who Killed Kennewick Man?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
TAX THE RICH

AND THEN WHAT. When that does NOT help at all, then what ?

16 posted on 11/10/2012 5:52:12 AM PST by timestax (Why not drug tests for the President AND all White Hut staff ? ? ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I would also like to see campaign finance law chaged to classify celebraty endorsements as contributions. If Barbara Streisnd wants to stuff envelopes for Obama, then that would be voluunteering. If she wants to sing at a fundraiser, then since that is her profession, and it is a campaign contribution in the amount she would charge to sing at a birthday party. Exxon cannot donate fuel for Romney to fly around. We need to on the same on their side.

BTW, most liberals don’t know that the Citizens United desision started out as a complaint to the FEC about “Fahrenheit 911”. The resulting SC decison upheld Michael Moores right to make and exhibit that movie.


17 posted on 11/10/2012 5:53:10 AM PST by beef (Who Killed Kennewick Man?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: beef

50%, it should be 70%. And politicians making more than
$150,000, the tax rate should be 50%. Any government worker making more than $40,000 per year taxed at 35%. All politicians and government workers have terrific retirement plans and health insurance. They don’t need all of this money. Liberals want to hit businesses and their people, the other side needs to be hit.


18 posted on 11/10/2012 6:00:10 AM PST by YukonGreen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

“In the 1950s, it was 91 percent.”

The liars keep parroting this myth. No one actually paid those rates back then. The tax burden on the rich is actually higher today with the removal of deductions, unless you’re a limo liberal living off a tax free foundation.


19 posted on 11/10/2012 6:40:33 AM PST by ScottfromNJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Tax the Rich

To Obama rich is anything over $30,000!

Look for more trillion dollar deficits, and no way to pay for it. I also see China evading the dollar big time.


20 posted on 11/10/2012 6:45:16 AM PST by chainsaw ("Two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. One is by the sword. The other is by Obama")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Undecided 2012
When was the last time you’ve heard “we have a deal.” and actually ever seen the budget cuts enacted? Fact is, the tax increases always get etched in stone and enacted, yet cuts fall by the wayside and NEVER HAPPEN Sorry, I’ve lost faith in all of them left and right. Even if we go over the cliff, the cuts will never happen.

Sorry to say it, but you are absolutely correct. The GOP has proved that insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. They keep making "good faith" deals and the other side keeps reneging. There is no polite or politic way to deal with them. Until we decide to throw the PC bull$h-- out the window and start using more forceful (take that as you may want to interpret it) tactics, they will continue to have their way and amass more despotic power. People like the Left used to be treated like the pariahs they are and would be run out of town on a rail. Today, it is considered to be bad manners to disagree with them. Decent people will have to do indecent things if we are to recover from the cancer that has eaten away our core.

21 posted on 11/10/2012 6:52:15 AM PST by trebb (Allies no longer trust us. Enemies no longer fear us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: cgbg
How about a special tax on trust funds? We all know these rich libs have their finances structured into these complicated instruments that preserve their wealth for generations. Maybe we can create taxes that target this. We hear about trust funds all the time, but does anyone really know how they work? I,for one, whould like to know.
22 posted on 11/10/2012 7:02:13 AM PST by beef (Who Killed Kennewick Man?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: beef
Taxing trust funds: I don't think you want to go there. As it exists now, trusts pay income tax on any undistributed income, and the recipients of distributed income pay tax. The only way to squeeze out more is to tax trust principal. Wealth tax is a very slippery slope. If the government starts to hit wealth that's been accumulated despite its best efforts to bleed income, there will be some VERY unhappy voters, Dem as well as GOP.

It's bad enough that wealth gets taxed if its real estate or a car, and that there's all sorts of pension restrictions, but those are disguised wealth taxes.

If what you are thinking of is taxing all accumulated wealth above some amount, I think you'll be sorry. Capital accumulation will be severely affected, and with it jobs and general economic well being. It will be eating the seed corn.

23 posted on 11/10/2012 7:23:39 AM PST by Pearls Before Swine (Cynical about the political process. Who, me?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Pearls Before Swine

“As it exists now, trusts pay income tax on any undistributed income, and the recipients of distributed income pay tax.”

Are they using that income to build the economy, or to support themselves in a high style while they tear it down for the rest of us? Think of all the heirs and heiresses spouting leftist platitudes so they can get invited to Hollywood cocktail parties. A lot of people who have fabulous wealth they did not earn are using it to make my life miserable, and I resent it.

Look, we are going to have to negotiate with them, otherwise we go over the cliff and the negative consequences, real or imagined, will be blamed on us. Unless you can show me that going after trust funds will hurt the GOP more than the dems, then I say throw that out there and let their trust fund babies squeal.


24 posted on 11/10/2012 11:05:00 AM PST by beef (Who Killed Kennewick Man?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: beef
Are they using that income to build the economy, or to support themselves in a high style while they tear it down for the rest of us?

It depends. Be careful before you cap wealth. What would you think if you had some enterprise of yours come through, and politicians decided to cap what you could give to your family after you were gone? Even if your family turned out to be liberal jerks? Who makes the decision?

25 posted on 11/10/2012 12:27:12 PM PST by Pearls Before Swine (Cynical about the political process. Who, me?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Pearls Before Swine
Under normal circumstances, I would agree with you. But the GOP is dying. They have the popular media totally against us. If this thing goes over the cliff, Obama can run the economy off the rails and we will take the fall. This is no time to stand pat. In order to survive, we have to outwit them, back them into corners, and expose their hypocrisy. That means we are going to have to make some proposals we might not totally like.

We are like an army standing in an open field while our enemies shoot at us from behind trees. And all while we complain about how unfair it is. If we do not find a rock soon, we are gonna get wiped out.

26 posted on 11/10/2012 2:22:56 PM PST by beef (Who Killed Kennewick Man?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson