Posted on 08/15/2011 3:50:06 AM PDT by Son House
RUSH: The next story we have from CNN Money: "Tax Increase on the Rich Would Impact Just 3% of Taxpayers." What's happening here? It's small, but two stories in a row is some kind of a record. A breakout here of truth from the State-Controlled Media. "As the government looks for ways to climb out of its massive hole of debt, all eyes are on the rich." No, they're not! All eyes are on government. All eyes are not on the rich. But it's CNN.
"President Obama and many of his fellow Democrats continue to call for higher taxes on the wealthy, and, according to the results of a CNN/ORC International Poll released yesterday, many Americans agree that's the only way the country can dig itself out of its current economic mess. About 63% of the 1,008 people interviewed over the phone said they think that the new bipartisan committee should raise taxes on higher income Americans and businesses. But, asks CNN, just how many of these rich people are there?" Now, you people know this, as regular listeners here. Not only do you know how many of them there are who earn over ten million a year (a little over 8,000), you know what their combined total tax payments are. Well, let's see. Let's read further together here and see what CNN says.
"Just how many of these rich people are there, and, are there enough of them for a tax increase to really make a dent for the US trillions of dollars in debt. President Obama has defined the nation's wealthy as those who make $200,000 or more. According to a recent report from the IRS, that leaves out about 97% of the taxpaying population." Well, shazam! So they're accurate here: 3% is who we're talking about. "A report which provides a complete breakdown and analysis from returns from the 2009 tax year found that only a mere 3% of tax returns were filed by people earning a gross adjusted income of 200 grand or more. Americans earning $1 million or more were even more rare, pricing just two-tenths of 1% of the population, of tax filers, accounting for a mere 236,000 of the 140 million tax returns received in 2009."
So the number of millionaires filing taxes -- uh, people that earn more than a million dollars, 236,000 -- compared to 140 million tax returns received in 2009. "The wealthiest taxpayers, those earning $10 million or more in adjusted gross income are even less prevalent. There were only 8,274 people belonging to that elite club, according to the IRS." CNN gets it right here. They're a week behind, but they got it right. "Yet, even though these high income earners are a minority, Obama says the proposed tax increases would boost revenues by $750 billion over a decade, not quite the multitrillion-dollar figure the US needs to pay off the deficit, but for many of those who responded to the CNN/ORC International Poll, it's evidently a good enough start."
So the class envy works. At least CNN got the number right: Taxes on the rich would impact just 3%. Now, what they are trying to say is, "Go ahead and do it! My God, only gonna affect 3%? Soak 'em!" Let them have it.
You can’t get our of a hole by digging deeper, you can’t tax a nation into prosperity, and you can’t spend your way out of debt. The 0 admin and his accomplices in Kongress seem to think that somehow you can spend your way out of debt if you just rob enough people. But they don’t know about lost opportunity cost or don’t care. I vote don’t care. As long as they don’t need the votes from the hard working they’ll confiscate their money to buy the votes of the non-productive.
I’m shocked!
Ten Years After (1969)
There would be enough extra tax income from “taxing the rich” to dole out just enough freebies to keep the democrats in power
by buying votes from their usual batch of slackers and welfare queens. The democrat party can win by either getting the cash
or continuing to play class warfare.
I wonder if Christina Romer resigned because her own conscious told her that she couldn’t lie any longer about the negative relationship between tax and output. I wonder why they don’t cite anything by Laffer. This is especially important for when they discuss the effect of raising tax in when the intent is to deal with ‘inherited’ government deficit.
ping for later
I remember reading an analysis where they didn’t just increase taxes on the rich, they literally confiscated everything anyone making over $200,000 owned—all of their wealth. The bottom line? It only financed the country for a couple years. The rich not only don’t have enough income to balance the nation’s books, they don’t have enough wealth to do so either. There are too many folks with their hands in the cookie jar and too few people making cookies.
No they don't. They want YOU to think they think that.
Perhaps re-define "rich"???
Here are the new limits for a tax increase to 49% on any kind of income from any source whatsoever.
1. Everyone over 62 years of age
2. Those with incomes of greater than $159,213 per year
3. Those with incomes of less than $159,213 per year.
4. Those who will be exempt from taxation - illegal aliens, gays, spanish, blacks, latinos, minorities (other than white), and star struck soccer moms who think the stain is so darn cute - but who must vote for the stain and his regime. In fact, the regime will simply vote for these folks so they don't even have to go to the polls!
There...that ought to fix it!!
Problem solved!
I’m against raising taxes, but if the libs insist on doing so, how about taxing the 46% who pay no taxes! There should be a rule: If you pay no taxes, you cannot vote. That way, the non-taxpayers can’t keep voting themselves free money.
It is the adjusted income that limits this to 3%. Take away the deductions and the percentage is larger.
Taxation is at some level a legacy of the day when the aggregate pile of money was severely limited or at least theoretically finite.
Interestingly enough the father of income witholding back in the 1940s stated as much in the 1940s, claiming that with a printing press government taxation is just not necessary. His name was Beardsley Ruml and worked for the FDR administration.
This is obvious today, without anyone stating it explicitly. After all, we’re told - the federal government must borrow approx. 42 cents of every dollar it spends. Once the money runs out people start pointing fingers. Next, the statist in his economic models assumes that everyone, from serf to corporation, will continue on as before and dutifully pay tribute, versus simply refusing to “produce”. With an unlimited supply of credit, versus actual capital, coupled with the negation of contract law and all that... Good Luck.
I wish I could find a link or source that would clearly state how long confiscating the top 3 percents’ wealth would last last the USG. I doubt their combined wealth would run the USG for a year or handle unfunded liabilities like Social Security.
Once that’s gone what are the 97 percent who’ve been carried going to do?
Sometimes I think it’s better to let the system crash and then rebuild, rather than trying fix the current debacle. We may not have much say in the matter.
The urban cloisters want their freebies and will have them no matter what the consequences. After they’ve driven the bus off the cliff they’ll whine about being “victims.”
Well, what do they really think?
Bump
“.......a mere 236,000 of the 140 million tax returns received in 2009.”
“.....140 million tax returns received in 2009”.
Less than half the population of the Nation.
Another aspect of the problem to consider besides the spending relative to the topic.
The benevolence of the Left is a double edged sword.
Besides the immorality of soaking a particular class, we should have known that soaking the rich does not bring prosperity from Allende’s Chile. Allende’s Chile did soak the rich and the country went bankrupt in a matter of months.
Good article, thanks for posting.
They really think that they need to steal and spend as much as they can (and destroy the economy in doing so) before the voters get wise to their scheme. Their goal is to get as much freebies as they can before they are ousted. Think of them as “suicide politicians” ;-)
Of course, that’s IF the majority of voters can ever get wise...
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.