Times Economist: Fair Share For the Rich is a 91% Tax Rate

November 19, 2012 at 2:00 pm (91%, Corporate Tax, Economy, Fair Share, Jobs, New York Times, Paul Krugman, Rich, Tax the Rich, Taxes)

How can liberalism’s favorite economist know so little about the topic he is known for?  New York Times economist, Paul Krugman had this to say in today’s op-ed regarding the Twinkie situation…

Consider the question of tax rates on the wealthy. The modern American right, and much of the alleged center, is obsessed with the notion that low tax rates at the top are essential to growth. Remember that Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, charged with producing a plan to curb deficits, nonetheless somehow ended up listing “lower tax rates” as a “guiding principle.”

Yet in the 1950s incomes in the top bracket faced a marginal tax rate of 91, that’s right, 91 percent, while taxes on corporate profits were twice as large, relative to national income, as in recent years. The best estimates suggest that circa 1960 the top 0.01 percent of Americans paid an effective federal tax rate of more than 70 percent, twice what they pay today...

… Along the way, however, we’ve forgotten something important — namely, that economic justice and economic growth aren’t incompatible. America in the 1950s made the rich pay their fair share; it gave workers the power to bargain for decent wages and benefits; yet contrary to right-wing propaganda then and now, it prospered. And we can do that again.

Yes, because business will certainly prosper with an added burden of a 91% tax rate on the wealthy, and a corporate rate double what it is today.  It will surely create a scenario where wealthy business owners and small business owners alike will announce thousand upon thousands of job openings.

It’s no wonder Krugman is heralded as an economic hero in liberal circles.  Reality however, offers a different vantage point.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Report: Obamacare is a "Big Tax, Particularly on the Poor"

July 26, 2012 at 7:00 am (Big Tax, Healthcare, Healthcare Costs, Middle Class, Obamacare, Obamatax, Poor, President Obama, Rich, Supreme Court, Tax)

Just another sobering reminder that the President’s healthcare plan is a burden on people at every income level.  While the administration would like to play semantics on calling it a penalty, the rest of the nation, in light of the recent Supreme Court decision, recognizes the massive tax implications of Obamacare – and now we’re learning that the effects will be economically devastating on one class in particular that the President claims to be a champion for … the poor.

The Daily Caller reports:

The penalty imposed by the Affordable Care Act on citizens who elect not to purchase health insurance will be at least $1,000 for most people, and more than $12,000 for high-income earners, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Foundation.

“We can see that this is a big tax, particularly on the poor,” writes the Tax Foundation’s William McBride. “Higher income families generally pay a higher amount, but actually a smaller percent of their income, making this a regressive tax.”

For example, the penalty for a family of four earning $20,000 will be $2,085, more than 10 percent of its income, according to the Tax Foundation — whereas a family of four making $100,000 will only have two percent of its income taken away by the government.

A regressive tax for a regressive regime.  Why the War on the Poor, Mr. President?

The report then goes on to say that implementation of the individual mandate would have a negative impact on the economy, with people trying to shield their income from the new tax by “working less”.

An unemployment rate at 8.2%, an underemployment rate at nearly 15%, and the implementation of the President’s healthcare plan is going to cause people to ‘work less’ to avoid paying more.

Aren’t people already working less because of the President’s economic policies?

Obama.  Isn’t.  Working.

Permalink Leave a Comment

President Obama: Success Isn’t Because You’re "So Smart" or Because You "Worked Hard"

July 15, 2012 at 11:00 am (Big Government, Business, Economics, Elizabeth Warren, Poor, President Obama, Rich, Success, Wealthy)

The President this weekend confirmed his view that the biggest factor contributing to wealth and success in this country is not hard work or entrepreneurial spirit – it’s the federal government.

At his speech in Roanoke, Virginia, Obama gave his vision of the formula which leads to business success in America.  Not hard work.  Not intelligence.  No, it’s because the government was there to help you every step of the way (video below).

“There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”

Read that last line again…  If you’ve got a business – you didn’t build that.  Somebody else made that happen.

Shocking, but hardly new rhetoric.

Earlier in the year, Obama echoed the same sentiments in a speech in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

President Obama tells a college audience that people don’t get rich on their own. Obama’s point that without government and paying your fair share, ultimately the successful wouldn’t be able to get where they are.

“We do not begrudge wealth in this country. I want everybody here to do well. We aspire to financial success, but we also understand that we’re not successful just by ourselves,” President Obama said at a campaign event in Ann Arbor, Michigan on Friday morning.

“We’re successful because somebody started the University of Michigan. We’re successful because somebody made an investment in all the federal research labs that created the internet. We’re successful because we have an outstanding military that costs money. We’re successful because somebody built roads and bridges. And laid broadband lines and these things didn’t just happen on their own. And if we all understand that we’ve got to pay for this stuff, it makes sense for those of us who’ve done best to do our fair share and to try to pass off that bill on to somebody else, that’s not right. That’s not who we are,” he said.

Hard work to achieve success is a foreign concept to this man, which is why he is openly encouraging people to abandon job searches for the glamorous lifestyle that is food stamps.  But where did he get this attitude from?

Perhaps from his former financial adviser, Fauxcahontas … er … Sitting Bulls*** … er … Elizabeth Warren.

Remember this statement?

“I hear all this, you know, ‘Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever. No. There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own — nobody.

Former White House financial reform adviser Elizabeth Warren, who is now seeking to challenge Republican Senator Scott Brown in Massachusetts, is definitely not shy in voicing her views on class warfare — or, according to Warren, the lack thereof.

… Warren, who is perhaps best known for helping to launch the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, stated boldly that there is no such thing as class warfare and that there is “nobody in this country who got rich on his own.”

Big government birds of a feather…

Permalink Leave a Comment

Democrats Now Sending Staffers to Stalk Republican Opponents

July 9, 2012 at 11:41 am (2012 Election, Campaign, Democrats, Grocery Shopping, Home, Middle Class, Poor, Republicans, Rich, Staffers, Stalking, Video)

Politico is reporting on a disturbing new trend, in which Democrat campaign staffers are going to Republican official’s homes with camera in tow, and posting the video on the internet.

Politicians recognize they give up a degree of privacy when they run for office.

But Democrats are testing the outer limits of that understanding with a practice that raises questions about when campaign tracking becomes something more like stalking.

While most serious campaigns on both sides use campaign trackers — staffers whose job is to record on video every public appearance and statement by an opponent — House Democrats are taking it to another level. They’re now recording video of the homes of GOP congressmen and candidates and posting the raw footage on the Internet for all to see.

That ratcheting up of the video surveillance game is unnerving Republicans who insist that even by political standards, it’s a gross invasion of privacy. Worse, they say, it creates a safety risk for members of Congress and their families at a time when they are already on edge after a deranged gunman shot former Arizona Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords 18 months ago.

Yes, privacy is diminished when running for public office, but this goes beyond any acceptable level of decorum.  Politico’s assertion that this somehow blurs the line is false however.  There is no question that the line has been crossed – these actions are flat-out stalking.

The report even goes on to interview a congressman who was videotaped while shopping for groceries, another who had people crouching in their bushes, and another who had video of their parents home publicly posted.

The most shocking aspect of the report isn’t simply the act of stalking political opponents.  While you and I might see these videos and become unnerved about their potential use by somebody with a deranged agenda, the Democrats think otherwise – they insist it is all fair game.

They say showcasing the homes — most of which are spacious and neatly maintained —underscores what will be a key avenue of attack for the party this fall: communicating that Republicans just can’t relate to economically struggling voters.

“House Republicans have spent this entire Congress trying to hide that they’re protecting benefits for millionaires and perks for themselves instead of protecting the middle class, but we won’t let them keep it secret any longer,” Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spokesman Jesse Ferguson wrote in an email.

Democratic officials said placing the videos on the DCCC’s website and YouTube serve a useful purpose, most notably making the footage available to friendly outside groups for use in TV commercials. That way, they don’t violate laws against coordinating with those groups.

Oh the horror of a spacious and neatly maintained home!

It’s unclear how videotaping somebody grocery shopping demonstrates a willingness to protect benefits for millionaires while leaving the middle class to fend for themselves. 

See?  This guy doesn’t choose the generic brand of Frooty Tooties … um … 1 percenter!  Koch brothers!  Tax the rich!

Call it what it is … Democrats have turned to stalking in a desperate attempt to win elections.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Obama – People Only Get Rich Because of the Federal Government

January 27, 2012 at 2:39 pm (Big Government, Elizabeth Warren, President Obama, Rich, Tax)

This has to be the dumbest thing I’ve heard the President say…  today.

And it sounds vagualy familiar too.

From Real Clear Politics:

President Obama tells a college audience that people don’t get rich on their own. Obama’s point that without government and paying your fair share, ultimately the successful wouldn’t be able to get where they are.

“We do not begrudge wealth in this country. I want everybody here to do well. We aspire to financial success, but we also understand that we’re not successful just by ourselves,” President Obama said at a campaign event in Ann Arbor, Michigan on Friday morning.

“We’re successful because somebody started the University of Michigan. We’re successful because somebody made an investment in all the federal research labs that created the internet. We’re successful because we have an outstanding military that costs money. We’re successful because somebody built roads and bridges. And laid broadband lines and these things didn’t just happen on their own. And if we all understand that we’ve got to pay for this stuff, it makes sense for those of us who’ve done best to do our fair share and to try to pass off that bill on to somebody else, that’s not right. That’s not who we are,” he said.

Watch the latest video at <a href=”http://video.foxnews.com”>video.foxnews.com</a>

Now where have we heard this idea that nobody can be successful without government?  Oh, that’s right, former Obama financial adviser, Elizabeth Warren:

“I hear all this, you know, ‘Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever. No. There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own — nobody.

Former White House financial reform adviser Elizabeth Warren, who is now seeking to challenge Republican Senator Scott Brown in Massachusetts, is definitely not shy in voicing her views on class warfare — or, according to Warren, the lack thereof.

Warren, who is perhaps best known for helping to launch the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, stated boldly that there is no such thing as class warfare and that there is “nobody in this country who got rich on his own.”

Big government birds of a feather…

Permalink Leave a Comment