Skip to comments.Obama's War On The Rich Continues
Posted on 04/14/2013 8:00:15 AM PDT by LD Jackson
There are some things that you can depend on. The sun is always going to rise in the East and set in the West because God created them and placed them in that cycle of motion. That will never change until this world has ended. Another thing you can depend on is death. It has always came to man, except for two individuals in the Bible and it always will, sooner or later, we are all going to die. Taxes is another thing we can not seem to escape. Even though they are man-made, they continue to march on through our world. President Barack Obama is doing his part to make sure the rich and wealthy in America have no chance to hide from the tax man. If you don't believe that, just check out some of the proposals contained in the budget he has proposed.
(White House)Prohibit Individuals from Accumulating over $3 Million in Tax-Preferred Retirement Accounts. Individual Retirement Accounts and other tax-preferred savings vehicles are intended to help middle class families save for retirement. But under current rules, some wealthy individuals are able to accumulate many millions of dollars in these accounts, substantially more than is needed to fund reasonable levels of retirement saving. The Budget would limit an individuals total balance across tax-preferred accounts to an amount sufficient to finance an annuity of not more than $205,000 per year in retirement, or about $3 million for someone retiring in 2013. This proposal would raise $9 billion over 10 years.Okay, so we already know how Obama feels about the rich. He used everything in his arsenal against Mitt Romney to portray him as an evil man. Even though Obama is set for life and will undoubtedly leave his two daughters a substantial amount of money when he checks out and goes to meet God, he seems to have something against the rest of us doing that. Not only does he want to tax the rich to death, he wants to chop away at their savings. All in the interest of fairness. I am well on my way to hating the word "fair", especially with the definition being supplied by the Obama administration.
(Freedom Outpost) The Obama administration is, at every turn trying to tell you what you can and cannot do with your money and what is acceptable and what is not. According to his new budget, it will cap savings for many prosperous Americans who will fund retirement themselves through retirement savings accounts, but its also possible it might affect even the smaller savers in society.Exactly who does Obama think he is to be telling the rest of America how much they should be saving? The mentality of his ilk, believing they have the right to raise taxes on those in our country who have been more successful, in order to spread the wealth, is bad enough. When that isn't enough, they are now wanting to cap the amount of money an individual can place in a tax-deferred retirement account. That will, in effect, raise their taxable income and place more money in the federal coffers to be given to someone else. All because it's the fair thing to do. If that's the true definition of fairness, then count me out.
Some savers put their money in these types of accounts to keep Socialists like Obama from taxing them to death in order to leave their children an inheritance. They dont have the mentality of Im spending my kids inheritance on retirement.
However, keep in mind that this the same Barack Obama who doesnt have to think about these things as he spends millions of taxpayer dollars on vacation and hes not even retired. In fact, its questionable as to whether hes ever really had a real job a day in his life. Yet he presumes to know how much Americans can earn and what a reasonable lever of retirement savings is. His arrogance was on display in Quincy, Illinois as he said, I do think at a certain point youve made enough money and then proceeded to elaborate on how it was only fair that the government should confiscate the rest by raising taxes.
That statement was on what one makes. This cap on retirement accounts is on what you save.
War on the rich hell. His is a war on humanity.
That can't happen until they take all the guns, though.
Socialism, because its political economy destroys wealth rather than creates it, must be a parasitical predator towards any wealth that falls within its grasp. The progression is clear: the easy assets are taxed first. Then the asset grab moves down the line. At the same time any subtle way of grabbing assets is honed and refined. Inflation becomes a friend of government until government no longer benefits. People who are wealth-creators gradually decline to create as much wealth, and move their assets towards forms and locations that cannot be taxed. The number of places in the economy where wealth can be created necessarily shrinks, causing government to be increasingly open about its tax-grubbing.
This never ends well. The only good that comes from it is to prove yet one more time that government is only a parasite on wealth which the Founding Fathers wisely told us that for our own sake we must limit, which we have failed to do. Indeed, the socialist (more accurately, soft-fascist) government we currently have breeds dependency like a dog breeds fleas. Even a lot of conservative candidates only can bring themselves to tell voters how much better they would run our socialist institutions than the liberals who are in office. It would be much better if he were to tell voters why they should scrap socialism and return to liberty and free enterprise.
No, it’s a war on SOME of the rich - specifically, those who are beginning to accumulate some wealth.
The super-rich aren’t worried about income taxes. Why? Because they’ve already accumulated their wealth. For the rest of us, the only way to accumulate wealth is via income. Income and capital gains taxes are a way to keep us from ever catching up.
A rising tide may lift all boats. But the guy with a 50-ft yacht want you scrubbing and polishing it, not buying your own.
“The super-rich arent worried about income taxes. Why? Because theyve already accumulated their wealth.”
It may be the only way to bring reason into the current situation is to advocate a wealth tax on assets for the super-rich. Once their accumulated wealth is actually threatened, they might stop supporting the increasing taxation of income on those who are trying to accumulate wealth. Please note I abhor the concept. However, in today’s surreal world it may be that shock therapy is needed to wake up the 1% who are living high on the hog and funding the Democrat party.
Reform the tax code to address the following and you’ll see the super wealthy change their tune (including Buffett and the Hollywood elites):
1) Tax carried interest as ordinary income. While Obama’s budget advocates it, Chuck Schumer and Wall Street will fight with all their resources to protect it.
2) Generation skipping trusts
3) Farm tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires
4) Federal tax exemption for municipal bonds
5) Deducting yachts as homes
6) Levy a 10% asset tax on net worth above $20 million. You’ll see the Hollywood left and the Wall Street bankers squeal, as well as many politicians.
Romney allowed himself to be used as a punching bag on the issue of wealth. He should have turned it around and said to Obama — if you are truly interested in fairness as you define it, why aren’t you advocating the confiscation of your buddy Warren Buffett’s wealth? Is it fair for Buffett to have $40 billion? Why don’t you advocate the government taking 10% of his accumulated wealth per year instead of trying to keep the small businessman or average citizen from accumulating savings?
Taxes on the rich - on businessmen and capitalists - are an assault on capital, savings and investment which cause:
(1) lower demand for capital goods relative to consumers' goods and
(2) reduced incentive to improve production and
(3) lower demand for labor
The result of conditions of (1) and (2) is lower productivity of labor, which leads to lower real wage rates for the average worker.
The result of condition (3) is lower money wage rates for the average worker.
Thus, taxes on the rich are overwhelmingly borne by the average wage earners in the form of both lower real wage rates and lower money wage rates.
The truth is that wage earners always end up bearing the major burden of taxes. They bear the burden whether the taxes are levied on them directly in the form of consumption taxes, sales taxes, or income taxes, or they are levied on businessmen and capitalists in the form of confiscatory taxes on profits, inheritances, income, or a tax on the product. These taxes reduce wage earners' spendable income if it takes the form of an additional income tax they must pay. It reduces their buying power of their incomes if it as an additional sales tax. And, it reduces the demand for labor, and thus the wage earners' pretax incomes, if it is an additional tax in the rich. The wage earner simply cannot escape the burden of the tax no matter how much liberals, who hate the good for being the good and have a resentment against achievement want to punish the rich.
The richey-rich limo-globalists still have their hidey holes for real money. It is the upper middle class that he’s axing - not the billionaires. He wants a classless society. That is where everyone is dirt poor except for the “smart” elitists/rulers, party members (government workers) and their chosen ones (rich people who keep the party leaders in power and rolling in the dough.) Think China. They are not kidding when they say China is the globes’ future. The treasonous asses are not dissolving the constitution for nothing.
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.