The Trouble With Taxes

I assume that the 53% “movement” is actually more of a mockery of the idea that 99% of people with lower incomes are a unified coalition. That 99% (or 1% dilettantes who claim to side with the 99%) OWS types take them seriously is kind of sad.

53% refers to the people who pay federal income taxes, as opposed to those who have income or exemptions that leave them with no tax obligation. That number changes from year to year, but it more than half. Ironically, some liberals give the counter example that the poor actually pay more taxes because of sales tax and withholding taxes like Social Security. Conservatives have considered Social Security a tax for years, while supporters have claimed it was a defined benefit plan. Which is it?

Taxing the rich to pay for the poor is an even-handed idea. It brings to mind the “sin taxes” on cigarettes and alcohol. Tobacco taxes should exist to pay for the results of smoking on the state. Instead, the money is frequently used to augment the general fund. When these activities lessen due to high taxes. the state finds itself at a loss for revenue.

Higher taxes on the highest incomes only relieves the total federal debt. The deficit will still be well above $0, even if the tax rate is 100%. That means any imagined spending from a millionaire tax windfall is not possible. If we spend any more, it will be through the selling of treasuries. It turns out that OWS are a bunch of deficit hawks after all.

About 1539days

I'm like a word a day calendar for executive disasters.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to The Trouble With Taxes

  1. HELENK says:

    further job cuts and less investment in the USA.
    Looks like OWS is getting what they want, now what is the plan?

  2. kc says:

    that’s depressing news. My daughter is working on a business plan to start her own pr co. in S. Florida.. she would be great at it, but the econ. is so bad here. An entire generation is lost because of stupid decisions at the top.

  3. Three Wickets says:

    If the tax rate were 100% of national income, that would be $13 trillion in revenue set off against current run rate $3.7 trillion annual spend, which would result in a $9.3 trillion surplus (not deficit) and effectively erase 2/3 of the national debt. Not a relevant hypothetical imho.

    Having trouble following the post Days, but it’s late and I’m nodding off. Will take a fresh look tomorrow. 🙂

  4. yttik says:

    We currently have 7 small businesses up on the auction block in my dinky community, every single one because of back taxes. It’s heart breaking. The last one to go down had 35 employees, pregnant women, single mothers, people who were living paycheck to paycheck and depended of their jobs. That’s the real story of what taxes do. They shut down small businesses.

    At the moment we also have 17 homes being auctioned off because of back taxes. That’s also the story of what taxes do.

    None of these people are wealthy, none of them are corporations, they’re simply working people who fell behind. They couldn’t afford their sales tax, their property tax, their payroll tax, their business and occupations tax. They put their taxes off for year and the economy took a downswing so they put off the next years taxes, too. By the time they hit the third year, the bills were simply too big and the government stepped in and took everything they had.

    These are the people who get hurt by taxes. Not corporations, not the wealthy, but those who are actually working in our communities, creating businesses, providing jobs, owning homes.

    • Jadzia says:

      If I lose my home (which i have been trying to rent or sell since may) it will be because of the property taxes, which go up every year even as the house has lost 1/3 of its value since I bought it. thank god my credit score didn’t follow me over here.

    • votermom says:

      Where is their bailout?

  5. elliesmom says:

    When I escaped from my former tribe (long before 2008), I came to realize that the Democrats have a vested interest in keeping a part of society in poverty. Since most poor people vote for Democrats, to raise the standard of living for them could severely cut into the party’s power. Many of the programs that the Democrats tout as helping poor people become less poor stack the deck against that happening. I listen to my “reduced and free lunch” students talk about what helps their families survive vs.what makes them thrive all of the time. A lot of one and very little of the other. If acquiring property and wealth is more likely to turn someone into a Republican, it would seem to follow that the Republicans would want more people to “think and grow rich”, but somehow they seem to be working harder to concentrate wealth into the hands of fewer people. Their ticket to power without “sharing the wealth” is to attract conservative voters by appearing to share their views on social issues whether they actually do or not (see Romney and appealing to the voters who would rather fancy themselves more akin to that top 1% than to the 47% who pay no taxes. Neither party really has a vested interest in creating fewer poor people.

  6. WMCB says:

    Once you get beyond all the arguments about fairness (not that they aren’t valid arguments), the cold hard reality is that we need a broader tax base and/or significant spending cuts, or we are fucked.

    Yes, we can take some more from the wealthy, and should. But anyone who thinks raising the upper rates is going to magically solve this problem is smoking crack. There are not that many rich people. “The rich people’s stash” is as much a fairytale as “Obama’s stash” was. We could confiscate it all and it would barely make a dent.

    Jobs are THE priority. Any other issue is secondary to that. We need more taxpayers, period.

  7. HELENK says:

    didn’t they just run the ows bunch out of town in San Francisco right before nancy came home? Maybe they were not good tippers

    Now they want a mandatory 25% tip when you eat out

    • mothy67 says:

      I have worked on tips and I think that is absurd. Oh, I forgot we are doing away with incentives for doing a good job. Silly me. My poor server studied acting and hasn’t gotten a break so I should be happy to leave a very large gratuity. Doesn’t matter that my glass was empty while he was gone for ten minutes to catch a smoke.
      i do, however, think restaurants should pay more than 2.83 an hour.
      Logic is also ass backwards when saying in a down economey they should be tipped more. If people are reluctant to dine out in bad times wouldn’t they eat out less if an additional 10% was added to the bill? each time

      • 1539days says:

        Minimum wage should at least apply to everyone, including servers. It should also apply to those people in American Samoa who work in Nancy Pelosi’s husband’s factories and were excepted from minimum wage laws by the TARP bill in 2008.

      • Three Wickets says:

        I find service is better in places around the world where there is no tipping. Best service in the world, Japan. If you try tipping someone there, they will take insult. They also have minimum wages and fair pay.

  8. Lola-at-Large says:

    They really haven’t thought through this tax demand. The government does so much that people disapprove of with the revenue it takes in: war, illegal wiretapping, espionage, Guantanamo Bay, secret prisons, etc. Well, what do you think the government is going to do with more money?

  9. HELENK says:

    do you think if buffet paid his back tax debt it would help? still owes 1 billion in taxes from the years 2002 to 2009

  10. HELENK says:

    for all you verizon users. they are going to start monitoring what websites you go to while on line

  11. WMCB says:

    Yeah, I know it’s VDH. But he’s right. Obama has outright killed over 5 times as many “terrorists” as Bush did, and civilians alongside them. He’s done it quietly and with impunity, because the press will never ever ever call him a bloody warmonger, and neither will the hypocritical Left.

    All those advantages explain why President Obama has exponentially expanded the program. After five years of use under George W. Bush, such drones had killed around 400 suspected terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Under President Obama, in less than three years, Predators have taken out more than 2,200.

    The program is uniquely suited to Obama’s “leading from behind” approach to warfare: killing far out of sight, and therefore out of mind — and out of the news. So comfortable is Obama with this new way of war that at a White House Correspondents’ Dinner, the president joked about using Predators on would-be suitors of his daughters: “But boys, don’t get any ideas. Two words for you: Predator drones. You will never see it coming.”

    For Pres. Barack Obama, the Predator drone avoids former candidate Obama’s past legal objections by simply blowing apart suspected terrorists without having to capture them — and then to ponder how and where they should be tried. With a dead, rather than a detained, terrorist, civil libertarians cannot demand that Obama honor his campaign pledge to treat suspects like American criminals, while conservatives cannot pounce on any perceived softness in extending Miranda rights to captured al-Qaeda killers.

    Anti-war protestors demonstrate in response to American soldiers getting killed, but rarely about robotic aircraft quietly obliterating distant terrorists. American fatalities can make war unpopular; a crashed drone is a “who cares?” statistic.

    Still, there are lots of questions that arise from this latest American advantage. Waterboarding, which once sparked a liberal furor, is now a dead issue. How can anyone object to harshly interrogating a few known terrorists when routinely blowing apart more than 2,000 suspected ones — and anyone in their vicinity?

    Anyone seen a whole lot of outrageous outrage over this, at these protests by “the Left” who were formerly so passionately grieved and angry and appalled about imprisoning, much less killing, people who had neither directly attacked us nor been charged with any crime?

    Yeah, me neither.

    The silence is deafening. And tells me a hell of a lot about what they are really all about. It ain’t peace and it ain’t civil liberties. It’s whatever drumbeat is convenient to ensure power for people just like me and of my tribe.

    Fuck ’em all. Moral cowards, liars and hypocrites. Want to know why I am so critical, why I seem to look with more and more of a jaundiced eye at every word out of the Left’s mouth?

    THIS. This is why.

Comments are closed.