Posted on 09/18/2011 7:03:53 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
he Republicans have had 12 hours to digest the news that President Obama plans to propose a "Millionaire's tax" on annual incomes over $1 million.
As expected, they're freaking out.
And if they had a good argument as to why such a tax was a terrible idea, we'd be happy to say so. But so far anyway, they don't.
Obviously, no one likes higher taxes. And it's no surprise that the potential target of higher taxes will squawk in protest as soon as the idea is proposed. But if the country is to begin to find a way out of its massive debt-and-deficit problem, it's important to separate the self-interested squawking from actual logic.
The Republic arguments against Obama's millionaire's tax boil down to the following:
Raising taxes on millionaires will kill their ambition and discourage them from working
Raising taxes on millionaires will punish successful people for being successful
Raising taxes is always a terrible idea--the problem is spending
Taxes are a form of theft: The government has no right to take our money away
Raising taxes in a weak economy will further weaken the economy
Of these reasons, only the last one is valid. Raising taxes in a weak economy might, in fact, further weaken the economy (or the private sector, anyway). This weakening effect will certainly be less than it would if one raised taxes on the middle class, but it still could weaken the economy. And that's why it's important to consider the tax carefully and phase it in over time.
Just admit it: He's right on this one.
The rest of the Republican counter-arguments are just silly, self-serving, or obstructionist. Let's take them one by one, ending with the one that seems most persuasive to reasonable people.
(Excerpt) Read more at articles.businessinsider.com ...
How About it will do about as much good a peeing on an electric heater or a cattle fence.
He belongs in prison.
from the wiki-wacky-pedia:
[snip] Henry Blodget (born 1966) is an American former equity research analyst, currently banned from the securities industry, who was senior Internet analyst for CIBC Oppenheimer during the dot-com bubble and the head of the global Internet research team at Merrill Lynch. Blodget is now the editor and CEO of The Business Insider, a business news and analysis site, and a host of Yahoo Daily Ticker, a finance show on Yahoo... In 2002, then New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, published Merrill Lynch e-mails in which Blodget gave assessments about stocks which conflicted with what was publicly published. In 2003, he was charged with civil securities fraud by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. He agreed to a permanent ban from the securities industry and paid a $2 million fine plus a $2 million disgorgement... He is a frequent contributor to the magazines Slate, Newsweek and New York. [/snip]
Conservatives hear that Warren Buffett pays less in taxes than his secretary and say, “That ridiculous, the secretary needs to pay less.”
I hear it and I say Buffett's lying, his secretary never paid 30%. Larry explains further here.
Taxes on those making more than a million dollars a year will hurt black athletes disproportionately.
Is this guy really this stupid?
Well the it might weaken the private sector that pays for the public sector but that is not a problem because we can always raise taxes on those who make over a million dollars.
/S
How do you or everyone else respond to this liberal argument:
Hiring someone provides an expense, and an expense, being deductible, REDUCES the ultimate tax burden (leading to the example of a boss who pays no taxes because he’s paying 10 salaries from his $250K in GROSS revenues).
What is the return on investment of $535 million invested by Obama and compared to $535 million invested by Warren Buffet?
I would be satisfied if my working output got the same tax advantage.....but I couldn't deduct a baloney sandwich.....
I think they must be going after interest and capital gains which has to hit the moderate income people living off investments as well unless they say capital gains over $XX,000. Still, that will shift large sums out of investments. Sure to greatly help jobs (like hell it will).
The US Constitution limits the powers of the Federal Government. Congress is given the power to tax to pay for the legitimate uses of those powers. Taxing further to finance purposes beyond the exercise of those legitimate powers (redistribution of wealth) is theft.
Because it creates ten taxpayers in the process.......
So what’s your point? There are also risks that businessmen take that wage earners do not — there are jobs created by businessmen that wage earners cannot create.
We live in a free country that depends on business people taking risks. For that risk, there are some benefits. Anyone is free to become one of those business people or to at least try.
how about a tax on people who post Henry Blodget opinion pieces on FR?
But I learned in school that the legislative branch makes laws, not the executive.
What's going on?
“... we wouldn’t reach $950 billion ...”
I’m not sure where people got this number, but it is flat wrong. The top 1% of income tax filers earn 20% of all personal income in the US. Total personal income is $12.5T, and 20% of that is $2.5T per year. After adjustments, their AGI is $2T. That is just their annual income, not “all their money” which is probably 10x that amount as the income represents only a return on the principal amount invested.
http://blog.turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tips/how-is-americas-income-tax-burden-weighted/03032010-2488
[These numbers can be examined in even more depth. The 1,410,710 people who comprise the top 1% of income earners, for instance, earned $2.008 trillion – of which $450.9 billion went to federal income taxes. Overall, the Tax Foundation shows in this graph, the top 1% now pays more total income tax than the bottom 95%. The top 10% as a whole earned $4.228 trillion – of which $794.4 billion went to taxes. Of the $1.116 trillion of total income taxes collected, the top 10% paid nearly half. This data, updated in 2009, was calculated using income tax returns from 2007 and is the newest data available at time of writing.]
You could dig out the same numbers from irs.gov tax stats.
So it is not true that seizing all their money would not solve the deficit, or even the national debt. It would just be horribly counter-productive to seize all investments and wipe out the creators of wealth. Especially considering that if a minimum 10% federal income tax rate was enacted, nobody would need to pay more than that. So the Progressives want to destroy the wealthy rather than have everybody else pay a measly 10% of their income in federal income taxes.
The only reason they want to tax the rich more is they are the least likely to have blowback in the voting booth and they are well rich, a goldmine of revenue for the entitlement programs. And the rich are lining up, I'll pay more, I'll pay more. Well go donate it then. Leave the rest of the rich people alone.
I'll work through it. I guess I resent some of the poor more than the rich, and I don't have any particular love lost for them, never good enough to hobnob with them. But it doesn't bother me to know my place in the pecking order. And it is not just class envy. It is covetousness on the part of those who resent the rich for being rich.
When all is said and done, the rich probably already pay a lot more in taxes. There's an excellent YT video recent of Peter Schiff talking before Congress. He nails it right down the line. It's not just federal income tax. It's all the other taxes they (and some of the rest of us pay).
Well, I'm going to go. Bob Brinker is on, this is what he is talking about, and he's irritated. Larry Kudlow was super po'ed at Bloomberg last night, went ballistic, said BB was shilling for O's jobs bill, threatening riots. It resonated.
But I am sure it would have zero impact on the author.
Progressives have ignored the Constitution since Wilson.
I respect that you have an opinion. Don’t confuse that
respect with really giving a crap what it is.
“Anon”
“Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his
level and beat
you with experience” Author Unk.
RE: Because it creates ten taxpayers in the process.......
How’s that again?
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.