Althouse: Obama: "This is not class warfare... It’s math."

September 19, 2011

Obama: "This is not class warfare... It’s math."

He vows to veto any deficit plan that doesn't have new taxes.

152 comments:

Fred4Pres said...: Give a small tax hike and then cut entitlements massively (Obamacare and the prescription drug entitlement gone completely, medicare cut back signficantly). I am all for compromise. There is no way to balance any budget unless you cut entitlements back significantly.; 9/19/11, 11:00 AM
KCFleming said...: Sure it's math.

Divide by class.

(e.g.: "“We are not going to have a one-sided deal that hurts the folks who are most vulnerable"); 9/19/11, 11:02 AM
exhelodrvr1 said...: Obamath; 9/19/11, 11:02 AM
KCFleming said...: More math:

Multiply the poor, subtract the rich.

Take from column A (the evil rich, the self employed) and give it to column B (unions, GE, teachers).; 9/19/11, 11:04 AM
cubanbob said...: The republicans should play with Bozo. Give him his 1.5t in tax increases, just structure them so they fall mainly on democrats. Lets start with taxing rent controlled units, eliminating the tax deductibility of local income taxes, as Glenn Reynolds advocates tax the hell out of the entertainment industry and there are so many more creative ways to tax democrats primarily. They like taxes, they belive people should pay taxes, give them what they want.; 9/19/11, 11:05 AM
Triangle Man said...: Both sides have worn out the "class warfare" rhetoric. Back to the ad men for a new slogan please.; 9/19/11, 11:05 AM
ic said...: Ignore him.

Republicans should introduce his "bill" to the House, and see how many Dems dare vote for it.; 9/19/11, 11:08 AM
Scott said...: Of course it's class warfare! Class is the foundational concept of Marxism.

Related: Jim Geraghty article on Obama's favorite metaphor.; 9/19/11, 11:12 AM
Tim said...: Unless the Dali-Obama and the Democrats shift away from wealth-redistributing "progressive" income tax rates, the hell it isn't "class warfare."

After all, what's the primary mission of a community organizer?

Class warfare.

He really does think we're that stupid - but then again, he does have a point - people were stupid enough to elect him president.; 9/19/11, 11:16 AM
edutcher said...: Of course, it's class warfare. It's all he has left. He certainly has no class.

(had to)

As of today, GodZero is underwater in a lot of the states that flipped for him (over Dubya).

Depending on the poll, he's less than 50% approval in VA, FL, NC, IN, NM, NV, and CO. Considering the last three should be in his hip pocket and the others have scads of electoral votes.

If he can't get the stupids to vote with him to punish "those who have won Life's lottery", he can't win.; 9/19/11, 11:17 AM
bagoh20 said...: It's campaigning - with class warfare.

Nobody campaigns with math.; 9/19/11, 11:17 AM
Mark O said...: Is there any evidence anywhere that Obama took an economics class, ever?

This is just the same old effort to increase the government. Paying for increased government with new taxes is not saving. It is, rather, an effort to redirect resources to the government. That's Obama's one trick. His only trick.; 9/19/11, 11:21 AM
Calypso Facto said...: How about "idiocy"?

Obama doubles down on the least scrupulous, most-hated part of the income tax, the AMT, to ensure those evil thousandaires pay their fair share!; 9/19/11, 11:21 AM
Sloanasaurus said...: Tax rates are currently too high in this country. The only way I would support increasing taxes would be if the new taxes were used to pay down the existing debt (not the deficit). Taxes should not be increased until the deficit is closed (I.e. spending is cut to meet the current tax revenue base).
A “grand bargain” would be the following:
A constitutional amendment passed which limits federal spending to 18.5% GDP starting in 5 years. The cap can be breeched by a yearly vote of 3/4ths of Congress. In exchange for this permanent cap on spending, Congress would be allowed to pass a VAT tax with a maximum rate of 10%. That tax would expire in 10 years and no VAT would be allowed after that without the vote of 3/4ths of Congress (on a yearly basis).; 9/19/11, 11:28 AM
Real American said...: If you have say it isn't class warfare, it's class warfare.; 9/19/11, 11:29 AM
Triangle Man said...: Unless the Dali-Obama and the Democrats shift away from wealth-redistributing "progressive" income tax rates, the hell it isn't "class warfare."

Out of curiosity, what is the flat tax rate that would provide the same amount of revenue? Assuming nothing else changes. Just guessing that it would have to be something pretty close to the average of the top two marginal rates.; 9/19/11, 11:30 AM
Crimso said...: We could call it "tax bracket kinetic military action."

Since it's math, we'd better just do as he says.; 9/19/11, 11:30 AM
Cody Jarrett said...: What Pogo said.

Everything the Dickhead in Chief does (thanks for the vote, Althouse) is predicated on class warfare. Unless it's his class that's being warfed. So to speak.

But what do you expect from a British citizen who's infatuated with tits and clouds.

What...? Oh.

Never mind.; 9/19/11, 11:30 AM
Joe said...: Why does he keep saying "raise taxes" instead of "tax reform"? Yeah, rhetorical question, but he could get great mileage out of declaring war on the current tax code, which is more exceptions to the base tax rules than anything else. Of course, any truly fair system would raise taxes on the wrong 50% of the population.; 9/19/11, 11:31 AM
Sloanasaurus said...: Buffet's "lower tax rate" on investment income comes after the income has already been taxed. If a company (Berkshire) earns $100, it pays a 35% tax on that profit. If it then pays out the $65 remaining dollars as a dividend, that gets taxed again at 15%. Thus the effective rate on the original $100 is really 45%.

IN contrast if Berkshire pays the $100 as wages to Buffet's secretary, Berkshire gets a full deduction for that. The only one who pays tax on the earnings is the Secretary at what ever tax rate they are at (the maximum rate of 35%).

Thus, it is a fraud to say that Buffet pays a lower effective tax rate on his income than the secretary.; 9/19/11, 11:33 AM
MayBee said...: Ha! We've been using the phrase "that's math!" or "that's science!" in our family all summer.
As a punchline to an absurd idea presented sensibly.

A perfect example would have been when the Congressman said he was afraid that too many military people on Guam would just make the island tip over. One would responsd, "That's science!"

So. It's nice to see President Obama properly using our family joke.; 9/19/11, 11:33 AM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Simpleton math is taking 12.4% of your earnings for social security retirement then telling you, years later, "12.4% was not enough!".; 9/19/11, 11:34 AM
karrde said...: Perhaps one of Glenn Reynold's ideas...

http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/128164/

AMT-style cap on yearly charitable deductions?

Or one of his earlier ideas, a return to a 1950's-vintage excise tax on movie theater revenue.

I mean, Hollywood and the local theater are rich, aren't they?; 9/19/11, 11:36 AM
Anonymous said...: Class warfare is what this is and we can expect more of the same right down until the election as he desperately tries to hold his base, the rabid left, together.

This is all he has now, a fitting end for him and his ideology.

That smell is the rotting corpse of liberalism.; 9/19/11, 11:37 AM
Henry said...: It's math: division by 0.

So what if the system crashes?

* * *

Seriously, a real deficit reduction plan must include an immense amount of pain on both the spending side and the revenue side. But any new taxation has to be broad-based or the government simply won't raise enough money.

My preference is something like Huntsman plan -- a grand elimination of credits and write-offs -- in which the increase in revenue is balanced by economic efficiencies in reporting.

It will never happen.; 9/19/11, 11:37 AM
virgil xenophon said...: Obama:"This is not class warfare...It's math."

Trans: "Who ya gonna believe, me or your lyin' eyes?"; 9/19/11, 11:37 AM
Bob Ellison said...: In his presentation today, Obama talked about Boehner's recent speech, noting that Boehner said now is not the time to take a "my way or the highway" approach. Obama said Boehner went on to take exactly that approach by refusing to consider any plan that contained tax increases. "That's not smart," Obama commented.

Then he went on to say that he would veto any deficit plan that doesn't have new taxes. By his definition, that's a "my way or the highway" approach.

So according to Obama's logic, Obama's approach is not smart. It's so easy!

He also went on and on toward the end of the speech talking about how this issue is not "about" X. It's "about" Y, "about" Z, and "about" other things ("fairness" was one of those). This verbal tic-- "it's not about this; it's about that"-- has always bothered me. It's like saying "you are trying to frame this policy discussion in your simplistic way; I declare such a thing incorrect and want to declare it in my simplistic way. Put yourself in my frame of mind, or take the highway!"; 9/19/11, 11:38 AM
Tom said...: Sure. Give them even more money to waste.; 9/19/11, 11:38 AM
Anonymous said...: If Obama can claim the savings from not re-invading Iraq as "spending cuts", we should be able to claim any future increase in gross tax receipts under current law as "tax increases".; 9/19/11, 11:39 AM
ricpic said...: Better pray hard that Boehner and McConnell don't jump at the chance to do a deal. Cause that is all they know. Pray that fear of Tea Party retribution is stronger than the ever present Republican urge to capitulate.; 9/19/11, 11:43 AM
JBeuks said...: I wish you'd give us a "both" option, because there's no realistic way to achieve significant deficit reduction without increasing taxes on somebody (the "math" part), but the President's proposal raises so little revenue that it doesn't really do anything except strengthen his political posture through envy of the more-well-to-do.; 9/19/11, 11:44 AM
Larry J said...: Obama's plan is based on the discredit notion of static analysis. He's stupid enough to believe that a sharp increase in capital gains tax will automatically translate into additional revenue. They expect people will not change their behavior or investment strategies as a result of the tax increases. To see the fallacy of static analysis, look at what happened when Congress passed and Clinton signed capital gains tax rate reductions back in the 1990s. The revenue collected from capital gains taxes soared with the lower rates. By what magical thinking can anyone believe that the reverse won't happen?

Stupid is as stupid does. Obama is daily proving his willful stupidity.; 9/19/11, 11:44 AM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: I am all for tax hikes.

Let's give a tax hike to the over 40% of the population that doesn't pay ANY income tax and who get money back from the government (earned income credit)

I say:

The first $20K of income is untaxed. That way the truly poor are not penalized.

Eliminate the earned income credit.

Eliminate standard deductions. That is part of the 20K

Eliminate dependent deductions. Everyone pays SOMETHING

Everyone else pays a flat 8 to 10% of all income earned. Wages not dividends or other income

15% on capital gains and unearned income (dividends, interest income).

Allow a mortgage deduction on the primary residence up to a limited amount of interest based on a cap of loan value. Say: $300,000 only.; 9/19/11, 11:47 AM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: A hike in capital gains is stupidity cubed.

People who have deferred gains will just not sell. The stock market slows and stagnates.

A hike in capital gains will kill any possible near term recovery. When Clinton lowered Cap Gains, the economy boomed and tax revenues increased as people began to sell their stock positions and properties that had the deferred gains.; 9/19/11, 11:51 AM
Hagar said...: It is not math, because these people are not good with numbers.
Nor is it precisely "class warfare;" South Chicago against City Hall writ large may be something like.; 9/19/11, 11:52 AM
I'm Full of Soup said...: DBQ- How do you think simplified tax laws would affect employment in the acct industry?; 9/19/11, 12:01 PM
roesch-voltaire said...: Since when do folks make rational decisions based on math-- certainly not in war, otherwise we would switch from nation building in the Middle East to taking care of our failing infrastructure here.; 9/19/11, 12:02 PM
Original Mike said...: How can it be math when the rich don't have enough money to cover the deficit for any significant length of time?

Either Obama is math challenged or he's lying.; 9/19/11, 12:05 PM
jimbino said...: What the hell does Obama know about math, for chrissake?; 9/19/11, 12:10 PM
Saint Croix said...: His whole scheme--he admits as much--was to "engorge the beast." Spend, spend, spend until the debt levels become unspeakably high, and then say, hey, we need to raise taxes to pay for this stuff.

Raising taxes was his plan all along. He doesn't care about helping the private sector (obviously). He's back to demonizing corporations and the rich, and trying to take their money.

How will that increase jobs? Answer: it won't. Not at all. Unemployment gets worse.

This is all politics.

He harmed the economy intentionally, made our debt crisis far worse, and now he's saying we have to pay for it. And it's our fault if we don't.

He's an Ivy League version of a union thug.; 9/19/11, 12:12 PM
ic said...: It's class warfare, but the Republicans could neutralize him by listing where the taxpayers' billions went: half a bil to Solyndra's billionaire Kaiser, hundreds of millions to Listsquared to undermine the military GPS, $20 billions to Soros' Petrobra to drill deep sea oil, billions to Buffett and his bankers: Goldman Sachs to finance their bonuses...

Republicans should not say no, but should fight the class war.; 9/19/11, 12:21 PM
MadisonMan said...: Taxes should not be increased until the deficit is closed (I.e. spending is cut to meet the current tax revenue base).

Yes. Any increase in money will be spent by congress because Congressman A will make a deal with others to save some project in his/her district and he'll vote to save others' pet projects.

Force Congress to make the difficult decisions of what to cut.; 9/19/11, 12:30 PM
Original Mike said...: "Thus, it is a fraud to say that Buffet pays a lower effective tax rate on his income than the secretary."

I heard today (don't know if it's true) that Buffet's calculation of his versus his secretary's tax rate includes Social Security "taxes". Ridiculous (if true).; 9/19/11, 12:44 PM
Bill said...: I know math. Math is a friend of mine. This, sir, is not math.; 9/19/11, 12:44 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: "... certainly not in war, otherwise we would switch from nation building in the Middle East to taking care of our failing infrastructure here..."

rv, can I assume you would be in favor of eliminating all foreign aid and redirect those funds to domestic infrastructure spending?; 9/19/11, 12:45 PM
Michael said...: It is not math because math requires numbers and numbers are never a part of the President's "proposals." Instead he has the big ideas that are kicked down field to the numbers people to figure it all out. And they can't because the numbers don't work. This, by the way, is the way of the community organizer whose financial acumen is limited to the "funding."; 9/19/11, 12:50 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: "..
Yes. Any increase in money will be spent by congress because Congressman A will make a deal with others to save some project in his/her district and he'll vote to save others' pet projects."

Correct. Imagine going to your boss demanding a 10% salary increase because you are running a spending deficit.

That is essentially what Obama is saying. We pissed away trillions of dollars so you need to give us more money.

The fact he can't even cite a figure for the increase just proves he doesn't have a clue.; 9/19/11, 12:51 PM
Michael said...: R-V: "Since when do folks make rational decisions based on math-"

Rational people use math to balance their checkbooks and to calculate the returns on their investments. They use math to decide that raising the rate on a voluntary tax will have two effects: one, people will sell their gains to the current tax rate. Two, people will decline to sell to the higher rate.

Math. Easy.; 9/19/11, 12:53 PM
Original Mike said...: @Michael - Yep. You can't score speeches, as Elmendorf said.; 9/19/11, 12:55 PM
roesch-voltaire said...: HD I do not consider occupying a foreign country as aid, so it is not all or nothing.; 9/19/11, 12:59 PM
Original Mike said...: You want to talk math, Mr. President? It would take confiscating ALL of the income of earners over $250,000 for one year to cover one year's DEFICIT. There's your math, Sir.

It's clearly class warfare.; 9/19/11, 1:01 PM
DADvocate said...: This is all part of Barack's grand plan. Create wide spread poverty and then increase the taxes on those eeeeevul rich people who supposedly are responsible for the poverty Barack created. Wealth redistribution accomplished, after Barack and his buddies skim plenty off the top, of course.; 9/19/11, 1:03 PM
DADvocate said...: Since when do folks make rational decisions based on math

This explains the lack of rationality in your comments.; 9/19/11, 1:07 PM
MayBee said...: This explains the lack of rationality in your comments.

To be fair, this particular kind of math lends itself to making emotional decisions.; 9/19/11, 1:10 PM
garage mahal said...: If Job Creators refuse to create jobs, not only should they be taxed higher, they shouldn't be allowed to vote! And probably drug tested.; 9/19/11, 1:12 PM
Original Mike said...: "Since when do folks make rational decisions based on math"

I can see we have a lot of work to do ...; 9/19/11, 1:14 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: "... HD I do not consider occupying a foreign country as aid, so it is not all or nothing...."

Oh. You said nation building so naturally I thought you meant aid.

So no money for occupied nations but you're ok with our money being used for other foreign aid where we aren't an occupying power.

Wasn't Obama supposed to bring our occupation soldiers home by now? He knows he's the commander in chief doesn't he?; 9/19/11, 1:17 PM
J said...: No--the capital gains rate should be increased. They are at historical lows (beneath Clinton)--contrary to TP lies. And the speculating classes can afford it (ie,those who have made a fortune in crude, gold,energies doing Bushco war-profiteering days).

And looks like a return of the Laugher hypothesis! hah hah; 9/19/11, 1:22 PM
Toad Trend said...: Bringing up the 'rich' in any political discourse equals class warfare.

Never mind these fools are talking about THEMSELVES.

It is precisely the POLITICAL RICH that have directed this economy to the brink.

The POLITICAL RICH could be defined as those that have been instrumental in the political decisions (irrespective of economics) made in the last 50 years.

D's and R's, not regular citizens. Yes, we get the government we ask for, to a point. Regular citizens rarely have the opportunity to spend other people's money (see Friedman). And when they do, it usually isn't pretty.

So we've had 50 years and better of UGLY. Today, we see the results. Cult of personality president, entitled classes, dumbed-down citizens.

Entrenched mediocrity and modern bigotry, sponsored by government. The list goes on and on.; 9/19/11, 1:22 PM
Toad Trend said...: "If Job Creators refuse to create jobs, not only should they be taxed higher, they shouldn't be allowed to vote! And probably drug tested."

PERFECT example of a dumbed down fool alluded to in my last post. Thank you Garbage, you may sit down now.; 9/19/11, 1:24 PM
garage mahal said...: Raising top rate 3% = Class warfare!

12% pay cut on public workers = doing your part!; 9/19/11, 1:25 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Actually the GOP should just sign on to the tax hike he wants and do so with the caveat that its a bad idea but in the spirit of bipartisanship, we will go ahead and pass it. Then when it all goes to shit, just say I told you so, watch him lose in a landslide.

You can warn a child that the stove is hot but sometimes you have to let the little dummy burn his hand until he gets the message.; 9/19/11, 1:27 PM
Scott M said...: Private workers here took a 10% cut two years ago that hasn't been reversed, GM. "Doing your part" was exactly how it was a cached. Nobody was happy about it, but it was that or the company would have already gone out of business.; 9/19/11, 1:28 PM
damikesc said...: Berkshire doesn't pay their taxes anyways. They are, what, a BILLION dollars short?; 9/19/11, 1:29 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: "... No--the capital gains rate should be increased. They are at historical lows (beneath Clinton)--contrary to TP lies. And the speculating classes can afford it (ie,those who have made a fortune in crude, gold,energies doing Bushco war-profiteering days)..."

That's funny cause Obama admitted higher cap gains taxes don't mean higher revenues but higher rates are fair.

So he was either lying or mistaken or simply doesn't have a clue.; 9/19/11, 1:30 PM
Michael said...: Garage: Comrade!! Where do you get the 3% tax raise number? It certainly didn't come from Obama. Or do you mean three percentage points? there is a difference.; 9/19/11, 1:33 PM
Bart DePalma said...: Where is the "(d) It's a lie" choice?

All the "spending cuts" are already incorporated in law. Obamacare requires a half a trillion in the a same unidentified Medicare and Medicaid cuts in the plan, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are already underway and the remaining cuts were in the last budget deal.

Liar.; 9/19/11, 1:33 PM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: DBQ- How do you think simplified tax laws would affect employment in the acct industry?

Oh. It would be an adverse impact for sure.

As a former financial planner and investment advisor it would also have a big negative impact on my industry.

The main function of my financial planning practice(in addition to creating wealth through investments) was how to minimize current taxes and how to effectively transfer wealth. Estate taxes, inheritance structuring, charitable giving and techniques. All predicated on trying to minimize taxes.

Life insurance is a big BIG part of this estate tax avoidance. This is why Warren Buffett is a giant hypocrite for wanting to keep the estate tax and to create more taxes for the wealthy.

He has a vested interest in several insurance companies. Keeping the estate tax and creating more tax problems for the wealth just ensures that his companies will sell more life insurance and he will make more money. Big Fat Hypocrite.; 9/19/11, 1:34 PM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: "Since when do folks make rational decisions based on math-"

If you don't make decisions on math you are NOT rational.; 9/19/11, 1:37 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: In 2009, total earnings for those making $1 million or more was $184 Billion.

So if Obama increases their tax rate by 10%, it would only bring $18.4 Billion more a year. So WTF is Obama pulling here?; 9/19/11, 1:41 PM
garage mahal said...: @Michael
Three percentage points.; 9/19/11, 1:42 PM
AlanKH said...: When did a Democrat ever fail to follow up a big tax hike with big spending hikes? The only example I know of is Clinton - and the reason for that is because the attempted massive spending hike - HillaryCare - was shot down.; 9/19/11, 1:42 PM
J said...: ah Hoosiers's another teabug who believes in the Laugher hypothesis! Along with astrology, UFOs, chupacabras,etc.

Besides, the moneys not only to pay for entitlements, but for DoD phun beloved by demopublicans. whats 700 billion between friends; 9/19/11, 1:43 PM
Scott M said...: So WTF is Obama pulling here?

Disheartened/Disappointed base + meaningless tax increase on the bases' "opponents" = shred of electoral hope.; 9/19/11, 1:43 PM
mariner said...: Obama can't do math, so that's right out.

It must be class war.; 9/19/11, 1:44 PM
mariner said...: Sure it's math.

Divide by class.

That's dividing by Zero.; 9/19/11, 1:45 PM
Original Mike said...: "So WTF is Obama pulling here?"

He's seen the latest SAT data. He knows 90% of the country can't do math.; 9/19/11, 1:46 PM
Michael said...: Garage: Three percentage points on the current capital gains rate is a 20% increase in the rate. Math wise.; 9/19/11, 1:48 PM
garage mahal said...: Michael
I was referring to letting the Bush tax cuts expire.; 9/19/11, 1:52 PM
Alex said...: We can't cut spending except on the military and corporate welfare!; 9/19/11, 1:52 PM
David said...: Since he has never released any of his educational records, there is no proof that our president has "mathematical intelligence." It must be class warfare.; 9/19/11, 1:53 PM
Alex said...: That's funny cause Obama admitted higher cap gains taxes don't mean higher revenues but higher rates are fair.

So what you're saying is Obama lied about not engaging in class warfare. I'd say his math is very challenged.; 9/19/11, 1:54 PM
Calypso Facto said...: I was looking for that Obama quote, too, Hoosier:

GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down.

So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. ABC interview, 4/16/08

Obama tipped his hand from the start that it was never about the math.; 9/19/11, 1:57 PM
Michael said...: Garage: The Bush Tax cuts? Obama extended tax cuts, they are the Obama tax cuts. But that doesn't explain the three percentage points. You do know the former tax rates and the current tax rates do you not? What, which, three percent are you talking about, comrade? Or do we just use numbers as rhetorical devices or like punctuation?; 9/19/11, 1:57 PM
garage mahal said...: The top rate from 36%, to 39%; 9/19/11, 2:03 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: "... ah Hoosiers's another teabug who believes in the Laugher hypothesis!..."

I know you're not a bright guy J so I'll type more slowly.

Obama stated that higher cap gains rates were to be in the interest of fairness.; 9/19/11, 2:03 PM
Methadras said...: Leftard math from an outcome based educationalist strikes.

wv = phica = lawlz; 9/19/11, 2:09 PM
Methadras said...: There shouldn't even be such a thing as a capital gains tax nor a death tax.; 9/19/11, 2:10 PM
Michael said...: Garage: 39.6%, not 39%. Ten percent (10%)increase. So, to stay even a person has to earn another six percent.; 9/19/11, 2:14 PM
J said...: Hoosier, I know you don't know economics 101 from yr favorite IHOP, but you're trying to insinuate (as are most teabugs) that tax revenues increase with taxcuts (the so-called Laffer curve) --a ludicrous claim that has been debunked numerous times (by Krugman,etc). Google er.-

Re fairness. Those who follow the egotistic code of Ayn Rand will not agree. Others might. America's not just about appeasing the Koch bros.; 9/19/11, 2:19 PM
garage mahal said...: Michael
Casualty of the deficit hysteria that is sweeping Washington.; 9/19/11, 2:21 PM
kimsch said...: DBQ - how about a consumption tax rather than an income tax? You could exempt food, but include "junk" food, sort of as they do now with some states charging a lower (or no) sales tax on food, but a higher tax on things like toilet paper and cleaning products and some "prepared" foods at the store.

Otherwise, everyone is paying taxes - on what they SPEND - not on what they earn. People can lower their tax liabilities by spending less.

The "rich" will pay more because they'll spend more. The "rich" can afford those $850 Louboutins. The non-rich can buy a similar pair at Payless or DSW for a lot less.

The "rich" can buy the $250k Maybach, the less rich can buy the $16-20k Volkswagen.

A consumption tax also has the added advantage of not penalizing savings.

wv: upersp; 9/19/11, 2:21 PM
Scott M said...: Casualty of the deficit hysteria that is sweeping Washington.

When do you suppose the Greeks first started feeling it? Back when there was time to do something about it? Or when it was too late?; 9/19/11, 2:24 PM
veni vidi vici said...: What, no option for "Stupidity"?; 9/19/11, 2:29 PM
Levi Starks said...: There is an argument to be made for raising taxes on the rich that does not stem from class warfare.
But that argument is not being made.
In the past, the wealthy have been willing to pay a higher percentage in taxes because they could see that there were large segments of our population which were truly living in deplorable conditions. The same conditions that much of the 3rd world still lives in today. Today even the poorest Americans live in relative luxury as compared to their 3d world counterparts. They have a roof over their heads, they have modern appliances, they have indoor plumbing. They have healthcare, they have food stamps. a majority of these things are in fact provided by the government. And what good is having money if civil unrest, and the threat to your personal safety is so great that you find yourself sequestered in your mansion, or modern gated community?
Also they saw the value in living in a nation where public debt was not a huge weight dragging us to the bottom of an economic sea of red ink.
The problem with raising the taxes on the rich today is that we are so far past the economic tipping point that even if we increased to 100% the taxes on the very rich it would at best reduce the rate of acceleration at which we are as a nation becoming indebted.
Want to raise taxes on the rich? Be my guest, maybe it will give you a warm fuzzy feeling when you lay down to take your rest, But don't delude yourself into thinking that the poor, or our nation will be substantially better off as a result.; 9/19/11, 2:34 PM
jamboree said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/19/11, 2:35 PM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: how about a consumption tax rather than an income tax?

Only if they would not continually pile other taxes on top of a consumption tax. If it were a pure consumption tax that exempted food (not junk food)and home utilities it would be more fair.

But....they won't leave it alone. The progressives would just have to find some way to add more taxes and fees to punish the working, small businesses and the wealthy. The tax code would be altered over time so you are paying a consumption tax, plus, plus, plus and plus.

Fees (just another sneaky way of getting people taxed) would also be increased on everything we do in life.

Our tax system is not about paying for government and government services, no matter WHAT they say. That is a lie.

Our tax system is a method to redistribute money from one group to another.

It is all about punishing and rewarding and distributing the work and wealth of one disfavored group to the other group that is favored by the political class in order to keep their power base.; 9/19/11, 2:37 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Jamboree:

When the employer's soc sec & medicare burden climbed to 7% of their payroll, more and more employers ditched pension plans figuring they were not going to pay for it twice.

What I am saying is that the feds and the growing "New deal" caused more people to "lose" their pension plans than all the evil tycoons combined.; 9/19/11, 2:44 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: I prefer income taxes to sales/ consumption taxes because it is harder to calculate and keep track of how much you paid in sales/ consumptopn taxes.

I also suspect a new big change to a consumption tax will "freeze" all spending for awhile and perhaops even cause a recession.; 9/19/11, 2:48 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: A 3.6% increase in taxes on the millionaires who earned $184 Billion in 2009 only gets $6.6 Billion more a year so WTF is Obama talking about?; 9/19/11, 2:52 PM
Michael said...: jamboree: "I'm honestly surprised a CEO or equivalent hasn't been shot in the head - starting around the time of Enron. Maybe they all live in states where worker-citizens who just lost their pensions don't commonly arm themselves."

We are not that kind of people. For the moment, at least, we behave a bit better than that and the least educated and most incensed amongst us knows right from wrong.; 9/19/11, 2:59 PM
Christopher in MA said...: "I'm honestly surprised a CEO or equivalent hasn't been shot in the head - starting around the time of Enron."

You mean the Enron that "Nobel Prize-winning" joke Paul Krugman was an advisor to? The Enron that made substantial donations to the Democrat party? That Enron? Yes, I'm surprised nobody's been Fort Marcy Park-ing the bastards, but leftists do protect their own.

"Maybe they all live in states where worker-citizens who just lost their pensions don't commonly arm themselves."

As Michael says, we are not that kind of people. Yet. But you and your loathsome ilk seem bound and determined to bring your wet dreams to life. Just be careful, though, comrade - when the shooting starts, there's no guarantee it will end when or where you want it to. . .; 9/19/11, 3:13 PM
J said...: Mikey with his usual Pollyannaish politics: Bloomberg's mayor--all's right with JHVH's world

The suggested tax increase is hardly class warfare. Class warfare's like...Mikey and Bloombergs, Koch bros, Google execs etc are corrupt capitalist exploiters who must pay. It's merely reformist liberal politics(if that). Besides, 40% tax rates are not back to the 50% of Reagan's first 6 years.; 9/19/11, 3:28 PM
Shanna said...: R-V: "Since when do folks make rational decisions based on math-"

I know I make the rational decision not to vote for people who completely disregard math and economics in politics! Meaning:

You want to talk math, Mr. President? It would take confiscating ALL of the income of earners over $250,000 for one year to cover one year's DEFICIT. There's your math, Sir.

Bingo! I tell this to people at work and that pretty much stops most of this type of argument. Obama gave the game away ages ago, he wants to raise taxes because it’s “fair” even if it is not effective. That’s his high minded devotion to 'math'.; 9/19/11, 3:29 PM
chuckR said...: Yeah, tax the rich. Look at the Forbes 400 and do a little quick math. If you confiscated their net worth, not income, you'd reduce the deficit to zero - for about six months. Confiscating the net worth of the next 400 wouldn't get you nearly that far.

How about this? Reduce government expenditures by 15% immediately. That 15% has to include laying off 15% of the federal civilian workforce, otherwise they just wait for it to blow over before going back to business as usual. Special assistants to deputy under-whatevers should be an endangered species. Too much work for 85% who are left? Well, perhaps they'l triage regulations and reporting requirements and forgo the most useless. I don't know which are the most useless, but I'll bet they do.; 9/19/11, 3:30 PM
Michael said...: J: I did not write that its class warfare though it clearly is. The math does not work, my addled hipster, it is merely a political ploy by our embattled and incompetent President. It may well work since you are not alone in your contempt for your betters and since half the public does not now pay any consequential tax at all. It is always ducky to tax the other guy because the other guy is the OTHER, the class you lefties love to protect. Alas, imagine a world populated with Js and you get the picture. A chilling thought even to you.; 9/19/11, 3:38 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: ChuckR:

But but but just today, they promised to centralize the purchasing of pens, staples and paper clips! That should save us thousands. Heh.; 9/19/11, 3:39 PM
DADvocate said...: If Job Creators refuse to create jobs, not only should they be taxed higher, they shouldn't be allowed to vote! And probably drug tested.

I assume you're referring to Obama and his crowd.; 9/19/11, 3:40 PM
MayBee said...: A 3.6% increase in taxes on the millionaires who earned $184 Billion in 2009 only gets $6.6 Billion more a year so WTF is Obama talking about?

He's talking about the kind of math that does not involve specific numbers.; 9/19/11, 3:40 PM
J said...: Mikey---fuck you satanist, and your demonic chief Bloomberg.

thats from yr Betters; 9/19/11, 3:42 PM
themightypuck said...: So basically progressive taxation is class warfare. If that's all it means, meh. Not exactly farmers rounding up the professionals and sending them to reeducation camps.; 9/19/11, 3:43 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Maybee;
I know but I am trying to show Garbage how misguided he is and how lousy his Idol, Prez Obama, is at math.; 9/19/11, 3:46 PM
Anonymous said...: Obama wants the rich to pay their "fair share".

What is that? According to the IRS:

The top 1% pay 39% of all federal income taxes.

More fair than that?

The top 25% pay 86% of all federal income taxes.

More fair than that?!

The top 50% pay 97% of all federal income taxes.

Whatchutawkinbout BARRY!??; 9/19/11, 3:46 PM
Scott M said...: He's talking about the kind of math that does not involve specific numbers.

Or a specific bill. For all the grandstanding on "pass this bill now", it took a couple of weeks just to reach the senate, which has now admitted that it won't take up until mid-to-late October.

Unemployment has sucked since POTUS took his oath. He hasn't had a plan, doesn't have a plan, and won't have a plan.; 9/19/11, 3:49 PM
Roger J. said...: seems to me that Mr Obama is only prepping the battlefield for his reelection--he's not serious-the numbers bear that out--he simply wants to paint the house Rs as obstructions and run on a harry truman 1948 campaign. Anit gonna work--Mr Obama is out of ideas and in full reelection mode. I think the country is tired of him, but we will see in 14 months; 9/19/11, 3:52 PM
Michael said...: J: You seem upset. It is very difficult to have a winning argument when you are so ill mannered.; 9/19/11, 3:52 PM
Roger J. said...: I knew Harry Truman, and Mr Obama--you are not Harry Truman; 9/19/11, 3:55 PM
exhelodrvr1 said...: You don't need to understand math, or logic, to calmly, rationally vote for Obama again.; 9/19/11, 3:56 PM
Roger J. said...: The House should put Mr Obama's proposal to a vote--let the Dems go on record--somehow I dont see a lot of support for Mr Obama's proposal in the house--and those that vote for a tax increase will have to face voters in 14 months--the Ds lost their ass in the last election--they will lose even bigger in 14 months--Mr Obama is throwing them under the bus as the saying goes; 9/19/11, 4:01 PM
Roger J. said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/19/11, 4:02 PM
MayBee said...: I know but I am trying to show Garbage how misguided he is and how lousy his Idol, Prez Obama, is at math.

Surely Garage sees this.; 9/19/11, 4:11 PM
Roger J. said...: math time: please differentiate the following function: f=sinex^2
hint: use the chain rule; 9/19/11, 4:16 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Maybee:
I am kidding about changing minds.

Garbage is unpersuadeable and vastly under-informed. Therefore, he is doomed to be a librul for life.; 9/19/11, 4:33 PM
Original Mike said...: Roger: I always like to start them out with:

Please differentiate y = x.; 9/19/11, 4:36 PM
David said...: It's electioneering. Which is all we will get from this President.; 9/19/11, 4:52 PM
master cylinder said...: So many more really rich people are commenters here than I thought!; 9/19/11, 5:25 PM
Cedarford said...: Original Mike said...
"Thus, it is a fraud to say that Buffet pays a lower effective tax rate on his income than the secretary."

I heard today (don't know if it's true) that Buffet's calculation of his versus his secretary's tax rate includes Social Security "taxes". Ridiculous (if true).
=================
The minions of the Marxists are out, and so are the minions of Grover Norquist.

Just some facts:

1. The truth is that the myth that tax cuts on the wealthy "Jobs Creator" class over the last 10 years did not create jobs. Without the IOUs China gave Bush and Obama to create new government jobs, the country LOST jobs under Bush and Obama.
Reaganomics theory that tax cuts create jobs is pretty well debunked.

2. The truth is that the Federal Government playing venture capitalist in creating "great new jobs" in making "no money down" housing construction loans, exciting green energy jobs, "investing" in the Heroes industries of Homeland Security, 1st responders and the Noble Teachers - has been money pissed away. Government is lousy at creating jobs. The last 10 years proved that. So the Dems are wrong on Government as the salvation to economic problems. The only government jobs that are not parasitic are those that serve to create information, stability, and infrastructure services of value to the tax-paying private sector.

3. Norquistians play a game when they say that the ONLY Federal tax people can "legitimately discuss" is the income tax. FICA caps on the wealthy do shift the tax burden from them. They assure the wealthy have an edge in what percent of each dollar they make is not given to taxes.

4. Norquistians play a game when they talk about wealthy groups that want a pure regressive "Flat Tax" or Vat Tax...as each give the wealthy even more disposable income as a percent of each dollar they make vs. middle class and poor.

5. Democrats are nuts when they talk about huge increases in cap gains taxes and business income taxes. Both our rates are already high compared to other nations.

6. Free trade as being mutually beneficial between the people of nations connected by free trade - is as discredited as tax cuts for the wealthy making new jobs.

****Bottom line - it is true that Buffett and other wealthy do pay substantially less of each dollar earned in income, each dollar earned from capital gains - than most of the middle class. The Democrat argument is true in the sum of all taxes taken from each dollar taken from each US worker. The Republican argument that we ONLY care about the Federal income tax and only that and discussions of other taxes don't factor in the debate is disingenuous.****; 9/19/11, 5:44 PM
Kurt said...: David wrote: "It's electioneering. Which is all we will get from this President."

I'd correct that to read: "It's electioneering--and election-related math is the only kind of math this President cares about."; 9/19/11, 5:45 PM
Cedarford said...: master cylinder said...
So many more really rich people are commenters here than I thought!

==============
No, many commentors here are people that are viscerally opposed to any questioning of the dogma of Saint Ronnie - that are in the same class or lower than Buffett's secretary.
People that have drunk deep from the Kool-Aid that any tax increase is class warfare and any tax cut creates piles of new jobs and industries that GROW our way out of deficits.
People locked in the dogma that Free Trade is some sacred core American value. Who mindlessly cite old economists (Saint Ricardo! Rabbis Hayek and Freidman!) whose theories don't work in a globalized world where capital, innovation, and improvements in productivity and efficiency are rapidly transferred to the low cost labor bidder for creating 85-95% of the jobs associated with those factors of production.
Who drop to the floor in frothing spasms screaming "Smoot-Hawley! Smoot Hawley! " - when any discussion comes up about getting out of a free trade regime that is destroying US industries, jobs, and causing the single greatest one-way wealth transfer between nations in history. (who ignore America's great growth, emergence as a #1 military and economic power, and massive job creation in new industry after industry the Europeans could do "cheaper, more efficiently at home or in their colonial empires" - happened under a 120 year long regime of tariffs on targeted trade items)

Just as Lefties can be complete idiots on a range of subjects, many Althouse commentors turn into total idiots on any questioning of unrestricted free trade as good for the average American.

Or any questioning of 35 year old Reagan dogma. Sacred dogma like any tax cuts that add to the deficits will rapidly create jobs that enrich all American freedom lovers through investment by less-taxed Jobs Creators and "tickledown".; 9/19/11, 6:03 PM
Anonymous said...: So many more really rich people are commenters here than I thought!

I believe you posted this same comment the last time this subject came up. Nobody could tell what the fuck it was supposed to mean then either.; 9/19/11, 6:06 PM
David R. Graham said...: It's not warfare, it's business.; 9/19/11, 6:23 PM
Peter V. Bella said...: Obama: 3-1=5

Teacher: Very good. Barack. Someday you will be President of the United States.; 9/19/11, 6:26 PM
Peter V. Bella said...: Obama: 3-1=5

Teacher: Very good Barack. Someday you will be President of the United States.; 9/19/11, 6:29 PM
Michael said...: master cylinder: "So many more really rich people are commenters here than I thought!"

It is all in the definitions, comrade, all in the definitions. Once there was a huge, huge, disparity between millionaires and billionaires. Now our smartest ever President has decreed them equal, millionairesandbillionaires. Basically one word. So, if you make over 200K certain deductions you now take will be taken from you because you are a millionaireandbillionaire. Lots qualify.; 9/19/11, 6:30 PM
MayBee said...: AJ-
I am kidding about changing minds.

Don't be kidding! Keep trying!

I'm just trying to make myself feel better about interrupting your good points with my inane comments.; 9/19/11, 6:38 PM
Vegetable House said...: I don't think Obama knows math. If there is evidence that he understand math, I would like to see it.; 9/19/11, 6:45 PM
Cincinnatus said...: Cedarford, if tax cuts do not create jobs, then why does Obama's faux "jobs" plan include large amounts of tax cuts?

You don't really think about anything you write, do you Cedarford? There has to be an explanation for why your comments make no sense. Or is it that you just don't pay any actual attention to current events?; 9/19/11, 8:01 PM
The Dude said...: Tax 'em. Send the revenue to me. It's all good. And thank you all from the bottom of my heart. Your generosity is greatly appreciated.; 9/19/11, 8:04 PM
Cedarford said...: Robin said...
Cedarford, if tax cuts do not create jobs, then why does Obama's faux "jobs" plan include large amounts of tax cuts?

You don't really think about anything you write, do you Cedarford? There has to be an explanation for why your comments make no sense. Or is it that you just don't pay any actual attention to current events?

===================
Robin, you are just another brainless Norquistian clinging to failed dogma.

That tax cuts on income taxes for the rich failed to create any jobs in the last 10 years? It is different than targeted tax cuts contingent on being used to stimulate American jobs creation and investment in American, not Chinese, enterprises.

Being gripped in the tax cuts create growth, growth created jobs, so deficits don't matter as the Jobs Creators do their magic with all their extra money in creating piles of new taxpayers that cut deficits?
Stupid. stupid. stupid.
That did not happen.
The rich pocketed their tax cuts and put their money in T-Bills to pay for Bush's wars, Banker Bailouts, and Obama's reckless schemes.
The only jobs creation they invested in was over in CHina.; 9/19/11, 8:19 PM
Anonymous said...: Indeed.

And furthermore, it's the business of politics. Follow the money. At the other end of the hose, where the money is poured out, wait unions, donors, special interests etc.

Way to politicize vast portions of our economy and society, Obama...and for what...reelection?

To live comfortably enough beneath his ideals and fellow travelers?; 9/19/11, 9:05 PM
AlanKH said...: How do you create jobs by raising taxes - i.e. by reducing the amount of resources available to the private sector?; 9/19/11, 9:09 PM
Sprezzatura said...: "(See? Sometimes I give you a "neither" option!)"

But where is 'pie?'

I need a cynical, smarmy option.; 9/19/11, 9:10 PM
Sprezzatura said...: I don't know if it's class warfare, but I do know that I can't talk about my support of BHO w/ my friends and family. My peeps don't share the Buffet POV.

They take it personally if you try to mention that the gov can't exist on less than 15% of GDP (not even for Reagan). And, they feel that average (i.e. folks making less than a million a year) people should either learn to be happy w/ what they've got, even if they don't have much--life's not fair, or, if they're capable, they should better themselves.

Anywho, I'd like to see well off folks chip in a little more. As far as I can tell, it'd only mean a bit less comfort, in a life of extreme luxury. But, I don't feel strongly enough to discuss this issue w/ folks in my real world because a) I think that these folks' opinions are unalterable, and b), why should I bother after I've read that so many normal folks are seriously concerned about the well being of rich folks--if they don't care about looking for a little dough from those w/ plenty, why should I.

For the record, I do think that taxes should be raised for all income levels (including the folks who don't pay income taxes and/or get an "earned income" rebate), not just the rich. And, I think that the discretionary budget and entitlements should be cut.; 9/19/11, 9:44 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: "Norquistian"?

C-ford, I assume you coined that and think it makes you sound informed and smart. But it just shows you are a run of the mill equal opportunity hater who pretty much hates everyone.; 9/19/11, 10:52 PM
Mike said...: It's math. Have we seen his 3rd grade arithmetic scores? I don't think so. He's not qualified to opine.; 9/19/11, 11:57 PM
BJM said...: Will someone please 'splain to President Moron that corporations pass taxes through to the customer/consumer.

JesúsCristenunabicicleta.; 9/20/11, 12:30 AM
BJM said...: @C4

why should I bother after I've read that so many normal folks are seriously concerned about the well being of rich folks--if they don't care about looking for a little dough from those w/ plenty, why should I.

Maybe because a lot of normal folks work in the supply chain that produces goods and services for rich folks or for businesses where they invest their capital.

Perhaps you remember the yacht tax wherein tens of thousands of good paying jobs vanished. Taxes on corporate jets will result in lost jobs in manufacturing and the service sector. A general aviation airport that handles private jets requires dozens of support businesses.

Tax anything and you get less of it.

Look at the exodus from NY & NJ after taxes were raised on upper income brackets and the impact of a non-resident property owner subject to NY income tax on income earned in other states hasn't kicked in yet. People will sell their NYC apts and summer homes and who do you think that hurts? All the normal folks in the boroughs and towns that service those apts & homes.

Rich folks spending money equals jobs. Rich folks investing money equals jobs.

How fucking difficult is this?; 9/20/11, 1:25 AM
BJM said...: @C4

I have a question, if private sector "trickle down" doesn't work, why would govt "trickle down" (stimulus) work? Isn't it the same "top down" theory?; 9/20/11, 1:40 AM
Largo said...: Have an "All of the above".

Also have a "None of the above".

But make sure the "None of the above" is below the "All of the above", at least if "All of the above" is supposed to be the correct answer.

I got my entire grade nine bio class a free point on their quiz for that one.

My bio teacher was cool. And I'm sure he never made that mistake again.; 9/20/11, 5:23 AM
Original Mike said...: "The Republican argument that we ONLY care about the Federal income tax and only that and discussions of other taxes don't factor in the debate is disingenuous."

SOCIAL SECURITY IS NOT A TAX. It is a shitty, forced retirement plan.

Now, I am all for getting rid of the charade and folding SS into the income tax and means testing the payouts. THEN it would be a tax. However, it is the liberals, not the conservatives, who object to this. They want to maintain the illusion that SS is not essentially welfare. And until they admit the truth, I will be shouting from the roof tops that SOCIAL SECURITY IS NOT A TAX!; 9/20/11, 8:01 AM
Anonymous said...: Reading all the negative comments I must be missing something..

Americans have it easy..Compare US taxes with Europe!

Taxes are not a class war, they are reality and much higher in countries with comparable GDP's per capita to the USA.

Sales Taxes are 19% in Germany and 25% in Sweden.
Social Security is 40% in Germany and 27% in Italy.
Income Tax in Italy is 43% for everyone earning above Euro 75,000/US$100,000.

SO if you are self employed and earn $100,000 in Italy you are left with $57,000 then take off social security and you have about $40,000 left to spend on products that have 21% sales tax (3 times more than most of the US)

And Europeans don't even have a fraction of all the middle east war cost to pay for (over a trillion dollars!)

Americans should not be worrying about new taxes, but rather how high they will be.

The US government cannot keep printing money trying to stimulate economic recovery, so taxes are the alternative.

The party is over, now we must deal with the hangover. Some of us will get right back to work and others will continue moping around complaining.; 9/20/11, 9:23 AM
BJM said...: @Huaracheblog

Italy also has a very low GDP per capita — $30,631 with a high cost of living due to the many layers of user taxes. The Italian legislator takes a shotgun approach to taxation; hit every Euro that moves.

The main reason that the extended family survives in Italy is because the young simply do not earn enough net income to live independently.

Due to confiscatory IRPEG, IRPEF, IVA,and IRAP taxes, few Italians have the means to become self-employed.

Italy's mandatory social security (INPS)is paid by the employer, it is 100% an employer tax. In order to receive INPS (pension) Italians must contribute for a minimum of twenty years, vs our SSI minimum of 40 weeks.

Then you have the tax stamps, what we call user fees.

Car tax (bollo auto), which now includes the tax on your car radio and the stamp duty on your Italian driving license
Motorbike tax (bollo moto)
Scooter tax (bollo motorino)
TV tax (canone RAI)
Refuse tax (tassa rifiuti)
Municipal property tax (Imposta Comunale sugli Immobili - ICI)

These are but a few as every Comunale has their own set of local taxes.

Hell, you begin to feel like you have to have a govt stamp to take a crap in Italy...and given the power and reach of the ICI, the owner of the toilette already has done.

It is the most inefficient, Byzantine tax system one could imagine in a first world country and one that the average Italian delights in cheating.; 9/20/11, 1:21 PM