Skip to comments.
Why the Obama tax hikes have only just begun
American Enterprise ^
| 01/02/2013
| James Pethokoukis
Posted on 01/02/2013 11:45:49 AM PST by SeekAndFind
When an economy is booming and jobs are plentiful, a “do no harm” approach to public policy will suffice. If GDP were expanding at a 4% annual rate and the unemployment rate were 5% and the national debt were low, then the fiscal cliff deal might be tolerable rather than terrible. While it won’t create any jobs or add to growth — just the opposite in fact — and it will only cut the national debt by a rounding-error amount, passage does avoid an across-the-board income tax hike and probable recession.
So that’s something. But good enough? Not really. Avoiding major unforced errors is necessary but insufficient when you’re way behind in the game.
But were not even doing that. Total taxes are going up some $220 billion this year, including both the Obama income tax hikes and the Obamacare tax hikes. Even worse, the income tax hikes raise the burden on working, saving, and investing. They make our mess of a tax code even more damaging to growth than what it was before.
Nor is Obama done pushing higher taxes. As he said New Years Eve, concerning the outstanding issues of the sequester and debt ceiling:
I want to make clear that any agreement we have to deal with these automatic spending cuts that are being threatened for next month, those also have to be balanced, because, remember, my principle always has been lets do things in a balanced, responsible way. And that means the revenues have to be part of the equation in turning off the sequester and eliminating these automatic spending cuts, as well as spending cuts. Now, the same is true for any future deficit agreement. Obviously were going to have to do more to reduce our debt and our deficit. Im willing to do more, but its going to have to be balanced. Were going to have do it in a balanced responsible way.
How much more “balance” does Obama want?
1. Well, the fiscal cliff deal is a $620 billion tax hike, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Obama’s original offer to House Speaker John Boehner called for $1.6 trillion in tax hikes, including a) $960 billion in higher tax rates and higher taxes on investment income along with b) $600 billion in additional taxes, such as limiting tax breaks for wealthier Americans.
2. In a November policy memo, White House economists thought a tax hike of around $500 billion was doable via broadening the tax base.
3. Also recall that the president’s 2013 budget called for a $300 billion corporate tax hike.
So adding it all up, it would seem the president’s second term goal is for roughly $2 trillion in new taxes. We’re only one-third of the way there.
But what leverage will Obama have to make good on his tax-hike threats? As The Wall Street Journal editorial page notes today, “The President has had unusual leverage over Republicans because he just won re-election and because taxes were going to go up even if they did nothing.”
One potential Obama bargaining chip is the sequester, particularly the $500 billion in defense cuts that many GOPers loathe. So perhaps Obama can offer to turn off the defense cuts in exchange for $500 billion from limiting tax breaks for the rich. And then maybe another $300 billion in corporate tax hikes for agreeing to change how Social Security benefits are calculated. Many scenarios are possible. What’s for sure is that the Obama desires vastly higher taxes to pay for his expanded welfare state. Desires and needs them. And it’s now Democrat economic theology that tax rates could return to pre-Reagan levels without hurting growth.
Tax hikes? Obama is only just getting started.
TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: obama; tax; taxes; taxhikes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-38 next last
Comment #2 Removed by Moderator
To: SeekAndFind
“...just begun”
We haven’t seen anything yet, Obamacare is going to require such massive funding it will change everything. The longer it’s in place, the more it will require. Can you say good-bye to a strong DOD?
3
posted on
01/02/2013 11:56:06 AM PST
by
izzatzo
To: F15Eagle
Well, the Obama policy for four years hit his voters hard...high unemployment, lower wages, higher cost of living, higher insurance costs, more on food stamps and welfare. They were successfully convinced it was someone else’s fault. I have no doubt they’ll continue to fall for the same lies, sadly enough. Maybe enough people are willing to rightly blame him four years from now to go a different direction, but I doubt it. Even if it happens, 80+% of those hit hard will still vote Democrat.
4
posted on
01/02/2013 11:57:03 AM PST
by
ilgipper
(Obama supporters are comprised of the uninformed & the ill-informed)
To: SeekAndFind
This is the beginning. Folding your retirement accounts and pension (if you have one) into the SS system is next.
As the saying goes... get your money out of the country before your country gets your money out of you.
5
posted on
01/02/2013 11:59:06 AM PST
by
aMorePerfectUnion
(Gone rogue, gone Galt, gone international. Gone.)
To: aMorePerfectUnion
RE: get your money out of the country before your country gets your money out of you.
Thousands of the “rich” Americans did just that and placed their money in Swiss Bank accounts.
Did them little good. In fact it made them target for IRS prosecution.
The Swiss simply folded to the IRS and revealed their accounts.
Romney had part of his money in the Caymans. The newspapers outed it anyway.
To: SeekAndFind
Elections have consequences.
If America wanted a leader, they’d have elected one. The government they deserve.
SnakeDoc
7
posted on
01/02/2013 12:04:48 PM PST
by
SnakeDoctor
(Come and take it.)
To: aMorePerfectUnion
This is the beginning. Folding your retirement accounts and pension (if you have one) into the SS system is next.
Hardly a day goes by that I don't find some article in the press that is prepping the ground for that.
To: SeekAndFind
“Thousands of the rich Americans did just that and placed their money in Swiss Bank accounts.
“Did them little good. In fact it made them target for IRS prosecution.
The prosecuted ones are the ones who did not report their foreign holdings. It is not illegal to have a foreign bank account or brokerage. You must report it. They did not. RINOmney did.
9
posted on
01/02/2013 12:10:57 PM PST
by
aMorePerfectUnion
(Gone rogue, gone Galt, gone international. Gone.)
To: aMorePerfectUnion
So, you have a foreign bank account, you reported it. It then becomes liable for taxation...
How does that help with this : “get your money out of the country before your country gets your money out of you.”?
You get your money out of the country and the country gets the money out of you anyway.
To: SeekAndFind
spending needs to be paid for
11
posted on
01/02/2013 12:17:39 PM PST
by
ksen
To: ksen
RE: spending needs to be paid for
Only the following choices I can think of:
1) Tax
2) Borrow
3) Print
If anyone else has another way of paying for government spending, I am all ears.
To: SeekAndFind
That reminds me of years ago, in the 90’s, when I was going to board a plane and two burly agents pulled a man aside and asked him if he was carrying over $10,000 in cash. The man hadn’t and they let him go to ask another person the same thing.
13
posted on
01/02/2013 12:42:21 PM PST
by
dragonblustar
(Allah Ain't So Akbar!)
To: SeekAndFind
RE: spending needs to be paid for
Only the following choices I can think of:
1) Tax
2) Borrow
3) Print
If anyone else has another way of paying for government spending, I am all ears.
And today’s GOP compains about all 3 ways to pay for government spending. As we are in a demand-driven slowdown/recession slashing spending from the only entity doing any real spending, the government, is not what needs to happen right now.
There’s enough slack in the economy to allow more printing of money without having to worry about inflation but I think the wiser course is to pay for the spending through tax collections. Fiscal responsibility does not mean spending cuts only, which seems to be the current stance of the GOP.
14
posted on
01/02/2013 12:56:46 PM PST
by
ksen
To: ksen
Well I don’t know about you, but I’m tapped out. If you wanna give the govt more of your hard-earned income to squander on pork and other pet projects, by all means, go right ahead. Don’t presume to speak for me, however.
15
posted on
01/02/2013 1:06:28 PM PST
by
Prince of Space
(Be Breitbart, baby. LIFB.)
To: SeekAndFind
Why?
(now THERE is a stupid question)
- because he can (and will)
and there is NOTHING (You and I can do) because there is nobody (besides myself and a few others) who are willing to stand up and attempt to take this country back.
To: SeekAndFind
The government has no problem losing money on Bank and GM bailouts then hitting up the taxpayer for the money. I am surprised no one has figured this out. The Bankers are taking over the country and our pocket book.
17
posted on
01/02/2013 1:20:16 PM PST
by
Orange1998
(DO NOT PRESS CTRL W)
To: Prince of Space
Well I dont know about you, but Im tapped out. If you wanna give the govt more of your hard-earned income to squander on pork and other pet projects, by all means, go right ahead. Dont presume to speak for me, however.wat?
18
posted on
01/02/2013 1:21:05 PM PST
by
ksen
To: ksen
Theres enough slack in the economy to allow more printing of money without having to worry about inflation but I think the wiser course is to pay for the spending through tax collections. Fiscal responsibility does not mean spending cuts only, which seems to be the current stance of the GOP. Drivel. Sounds like you agree with 0 that you can spend and tax your way out of debt. No thanks!
19
posted on
01/02/2013 1:31:30 PM PST
by
Jane Long
(Philippians 2:11)
To: ksen
Here’s your quote: “Theres enough slack in the economy to allow more printing of money without having to worry about inflation but I think the wiser course is to pay for the spending through tax collections. Fiscal responsibility does not mean spending cuts only, which seems to be the current stance of the GOP.”
You seem to be a-okay with increasing our tax burden. I’m not.
Clear enough?
20
posted on
01/02/2013 1:43:38 PM PST
by
Prince of Space
(Be Breitbart, baby. LIFB.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-38 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson