Posted on 11/22/2012 11:09:46 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Consider this headline from a Reuters article in The Huffington Post: "Raising Taxes on Rich Won't Hurt Economic Growth, CBO Says." But the first paragraph refutes the headline: "Allowing income tax rates to rise for wealthy Americans would not hurt U.S. economic growth much (emphasis added) in 2013 ..." The CBO did not say, as the headline suggests, that raising taxes on the rich has no negative economic effect. In fact, the CBO actually said that extending the Bush-era rates for all would increase economic growth by 1.5 percent. If, however, the Bush era rates expired for the rich -- but were retained for everybody else -- economic growth would still increase, but by 1.25 percent.
In other words, raising taxes would result in less economic activity, not more. Herein lies the key to understanding why the left wants higher taxes for "the rich." To the rich-should-pay-more crowd, the question of whether raising taxes hurts economic growth is less important than the issue of "fairness."
Then-presidential candidate Barack Obama, in 2008, was asked why he insisted on pushing a capital gains tax increase given that, historically, higher capital gains rates meant less revenue:
ABC News' Charlie Gibson: "You have, however, said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, 'I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was 28 percent.' It's now 15 percent. That's almost a doubling if you went to 28 percent. But actually Bill Clinton in 1997 signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.
Then-Sen. Obama: "Right."
Gibson: "And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent."
Obama agreed, "Right."
"And in each instance," Gibson continued, "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 explained: "Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness (emphasis added). We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year -- $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That's not fair. And what I want is not oppressive taxation. I want businesses to thrive, and I want people to be rewarded for their success. But what I also want to make sure is that our tax system is fair."
Years earlier, in 1998, the then-state senator told a Loyola University audience: "The trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some (wealth) redistribution -- because I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level to make sure that everybody's got a shot."
The then-Democratic nominee Obama told Fox's Bill O'Reilly that wealth redistribution was the neighborly thing to do. "If I can afford it," said Obama, "what's the big deal for me to say, 'I'm going to pay a little bit more'? That is neighborliness." And a month before the 2008 election, Obama explained to "Joe the Plumber" that "when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."
In a 2001 Chicago radio interview, then-state Sen. Obama said: "The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth (emphasis added), and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. ... One of the, I think, the tragedies of the civil rights movement, was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community-organizing activities on the ground, that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change -- and in some ways we still suffer from that."
Investor's Business Daily says raising taxes on the top 2 percent figures to bring in annually about $34 billion. Others put the number at twice that. Either way, it is a tiny fraction of the $1.1 trillion annual deficit. And an Ernst & Young study says this would cost 700,000 jobs. So raising taxes on the rich a) brings in a small amount of money and b) reduces, not increases, economic activity.
Why increase taxes on the rich at all? Answer: It's a matter of "fairness."
Andy Stern, the former head of the Service Employees International Union, the fastest-growing American union, describes the economic philosophy of the left: If raising taxes on "the rich" hurts the economy, that is an acceptable price. "Western Europe," says Stern, "as much as we used to make fun of it, has made different trade-offs which may have ended with a little more unemployment but a lot more equality."
Any questions?
Ah, yep, the most accurate description so far...
Using the poor to do their bidding is their means to gaining power.
Ah, yep (again), the poor are one part of the "Useful Idiots" so necessary to Marxist's ultimate goal of gaining power.
But after power is consolidated in Marxists, the "Useful Idiots" are no longer necessary or "useful".
So the Marxists expediently kill them.
I know that using corn up as ethanol in gas tanks raises food prices. Do you think that the proliferation of food stamps / ETB / WIC / SNAP are also inflating food prices?
Sorry Suzan - not a racist remark, just a truthful one.
If you are associated with the Obamadork you are at best a bimbo, and most probably a felon/cretin who’s never had (nor ever could hold) a real job.
And....
You are indeed associated with the Obamadork.
Love it, live it, you ignorant s......
No one will even begin to grasp the essential nature of the Obama regime until logic is thrown out the window and every bit of news - bar none - is considered in the extent to which events contribute to Obama’s Marxist Revolution.
That is the ultimate goal, whether it “contributes to the ecomony” or - infinitely more likely - drives the United States to its knees.
Any and all other considerations are, at best, peripheral.
"Fairness" is not objective, what is fair to one is not EVER exactly the same to another. Yet as a feeling it is a powerful rhetorical and political tool. No one can define it but everyone feels it and self-interprets it. Hitler and many Germans thought the Jews were unfairly benefitting during post WW1 and felt the need to do something about it.
Personally, I feel that a consistent appeal to 'fairness' is the mark of a failure who is avoiding the facts. President Obama in this past campaign had little to run upon except how unfair his opponent was in wealth and skin hue. Our fellow citizens, urged on by the liberal media, chose him for re-election. I fear that subjective fairness will cost us dearly over the next 4 years.
For egalitarians, equality is the fundamental moral value and, therefore the standard of good and evil. This requires a new definition of justice which is now defined as fairness.Men's differences though real, are not morally relevant.And the negative consequences of this new morality and justice are not important.What is important is equality as an end in itself.
Shared misery for all.
Can’t wait till the BO taxes hit Hollywood.
Don't believe I have ever seen a triple talker before. Somebody who is for something, against something and have no opinion... all at the same time.
Fairness at the expense of prudent economic consequence is malfeasance. Malfeasance leads to impeachment.
Impeachment only happens if the networks and major newspapers want it.
They’ll cover Obama’s ass all the way to 2016 (and beyond)
bump post 15
Making the rich “pay their fair share” to the government will not increase the “revenue” to the government. Anyone who believes that is a moron. When the rich have more money taken that is used for wealth creation, there is less wealth created. For the moron who needs a further explanation, that wealth is what generates “revenue” for the government.
When less money due to lower wealth creation comes in to support Big Government, it will drive the moronic DemonRATs to dig deeper into the private sector. That insanity will ignore the real answer, which was spelled out by Ronald Reagan.
Now when Zer0 puts this continuous wealth depletion economic system into practice, it will drive the economic health of this nation to the tipping point. This is what is called the Cloward-Piven Strategy and it will blow up in Zer0’s face. When this happens, and I believe it will, the media will feel its effects and blame Zer0 for it rather than take the well-deserved hit. That will bring on the calls for impeachment.
*
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.