On January 1, 2013, the top two income tax rates will increase almost 20%. There will be a rise of about 60% on the capital gains tax. The Medicare payroll tax will skyrocket 62%. Dividends will suffer a tax that will just about triple. The so-called “death tax” will enjoy a 57% increase.
We already have one of the highest corporate income tax rates in the world, second only to Cameroon, a socialist state that is a socialist government.
According to Investor’s Business Daily’s November 9th report, the top 3% of small businesses earn about 91% of all small business income. They also employ a healthy portion (about 54%) of the total U.S. workforce in the private business sector.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, these additional taxes, along with their accompanying regulatory costs and restrictions will likely tip the country back into a recession.
We will see extreme energy cost increases, the “printing” of new money and monetary policies that will drive up inflation and will contribute to the coming recession.
Because of all of this, unemployment will rise back into the 10-15% range, the budget deficit will increase by over $2 trillion, and the national debt will be on its way to $20 trillion dollars.
These are all things liberal/leftists and Democrats see as good things.
According to the latest CBO figures, the top 1% of income earners paid 39% of all federal income taxes. In 1981, the top 1% paid only 17.6% of federal income taxes.
In 2009, the top 20% of those earning more that $74,000 per year (the top 20%), paid 94% of federal individual income taxes. At the same time, middle income earners paid only 2.7% of individual federal taxes and the bottom 40% were actually paid BY the IRS an amount equal to 10% of net federal individual income taxes.
President BO (the amateur president)’s assertion that the rich don’t pay their fair share is born either of ignorance or of deliberate deceit. There are no other options.
The truth is, by any standard used, the rich already pay more than their “fair share” of all federal taxes. In fact, according to IRS data reported by CBO, the rich pay more at a higher tax rate than everyone else.
This means that President BO (the amateur president), along with his allies, the liberal/leftist Democrats, are purely and simply lying to the American public, who cannot believe that their chosen saviors would do such a thing.
Again according to the CBO, the President’s tax policy proposals of increasing taxes on couples making over $250,000 per year would only raise about $34 billion, which is just 3% of the $1.1 trillion deficit. This is a meaningless amount and will result in no measurable advantage to the economy.
If, as predicted by CBO, tax rate increases push the economy back into recession, federal revenues will decline. In addition, both the federal budget deficit and the national debt will increase.
Is that what liberal/leftist Democrats want? If so, why?
There is a solution to the federal revenue “problem.” It is twofold: 1)increase federal revenues by increasing the tax base (that means a net of at least a million more jobs, each of which will produce tax income to the government not currently being collected); and 2)instituting a flat tax on all net income from all sources that is over the “poverty level” of, let’s say $20,000.00.
We are at a crossroads. If the House of Representatives continues to capitulate to the President and the Senate on these destructive tax increases, we will fall over a fiscal cliff far worse than the one we are facing now.
We are facing the utter dissolution of our nation economically. Since we are bigger than Greece, our fall will be much further and much harder than anything Greece could approximate.
Come on, House, get some guts and do what MUST be done if we are to prosper as a nation.
15 comments:
Very well stated and attributed for accuracy.
(p.s., Found you via Fredd and adding you to my blogroll)
According to Investor’s Business Daily’s November 9th report, the top 3% of small businesses earn about 91% of all small business income. They also employ a healthy portion (about 54%) of the total U.S. workforce in the private business sector.
------
3% of the businesses emplo 54% of the workforce and they are considered small?
Check !!!
The truth is, by any standard used, the rich already pay more than their “fair share” of all federal taxes. In fact, according to IRS data reported by CBO, the rich pay more at a higher tax rate than everyone else.
-----
Question, why shouldn't the rich pay in proportion to the amount of wealth they control?
Question, does it stifle demand and growth taxing the middle and working classes or the extremely wealthy?
We are facing the utter dissolution of our nation economically. Since we are bigger than Greece, our fall will be much further and much harder than anything Greece could approximate.
----
First, we control the world's demand currency so comparison to Greece is asinine.
Ducky: "Question, why shouldn't the rich pay in proportion to the amount of wealth they control?"
Question: Why should anybody have to pay a greater percentage of what they worked for than anybody else?
You see that as fair. I see it as intrinsically unfair.
It destroys incentive, imagination and ingenuity.
Joe - "Question: Why should anybody have to pay a greater percentage of what they worked for than anybody else?"
What about the people like Mitt Romney who never, ever worked for anything at all, never created a single job, but swooped in like vultures on vulnerable companies, forced a takeover, saddled them with overwhelming debts and management fees, eliminated jobs, destroyed the lives of middle class working people, and is still lining his pockets with the the profits he made in the wake of all of that destruction? They call it "carried interest".
The only "incentive, imagination and ingenuity" involved in the way most white privileged people build their wealth revolves around manipulating the laws and tax codes to screw the middle class, minimize their tax liability and hide their wealth in off shore tax havens.
They contribute NOTHING to the American economy.
They are takers, not makers.
XO: "... people like Mitt Romney who never, ever worked for anything at all, never created a single job."
Revisionist history.
You absolutely know not that about which you speak.
It's just unfathomable that you would make such a blatantly false statement. It's beneath even you.
Joe, you're free to cite an instance where he created jobs.
You'll probably mention Staples and that is true in a small way. The company had already grown to the point of needing venture capital and Bain did provide some. It gets real lean after that.
Joe - Nonsense. Provide me one example where Mitt Romney actually created a job where one did not previously exist.
I'll save you the trouble. YOU CAN'T! Because it never happened.
Like most people born into wealth and privilege, he never created anything of value to anyone other than himself. He just moved his money around and made his money work for him to make him more money.
And they sucker poor people like you into worshiping rich people like them when they couldn't care less whether you live or die.
They foster the delusion that anyone can be like them.
Gullible fools.
Oh by the way, Joe. Income taxes are less than 50% of Federal revenues.
Lower wage earners pay a high percentage of their income through sales and payroll taxes. Since workers (as opposed to people like Romney) spend the bulk of their income on necessities an additional flat income tax would lower their standard of living.
That means you, Joe. You really should top repeating that ridiculous income tax meme that was started by Rush the Vulgar Pigboy.
Ducky: "...an additional flat income tax would lower their standard of living."
Actually, I thought of a flat tax as being the most fair method of taxation long before I knew Limbaugh existed.
Nobody suggests an ADDITIONAL flat tax. You're confusing this with the "fair tax," which is a sales tax.
That I oppose on all levels.
A flat tax would replace the present income tax, would apply only to money earned over the poverty level, would bring in more revenue than the government's present income plus the deficit and would be fair to all.
One card would be all you need: How much did you earn? Subtract the poverty minimum. Multiply the balance by __% and that's what you owe the government in taxes. No deductions, no exemptions, no hassles, no additional payments.
No IRS bureaucratic despotism, no nasty agents knocking on your door, no reduction of freedoms.
No complicated forms, no ways to avoid and cheat (since sources of income, such as your employer or business, would have to report a simple "Here's How Much He Earned" form).
No hidden fees, taxes, penalties, gigantic tax codes or other legal entanglements.
No downside.
Ducky: "...Rush the Vulgar Pigboy."
This is why I keep toying with the idea of listing you as spam and keeping you out of my comments section.
You can call me names...that's OK, I can take it. But when you start calling my other commenters names and other people names, you cross the line.
See you could have said, "...by Rush Limbaugh" or "...by Rush Limbaugh, whom I neither like nor admire" or anything other than "Vulgar Pigboy."
Limbaugh is much less vulgar than you and he is not a "Pigboy," whatever that is.
Try to stick to discussion and avoid the nasty jabs, OK?
(I'm the only one who gets a pass on nasty jabs on this blog.)
XO: In 1977 Mitt Romney secured a position at Bain & Company. Later serving as its chief executive officer, he helped lead the company out of financial crisis.
In 1984, he cofounded and led the spin-off company Bain Capital, a highly profitable private equity investment firm that became one of the largest of its kind in the nation.
And he did that all by himself, without a single other employee, created no jobs for people working for him and was an abject failure.
He must be a magician!
No, he provided many people with jobs...thousands.
Look, from the beginning he was not my choice for president, but ABO, in my book.
Sadly, we got BO again. And we can't cure it with Ban Roll-on.
And talk about never creating jobs, he has led the government to a net job creation of "0" (In case you need help, it's jobs created minus jobs lost equals a net of "0").
And he did that all by himself, without a single other employee, created no jobs for people working for him and was an abject failure.
----
All by himself? Utter nonsense.
Go research the sources of his funding, including the fascinating Latin American sources.
Post a Comment