Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

So What If Taxing Rich Hurts the Economy? (And creates more poor?)
Townhall ^ | 11/22/2012 | Larry Elder

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?


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: poor; rich; tax; taxing

1 posted on 11/22/2012 11:09:53 AM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The dirty secret is there are a lot of people that want the economy to fail, having everyone else being miserable makes them happy.


2 posted on 11/22/2012 11:11:04 AM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

President Cloward-Piven’s only goal is to “overwhelm the system” so he can replace it with a peoples’ paradise.


3 posted on 11/22/2012 11:12:36 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (Labor unions are the Communist Party of the USA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Let them OWN it and orce them to EAT it!

EBT & SNAP for everyone!


4 posted on 11/22/2012 11:17:31 AM PST by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

We need to out cloward and piven the cloward and piveners....


5 posted on 11/22/2012 11:19:49 AM PST by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Marx-Engels clearly needed to eliminate the rich AND the poor by any means and it was necessary for there system to work.

It wasn't put like this in the communist manifesto but it was expressed many times in their writings.

6 posted on 11/22/2012 11:22:57 AM PST by Steve Van Doorn (*in my best Eric Cartman voice* 'I love you, guys')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Research the damage done by the luxury tax in the 1990 tax reform bill the Bush 41 signed.


7 posted on 11/22/2012 11:25:44 AM PST by Parmy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steve Van Doorn
It wasn't put like this in the communist manifesto but it was expressed many times in their writings.

They understood that if you magically transferred the wealth from the rich to the poor, the rich would get it all back within a few years.....so eliminating them permanently was the only way to solve that problem.......The Bolsheviks understood this as well during "The Red Terror":

"Do not look in the file of incriminating evidence to see whether or not the accused rose up against the Soviets with arms or words. Ask him instead to which class he belongs, what is his background, his education, his profession. These are the questions that will determine the fate of the accused. That is the meaning and essence of the Red Terror."

- Martin Latsis, chief of the Ukrainian Cheka

8 posted on 11/22/2012 11:26:38 AM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Collectivism does not concern itself with the health of an economy or the wellbeing of people. It concerns itself with the consolidation of the machine.


9 posted on 11/22/2012 11:27:30 AM PST by lurk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

And the CBO said obummercare was going to save billions.


10 posted on 11/22/2012 11:27:54 AM PST by woodenickel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Marxists/socialists are linear thinkers. They don't realize that money taken from the wealthy isn't going to come out of their mattresses...it is going to come out of investment in the economy.

The economy will contract in DIRECT proportion to the amount removed...and then, to add insult to injury, there will be the multiplier affect which means that a downward spiral in economic activity will have been created (i.e. the downward spiral will have momentum).

11 posted on 11/22/2012 11:28:06 AM PST by RoosterRedux (He will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
...raising taxes on the rich has no negative economic effect.

Anyone who really believes this is an idiot, pure and simple.

12 posted on 11/22/2012 11:30:52 AM PST by econjack (Some people are as dumb as soup.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

More trash that ideas won’t work from “Pharaoh-Bamma, just Tax the Rich.”


13 posted on 11/22/2012 11:39:35 AM PST by SandRat (Duty - Honor - Country! What else needs said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

Progressives are not about helping the poor. They are about destroying the successful, prosperous, productive. They are attempting to conform the world to their dark, empty, ugly souls.


14 posted on 11/22/2012 11:40:16 AM PST by all the best (`~!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator
It wasn't put like this in the communist manifesto but it was expressed many times in their writings.

Au, contraire!

The Ten Planks of Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto
(and How Statists Implement Them)

  1. Abolition of private property rights (via high property taxes, restrictive zoning laws, "fair housing" edicts, environmental and "wetlands" regulations, UN Agenda 21, etc.)

  2. Institution of a heavily graduated income tax (by calling it "taxing the rich")

  3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance (through a confiscatory estate tax on "the rich")

  4. Confiscation of the property of enemies of the state (through lawless application of asset forfeiture and eminent domain)

  5. Centralization of credit into the hands of the state (Federal Reserve, Federal Trade Commission, TARP, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, federal takeover of student loans, etc.)

  6. Centralization of the means of communication and transportation into the hands of the state (FCC, DOT, FEMA, NTSB, FAA, etc.).

  7. Consolidation and subjugation of all major industries to central government control (FDA, EPA, OSHA, ICC, HUD, NLRB, EEOC, DOE, TSA etc.)

  8. Mandatory labor union membership ("card check" to bypass employee consent, automatic withholding of union dues, forced unionization of health care workers, teachers, police, firefighters, etc.)

  9. Equitable redistribution of all wealth (TANF, SSI, EITC, SNAP, etc.)

  10. Free public education (and food, housing, health care, cell phones, Internet access, etc.)

15 posted on 11/22/2012 11:42:57 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (Labor unions are the Communist Party of the USA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: all the best
Progressives are not about helping the poor. They are about destroying the successful, prosperous, productive. They are attempting to conform the world to their dark, empty, ugly souls.

They are about replacing the current elite with themselves, on the backs of the poor. Using the poor to do their bidding is their means to gaining power.

16 posted on 11/22/2012 11:44:24 AM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Although ultimately of course whether a new company continues growing and creates self-sustaining jobs is a function of customers’ ability and willingness to pay for the company’s products, not the entrepreneur or the investor capital. What good are the tax breaks if they just go straight into the bank (where it either sits and earns interest) or get invested overseas or in companies that already have strong demand to sell products and create jobs ?

The company’s customers are who buy the company’s products that in turn creates the need for the employees to produce, sell, and service those products. If those customers go broke by tax policies that reward “the 1%” at the expense of everyone else, the demand for the company’s products will collapse. And the jobs will disappear, regardless of what the entrepreneur does.


17 posted on 11/22/2012 11:44:35 AM PST by erlayman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: woodenickel
First thing in every individual's budget is Democrat Mandatory Health Insurance.

If (((car or home) or anything else)If (anything left over on a part-time job salary))

All secondary to Democrat Mandatory Health Insurance

...and not ! (able to afford that 18 year old that wants on your insurance plan until 26)...

18 posted on 11/22/2012 11:46:08 AM PST by Son House (Romney Plan: Cap Spending At 20 Percent Of GDP.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Whenever the Democrats chime up with “tax the rich”, the only rebuttal should be that

“Hating and hurting other people won’t make their life any better. Democrats have long hated and tried to hurt people for their race, for their religion, and for just about every other reason. But it never, ever, either takes away their pain, or improves their lives in any way.

“So Democrats, stop hating people, stop trying to hurt people. Government can’t make your life any better, only you can. You could hate and kill every other person in the world, and you would still be miserable inside. They are not the problem. You are. But you can change yourself, even if you can’t change the world. Stop hating, stop trying to hurt people.”


19 posted on 11/22/2012 11:46:34 AM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy (DIY Bumper Sticker: "THREE TIMES,/ DEMOCRATS/ REJECTED GOD")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator
Borrowed from Jeffrey Snover's blog:

John went on to explain, “You are either right or you are wrong. If you are right and they are going to fail with their current approach, then you should be able to articulate where the design is going to fail. Use that to help them fail as quickly as possible so that they can learn the lesson and restart on the right path. You are saying that the design won’t scale so make sure everyone agrees what the scale requirements are and then arrange to have them prove that their design can meet those goals ASAP (make it one of the first coding goals). One of two things are going to be the case: 1) it scales in which case you’ve learned something and it is a good thing that you didn’t get them to change or 2) it doesn’t scale in which case they are going to have to change their approach. At that point they might take your approach or they might pick another but one way or the other, it is going to meet the scalability requirement that we’ve all agreed to.” That was a career-changing conversation for me. John was giving me my first lesson in “our job is to engineer encounters with reality”.

20 posted on 11/22/2012 11:58:33 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
May be a correct statement that it won't effect the economy much in 2013. The economy stinks right now so a bit more stink won't matter a great deal initially. 2014 would be a different matter. Most measures of the economy are historic and as the funds are siphoned out of the private sector throughout the coming years the damage will be quite obvious.
21 posted on 11/22/2012 12:13:21 PM PST by JIM O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator
They are about replacing the current elite with themselves, on the backs of the poor.

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.

22 posted on 11/22/2012 12:19:39 PM PST by Navy Patriot (Join the Democrats, it's not Fascism when WE do it, and the Constitution and law mean what WE say.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: GraceG

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?


23 posted on 11/22/2012 12:22:46 PM PST by tbw2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

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......


24 posted on 11/22/2012 12:29:24 PM PST by Da Coyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

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.


25 posted on 11/22/2012 12:47:45 PM PST by Jack Hammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
But what I also want to make sure is that our tax system is fair."

"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.

26 posted on 11/22/2012 12:57:11 PM PST by SES1066 (Government is NOT the reason for my existence but it is the road to our ruin!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Why increase taxes on the rich at all? Answer: It's a matter of "fairness."

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.

27 posted on 11/22/2012 1:15:17 PM PST by mjp ((pro-{God, reality, reason, egoism, individualism, natural rights, limited government, capitalism}))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

Shared misery for all.


28 posted on 11/22/2012 1:27:35 PM PST by mykroar (BAD-ANON: One Game At A Time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

Can’t wait till the BO taxes hit Hollywood.


29 posted on 11/22/2012 2:34:24 PM PST by dandiegirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
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."

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.

30 posted on 11/22/2012 2:49:48 PM PST by hattend (Firearms and ammunition...the only growing industries under the Obama regime.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Fairness at the expense of prudent economic consequence is malfeasance. Malfeasance leads to impeachment.


31 posted on 11/22/2012 2:56:22 PM PST by jonrick46 (The opium of other people's money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jonrick46

Impeachment only happens if the networks and major newspapers want it.

They’ll cover Obama’s ass all the way to 2016 (and beyond)


32 posted on 11/22/2012 3:16:14 PM PST by hattend (Firearms and ammunition...the only growing industries under the Obama regime.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Margaret Thatcher had an answer for that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okHGCz6xxiw


33 posted on 11/22/2012 3:53:04 PM PST by Paleo Conservative (Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not really out to get you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

bump post 15


34 posted on 11/22/2012 4:46:22 PM PST by Christian4Bush (The USSA. Born 7/4/1776. Committed suicide 11/6/2012.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: hattend

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.


35 posted on 11/22/2012 5:02:49 PM PST by jonrick46 (The opium of other people's money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

*


36 posted on 11/23/2012 6:34:32 AM PST by PMAS (All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson