Posted on 11/25/2012 5:22:42 AM PST by upchuck
Riding a wave of confidence after his re-election victory, President Obama is eager to collect scalps from the class war he appears to have won. Americans, Obama said in his postelection news conference earlier this month, "want to make sure that middle-class folks aren't bearing the entire burden and sacrifice when it comes to some of these big challenges. They expect that folks at the top are doing their fair share as well." House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., echoed this point in a fundraising pitch sent out on Monday: "Voters sent a clear message to Republicans in the election: we must stand up for the middle class and ensure the wealthy pay their fair share."
Although Obama and his fellow Democrats repeatedly call on wealthier Americans to pay their "fair share," they never specify what percentage of the nation's tax burden the wealthy would have to bear. As matters stand, the top 1 percent of American households paid 39 percent of income taxes in 2009, according to the most recent data compiled by the Congressional Budget Office, and the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid 64 percent.
But income taxes, taken in isolation, do not tell the whole story, because lower-income Americans do pay payroll taxes. But even taking into account all forms of taxation, the top 1 percent still paid 22 percent of federal taxes while earning just 13.4 percent of household income. The top 5 percent paid 40 percent of all federal taxes, despite earning only 26 percent of all income. No matter how you slice the numbers, it's hard to understand why anyone would think the wealthy aren't already shouldering a burden commensurate with their blessings.
In the next few weeks, Obama will keep repeating this "fair share" language as part of his call to raise taxes on those earning more than $250,000 per year. He also wants to close additional loopholes and limit deductions to increase their tax burden further. But bear this in mind: On top of whatever new taxes go into effect in the deal to avert the so-called fiscal cliff, there will be additional new taxes due to Obama's national health care law. These include a 0.9 percent Medicare tax hike for individuals earning more than $200,000 per year and couples earning more than $250,000 as well as a 3.8 percent surtax on investment income.
Moreover, even if Obama gets his way on all of his tax hikes on the wealthy, it still won't make a dent in the $16.3 trillion national debt. Later in his term, once he has blown all of the new revenue with spending increases and goes back to this well for still more revenues, will the media let Obama get away with claiming the wealthy aren't paying their "fair share" once again, without specifying what constitutes fairness?
The full list of new marginal rate hikes is below:
-The 10% bracket rises to a new and expanded 15%
-The 25% bracket rises to 28%
-The 28% bracket rises to 31%
-The 33% bracket rises to 36%
-The 35% bracket rises to 39.6%
http://atr.org/days-taxmageddon-a7203#ixzz277YSfPmP
By allowing the 2003 Bush tax cuts to retire, taxes will be increasing the bottom rate from 10% to 15% and the 20% bracket to 25%.
Raising the 10% bracket to 15% represents what percentage of increase? (Hint: The correct answer is NOT 5%)
To those moving from the 10% bracket to 15%, their taxes will be increased by 50%!!
Raising the 20% bracket to 25% represents what percentage of increase? (Hint: The correct answer, again, is NOT 5%)it’s s a full-blown 25% increase in taxes
Finally, raising the 35% bracket to 39% represents what percentage of increase: (Hint: The correct answer is NOT 4%)that’s roughly an 11% increase in taxes.
Normally, I’d agree with you on the income/outflow point, but the sad fact is that the government has been coveting the single largest source of available or assets that can be liquidated - private retirement funds (IRAs, ROTHs, 401Ks and the like).
Expect in the next four years to see an earnest attempt and convincing the public seizing this money is in the best interests of the country and is only ‘fair’ because low lifes don’t have the opportunity to do likewise. They are already holding hearings on this. Look for rules to tighten illegally on a very increasing basis. Look them to take it outright before 2016. Count on it. You’d better liquidate soon, IMHO.
You'd think this would 'scare' these constituents. However, someone in a current 10% bracket likely qualifies for EITC and the like and their actual tax bite is ZERO (and still will be).
The only 'taxes' most of these people pay are what is termed "payroll taxes", those payments made to OASDI (Old Age, Survivor, and Disability Insurance) and Medicare which are technically insurance payments under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act, FICA.
That is because it has nothing to do with "fair." The motivation is all about envy, and the Democrats have harnesed the deadly sin of envy to their advantage.
“Fair” is where I go to eat corndogs and play carnival games.
Their fair share is whatever it takes to keep the hordes at bay. They won't tell you that but that's what it means.
“but he just clings to the misguided notion of “fair”, offering no more than vapid insults and platitudes, convinced the system isn’t “fair” but unwilling or unable to offer anything more specific.”
With the Marxist LIberals, it’s really all about avarice. Most of them are not wealthy and either don’t want to do the work necessary to acquire wealth or are not smart enough to pull it off. So for them it’s “penis envy.” They are upset that someone has made it and they have not, and they therefore have decided that the best way to get it is through “wealth redistribution.” Bottom line, they are lazy!
Tax carbon emitters? Every time you exhale you emit CO2.
We both have the same concerns about seizure of private retirement funds. Obama is looking for a flimsy excuse to confiscate them in return for a so-called guaranteed rate of return (which will be paltry). The truth is the government justs wants these assets to cover for the monstrous debt so they can keep spending.
I have long since stopped making any IRA contributions. I still make 401k contributions however, mainly because of the employer match. It’s hard to forgo that free money.
Clearly stated. I believe you have it!
“Examiner Editorial: If top 5% paid 40% of taxes, what is their ‘fair’ share?”
The answer is easy:
100%.
You don’t understand that?
“Bullcrap. The “poor”, who BTW already get energy subsidies, will qualify for a voucher to offset the C&T costs. The “poor” will be unaffected.”
It will go further than that.
The poor will actually get “reverse credits” — for lack of a better term, we could call them “Used Carbon Credits”.
This will work the same way as “Earned Income Credits”, where low-income folks get “cash back” from the IRS for “income” they didn’t “earn”...
“That may be a useful tactic but the deeper, more fundamental post-election problem we now face is the irreconcilable incompatibility between socialism, with its belief in government control, versus capitalism and personal freedoms. It appears that the voting alignments in this country no longer favor the latter. We need a solution that goes beyond “Going Galt”.”
My thoughts here:
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/2960968/posts?page=74#74
And here (towards the end):
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/2961524/posts?page=46#46
What is a "fair" share? Exactly what makes X% fair?
Do you only do what is Right, what is Fair, if the law requires it?
Isn't it hypocritical not to pay your "fair" share, not to do what you believe is morally right, regardless of the law? No one prevents BO and Buffett and all his other "generous" rich friends from Doing the Right Thing (e.g., via "pay.gov").
Are you kidding, with the current crop of cowards in Washington, and crooks in the electorate?
You honestly think that BO & Co. won't find a way to just confiscate it?
To confiscate it...you’d have to have a law broken or a new law enacted. There’s no law against this, and Congress won’t pass such a law. And to even suggest you might go out and start seizing money....you’d disrupt the entire business sector and throw the economy into a fair-sized depression. So I don’t see a problem with a tactic like this.
This guy isn’t lazy. I can, however, believe that he - and most Leftists - simply cannot conceive of one person’s productivity value being orders of magnitude greater than another’s. Ergo, such conclude that significant wealth must be the result of unfair advantage (criminal, corrupt, or loophole), which justifies society rectifying the situation.
Once you understand the axioms, the conclusions make sense in context. Wrong axioms and conclusions, however, remain wrong.
Not true. They know exactly what they mean by "fair", but they won't say it because of the consequences (just like Candidate BO's disingenuous "above my pay grade" remark).
"Fair", to them, means "from each according to his ability; to each according to his need."
But they won't say that for obvious reasons, just as Candidate BO wouldn't admit that he believes in infanticide, if that's what the Mother wants.
Their “fair share” is whatever Obama says it is...he is our new “Potentate” after all...
Paul Krugman says 91 % was a good tax plan for the rich...he’s a Nobel Economic prize winner....so he can’t be a moron...can he?
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.