Showing posts with label taxes. Show all posts

Andrew Klavan Video: Where Money Comes From

As I have said many times in this blog, and opposite of what liberals say, the tea party and conservatism are not 'anti-tax.' We are for limited taxation for a limited government as per the US Constitution. We do not gripe about funding the military because protection of the people is a legitimate function of government. Or on the local level funding police, firefighters and EMT because those are protections of the people and that is a legitimate function of government. But taking money from people to simply cut checks to other people is NOT a legitimate function of government and is stealing. Jim Moran (D-VA) doesn't get that difference, and when called on it throws a hissy fit and walks out of the interview: Video: Jim Moran (D-VA) walks out on interview when asked how confiscatory taxation is different than stealing. Dave Ramsey, along my line of thinking:

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State." - Federalist #45

What does the federal government do? Actually, most of what the government does is cut checks to other people: Pic of the day: Federal government spends most of its money (65%) cutting checks to beneficiaries

In the world of reality, we call this redistribution. It's a money transfer punishing those that actually produce and rewarding those that do not. How bad is it? This bad:Government Cash Handouts Now Top Tax Revenues

Brian Williams To Sen Mitch McConnell (R-KY): "Why Shouldn't Rich Folks Pay More?" Fact: Top 1% Pay More Fed Income Taxes Than Bottom 95%! Bottom 51% Pay None. Bottom 40% GET MONEY BACK!

McConnell did OK in his response to Williams: "They do. They pay an extraordinary amount more and in fact about half of Americans don't pay any income taxes at all. That isn't a sticking point." The video:

He could have done better though, and highlighted explicitly the disparity the lions share that is paid by the producers in this country: The top 1% of income earners in the US already pay more in federal income taxes than the bottom 95%. Let that sink in for a moment. Worse yet, from my prior post: Good News: 51% of Households Pay No Income Tax (Most of Those Get Money Back!); Share of Taxes Paid by Rich Growing Faster Than Income. It's confirmed. There are now more people not paying federal income taxes than those paying them. So basically what is happening is a huge transfer of wealth from the productive to the unproductive, which will have the effect of incentivizing non-productivity while punishing productivity. Shouldn't that be backwards? So an update on a prior post on the issue before the 50% point was reached: not only does bottom 47% of taxpayers pay no federal income tax, but the bottom 40% GET MONEY BACK!

Well, that 50% level, as Granholm would say, has been blown away. The majority of Americans don't pay any federal income tax. From Tax Prof via memeorandum, Instapundit: 51% of Households Pay No Income Tax; Share of Taxes Paid by Rich Growing Faster Than Income

In connection with the hearing, Ranking Member Hatch released this letter from the Joint Committee on Taxation reporting 51% of U.S. households did not pay any federal income tax in 2009.

As I mentioned up front, it's now gotten so bad, so unfair, that the top 1% pay more in federal taxes than the bottom 95% (60 Minutes/Vanity Fair Poll: 50% of Americans that don't pay taxes thinks "rich" people ought to pay more, even though top 1% pay more than bottom 95%):

The rich are paying far more than their fair share, and instead of being thanked are demonized by Obama. In addition, all data clearly shows that conservatives and the evil rich give far more of their money to charity than liberals. Liberals are very generous... with other people's money. But not their own. A good example of just how punitive towards productivity the tax system is can be seen not only at the top tax brackets, but at the lowest ones. From Zero Hedge: In Entitlement America, The Head Of A Household Of Four Making Minimum Wage Has More Disposable Income Than A Family Making $60,000 A Year

Sinking in yet?

Related: GOP Rep: Obama Wants Us To Take "Pitchforks" To A "Rich Guy's House And Take His Stuff"

And this is pretty fitting in regards to Obama's rhetoric:

Via moonbattery

Video of CNN's Gloria Borger: President Obama ONLY ONE In Washington Talking Tax Increases

The shocker here isn't the fact that Obama is the only one in DC demanding huge tax increases. Most people already know that. Even hard-core Democrats have been resigned to no new taxes for a whole just to raise the national debt some more. No - the big shocker here is that the Clinton News Network is reporting it:

UPDATE: Remy: Raise The Debt Ceiling Rap

Video: Obama Links His Tax Increase to Patriotism

Of course, that means that those who are against his massive tax increases must be unpatriotic.Remember when dissent was the highest form of patriotism? That's only the case when Republicans control the Oval Office. When a liberal Democrat resides there, fogetaboutit:

The top 1% of income earners in the US already pay more in federal income taxes than the bottom 95%. Let that sink in for a moment. Worse yet, from my prior post: Good News: 51% of Households Pay No Income Tax (Most of Those Get Money Back!); Share of Taxes Paid by Rich Growing Faster Than Income. It's confirmed. There are now more people not paying federal income taxes than those paying them. So basically what is happening is a huge transfer of wealth from the productive to the unproductive, which will have the effect of incentivizing non-productivity while punishing productivity. Shouldn't that be backwards? So an update on a prior post on the issue before the 50% point was reached: not only does bottom 47% of taxpayers pay no federal income tax, but the bottom 40% GET MONEY BACK!

In connection with the hearing, Ranking Member Hatch released this letter from the Joint Committee on Taxation reporting 51% of U.S. households did not pay any federal income tax in 2009.

The rich are paying far more than their fair share, and instead of being thanked are demonized by Obama. In addition, all data clearly shows that conservatives and the evil rich give far more of their money to charity than liberals. Liberals are very generous... with other people's money. But not their own. A good example of just how punitive the tax system is can be seen not only at the top tax brackets, but at the lowest ones. From Zero Hedge: In Entitlement America, The Head Of A Household Of Four Making Minimum Wage Has More Disposable Income Than A Family Making $60,000 A Year

Sinking in yet?

Video: Jim Moran (D-VA) walks out on interview when asked how confiscatory taxation is different than stealing

Congressman Moran blows up when interviewed about redistribution of wealth.

Via Weasel Zippers via moonbattery. Dave Ramsey, along my line of thinking:

Figures: Fox Paid $4.8 Billion in Taxes, MSNBC (owned by GE) $0

GE actually received money back from us taxpayers ($3.2 BILLION) to then fund MSNBC coverage that is favorable to Obama and Democrats. From Don Surber via Creative Minority Report: Fox Paid $4.8 Billion in Taxes, MSNBC $0

The parent company of Fox News — News Corp. — paid the U.S. government $4.8 billion in taxes over the last four tax years (2007-2010).

GE, which owned most of MSNBC until late last year, paid zero taxes in 2010.

From Pulitzer Prize winner David Cay Johnston:
(Reuters) — Readers, I apologize. The premise of my debut column for Reuters, on News Corp’s taxes, was wrong, 100 percent dead wrong.

Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp did not get a $4.8 billion tax refund for the past four years, as I reported. Instead, it paid that much in cash for corporate income taxes for the years 2007 through 2010 while earning pre-tax profits of $10.4 billion.

And from the New York Times:

General Electric, the nation’s largest corporation, had a very good year in 2010.

The company reported worldwide profits of $14.2 billion, and said $5.1 billion of the total came from its operations in the United States.

Its American tax bill? None. In fact, G.E. claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion.

Is there a better example of crony capitalism and corporate welfare like this one? Do Surber comments:

No wonder MSNBC millionaires like Chris Matthews want more taxes.

Until recently, their employer did not pay them.

In fact, the Obama administration redistributed money from the parent of Fox News to the parent of MSNBC.

You taxpayer dollars, hard at work to fund the Democratic Party and their cronies. Liberals are quite generous with other peoples money, no?

Video of GOP Rep to Cokie Roberts: Why Does Compromise Always Mean Raising Taxes Now and Cutting Spending Later?

Tax increases are always immediately realized. Promises of future spending cuts never do. If the GOP caves, it will be the same old same old. What's that like? This: Tax Hikes Now for Promises to Cut Spending Later? It's Like Lucy, Charlie Brown, and the Football

"The spending cuts are in the out-years. The tax increases are going to come soon. This is the old cliché, this is Lucy and Charlie Brown and the football. And the American people say, 'We're not falling for that game anymore. We're not going to let you promise spending cuts later to raise taxes now.' If these tax things are so bad that Chris [Van Hollen] talks about, well the Democrats just controlled all of government eight months ago. Why in the world didn't they get rid of them?"

Plus: GOP Rep to Cokie Roberts: Why Does Compromise Always Mean Raising Taxes Now and Cutting Spending Later?

Interesting how the establishment MSM has its talking points down to the letter from the White House, no?

UPDATE: The real reason behind the drive for more taxes via discriminations: A Great Geitner Gaffe

Michael Kinsley once famously described a gaffe as a politician inadvertently saying what he actually meant — usually something that he believes, says in private, but is careful not to say in public. On Wednesday Geitner wasn’t careful.

In an almost too-perfect expression of the Obama administration’s economic policy,
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told the House Small Business Committee on Wednesday that the Obama administration believes taxes on small business must increase so the administration does not have to “shrink the overall size of government programs.”

The administration’s plan to raise the tax rate on small businesses is part of its plan to raise taxes on all Americans who make more than $250,000 per year—including businesses that file taxes the same way individuals and families do….

Geithner, continuing, argued that if the administration did not extract a trillion dollars in new revenue from its plan to increase taxes on people earning more than $250,000, including small businesses, the government would in effect “finance” what he called a “tax benefit” for those people.

In other words, all money is the government's, and anything you get to keep is a cost to it.

“We’re not doing it because we want to do it, we’re doing it because if we don’t do it, then, again, I have to go out and borrow a trillion dollars over the next 10 years to finance those tax benefits….

Not only that, he argued, but cutting spending by as much as the “modest change in revenue” (i.e. $1 trillion) the administration expects from raising taxes on small business would likely have more of a “negative economic impact” than the tax increases themselves would.

“And if we were to cut spending by that magnitude to do it, you’d be putting a huge additional burden on the economy, probably greater negative economic impact than that modest change in revenue,” said Geithner.
No, this is not a parody from The Onion or wishful thinking from Salon or the Huffington Post. It’s your government saying what it really thinks.

UPDATE #2: Obama’s Entitlement Cuts

Like his job qualifications and the credibility of the liberal media that installed him in power and props up his public image, the cuts to bloated entitlement programs that Comrade Obama would be willing to make are nonexistent — as Charles Krauthammer confirms:

UPDATE #3: Via memeorandum: Obama generated twice as many campaign contributors as new jobs through second quarter of 2011. Can you imagine the headlines if this were Bush? And from Instapundit:

WELL, THAT’S BIG OF HIM: So Long as He Gets What He Wants, Obama Is Flexible in the Budget Negotiations.

The House GOP should just let Obaa know what happened last November: "We won!"

Obama: 80% of Americans support my massive tax increase. Poll: Only/Mostly with tax increases at only 11%. AP Fact Check: "...claiming support from 8 in 10 people was a reach."

An update on this post from yesterday: Obama: 80% of Americans support my massive tax increase. Poll: Only/Mostly with tax increases at only 11%. The headlines all over the media out there ought to be along the lines of "YOU LIE!" Obama claimed that 80% of Americans are sold on his tax increase to fund government waste:

The polls show almost the exact opposite, with only 11% supported an only or mostly tax increase to solve the budget problem. But according to Gallup:

Only/Mostly with spending cuts: 50%
Only/Mostly with tax increases: 11%

The AP had this to say about it:

...claiming support from 8 in 10 people was a reach.

Yeah - to put it mildly. And via Instapundit:

Hi, I’m Barack Obama, and I Just Make Stats Up Out of Nothing.

He continues to make up his own facts because the media continues to let him get away with it. From a separate Insty thread:

...Obama: 80% Of The American People Want Higher Taxes. But I’m happy to call your bluff, Mr. President: I challenge you to introduce legislation raising taxes on 80% of Americans. . . .

UPDATE: “Sounds like Obama will not call his own bluff.”

MORE: Don Surber: “80% want higher taxes,” he lied. “From the above chart only 4% of Americans want to close the deficit with taxes only. Only 11% want to close the deficit mostly with taxes. President Obama is one of the 4%.”

The minority reigning tyranny over the majority.

MI MSM: It's unfair to make people that pay no taxes actually pay taxes

After Democrats were thrown out of office at all levels here in Michigan due to their dreadful mismanagement, the GOP came in and started cleaning up the mess. Part of that cleanup was in the tax code where pensioners were paying a collective zero in taxes. Cutting checks to people because they happen to own a house was also reduced. In typical fashion, those that hold the microphone in the establishment media call this unfair, as if they have cart blanch over what that means. Peter Luke is one of those class warfare liberals: Michigan's sweeping tax changes affect just about everyone, but maybe not equitably. A couple of snippets:

A couple with three children making $110,000, for example, will absorb a tax hit in 2013 of $190, $549 less than the aforementioned couple making half as much.

Or take a retired couple born after 1952 with $53,000 in income and a $4,000 property tax bill. Next year they lose their entire homestead credit and will pay income tax on every dime of their pension. It adds up to a $3,130 tax hit.

That couple earning $110,000 isn't getting a better deal as Luke is making it out. Fact is, they're already paying far more in taxes. The couple making $55k that he mentioned before essentially was getting a check back from taxpayers for owning a home. For some reason that I can't think of. Nor can Luke. Nor does he even try. The details are apparently unimportant.

And that retired couple? The take the so-called 'hit' because they used to pay an income tax rate on their pension of exactly ZERO! Was a heck of a deal while it lasted, no? In the minds of liberals, it's unfair to make those that pay no taxes actually pay into the system that they are the biggest users of, while those at the higher end still producing are relatively punished in being forced to pay into a system that they neither use nor need.

Personally, I would have preferred a flat out consumption tax and zero income tax for every Michigander, but the changes in the tax code this year make it better than it has been before, not worse.

Bizarro World: Obama - We Don't Need "Job-Killing Tax Cuts"

In ObamaLand, up is down, left is right, and evil is good. In that last regard, Obama pretty much sounds like this:

Lower taxes keep more money in the private sector that actually produces goods and services. Higher taxes take money out of said private sector and diminished the capacity of production. The private sector makes, the public sector takes. Reagan knew this and cut taxes dramatically especially for the demonized rich and not only did he set the economy up to gain 20 million jobs, but revenue to the government actually increased. Obama doesn't get the simple concept and insists that having money remain is the private sector somehow kills jobs:

For that absurdly idiotic notion, Obama wins the Billy Madison Idiocy Award:

Obama: 80% of Americans support my massive tax increase. Poll: Only/Mostly with tax increases at only 11%

The headlines all over the media out there ought to be along the lines of "YOU LIE!" Obama claims that 80% of Americans are sold on his tax increase to fund government waste. The polls show almost the exact opposite, with only 11% supported an only or mostly tax increase to solve the budget problem. From The Hill via memeorandum: Obama: Public is ‘sold’ on tax increases in a debt-ceiling deal

President Obama on Friday kept up the pressure on Republicans to agree to revenue increases in a deal to raise the debt ceiling, claiming 80 percent of the public supports Democrats' demand for tax increases.

"The American people are sold," Obama said. "The problem is members of Congress are dug in ideologically."

Throughout the press conference, Obama blasted Republicans for ignoring what he said is the will of the American people by rejecting tax increases that would balance out spending cuts in a debt package.

Video via Ed Morrissey:

Now for the reality:

Frankly, it appears that the problem is that members of the West Wing can’t do math. The latest national survey on the topic came from Gallup, which expressed some support for the “balanced” approach, but hardly showed 80% of Americans backing tax hikes — excuse me, “revenue increases.”
Americans’ preferences for deficit reduction clearly favor spending cuts to tax increases, but most Americans favor a mix of the two approaches. Twenty percent favor an approach that relies only on spending cuts and 4% favor an approach that uses tax increases alone.
That puts 76%, not 80%, somewhere in between the two points. But Gallup breaks this out more effectively:
Only/Mostly with spending cuts: 50%
Only/Mostly with tax increases: 11%
Only 32% prefer a balance between spending cuts and tax increases, which added to the bottom option would still tilt the public far more in favor of spending cuts, 50/43. Among independents — the most non-ideological group possible in this survey — it’s 51/41, a wider split. This is hardly a public that is “sold, sold!” on tax hikes.

Joe Wilson was right:

Example of how government metastasizes: Troy, MI to ask residents for tax increase for THIRD time! Supporters threaten book burning if tax not passed

As I wrote a few months ago (Example of how government metastasizes: Troy, MI): One mechanism bureaucrats use to metastasize government is to peel off essential services and dare taxpayers not to fund them at the ballot box. Police and fire departments have their own millage rates, peeled off so that the central city government can grow but claim they are doing no such thing. This is how it works: say your city is whatever size it is - 100%. They peel off 10% of their budget in the form of an essential public service like Fire or Police protection which now becomes it's own separate entity on paper and on ballots. Meanwhile the city that should be 90% grows to 98% and claims a 2% cut while it really grew 8%. If you add the 98% city and the 10% service, the taxpayer is on the hook for 108% as city bureaucrats pat themselves on the back for right-sizing government. It's a shell game and Troy is playing it.

Earlier last year, Troy residents rejected a tax hike to keep the library open after the corruptocrats that run the city tried to use it as a human shield for tax increases. It failed. What to do? Metastasize the government by peeling off the library as its own millage request. On the ballot November 2 were FOUR requests for the same thing - a library tax (Repudiation: Troy, MI residents dump 4 millage requests for THE SAME THING, keep government from metastasizing). It went down in flames. But hey - third time's the charm! From The Detroit News: Group promises to burn books if Troy closes library

It's an odd way to support a library tax — threaten a book-burning party if the measure fails.

But some lawn signs popping up around Troy are doing just that, promoting questions and criticism of the group behind the effort.

The signs started appearing in city neighborhoods earlier this month. A line on the signs indicates they were paid for by an organization called Safeguarding American Families (SAFE).

The group registered with the county on June 20 as a ballot question committee and supporter of the Aug. 2 millage. A box indicating opposition appeared to be scribbled out after it was checked.

...Residents will vote on a 0.7-mill tax levy that would provide dedicated funding to the library for five years. If the millage fails, the library will close on Aug. 5.

SAFE promises a book-burning party the same day the library would close. In addition to yard signs, SAFE has T-shirts, mugs and a Facebook page dedicated to the campaign.

And the story of how the city government is trying to metastasize:

...The Troy City Council cut funding for the library and its nature museum in May 2010, saying the city was facing a projected $2.2 million budget deficit and could not afford to operate the library from the general fund.

But can still afford to pay its union employees quite generously, including Cadillac healthcare and generous pensions allowing the employees to retire in their late 40s with full benefits at taxpayer expense.

Residents twice voted down similar proposals last year. Organizers convinced the city to again put the issue on the ballot.

And if the 3rd time fails, they'll put it on the ballot a 4th time. And then a 5th, etc ad infinitum until they fleece Troy residents for more of their hard-earned income in the middle of the Obama depression. Yeah - that'll help.

Related: Typical: As budgets get reduced, public sector pensions and benefits preserved while police and firefighters are cut

Video: Ordinary Virginians quizzed on the street on taxes paid by rich, with predictable results

The interviews go pretty much as you would suspect:

From my post last month: Good News: 51% of Households Pay No Income Tax (Most of Those Get Money Back!); Share of Taxes Paid by Rich Growing Faster Than Income. It's confirmed. There are now more people not paying federal income taxes than those paying them. So basically what is happening is a huge transfer of wealth from the productive to the unproductive, which will have the effect of incentivizing non-productivity while punishing productivity. Shouldn't that be backwards? So an update on a prior post on the issue before the 50% point was reached: not only does bottom 47% of taxpayers pay no federal income tax, but the bottom 40% GET MONEY BACK!

In connection with the hearing, Ranking Member Hatch released this letter from the Joint Committee on Taxation reporting 51% of U.S. households did not pay any federal income tax in 2009.

More from Proof Positive and Legal Insurrection. It's now gotten so bad, so unfair, that the top 1% pay more in federal taxes than the bottom 95% (60 Minutes/Vanity Fair Poll: 50% of Americans that don't pay taxes thinks "rich" people ought to pay more, even though top 1% pay more than bottom 95%):

Let that sink in for a moment. The rich are paying far more than their fair share, and instead of being thanked are demonized by Obama. In addition, all data clearly shows that conservatives and the evil rich give far more of their money to charity than liberals. Liberals are very generous... with other people's money. But not their own. A good example of just how punitive the tax system is can be seen not only at the top tax brackets, but at the lowest ones. From Zero Hedge: In Entitlement America, The Head Of A Household Of Four Making Minimum Wage Has More Disposable Income Than A Family Making $60,000 A Year

Production is punished. Non-production rewarded.

Video of Obama: I Want To Raise Taxes After I'm Reelected

Is it me, or this totally amateur hour in a political sense?:

ObamaCare kicks in in 2014 as well. Can he possibly do anything else to destroy the country?

Flashback Video: Obama Says You Don't Raise Taxes In A Recession

"In August 2009, President Obama was very clear that we shouldn't raise taxes in a recession. So why does he want to increase them now?" Um - because he lied in 2009?

Related: Sen. McConnell: Obama Tax Increases Would Be 'Job Killer'. It's already been a jobs killer. Look at how the jobs are disappearing in the US after Obama signed all those tax increases into law via ObamaCare.

Video: Obama (Again) Refers to Tax Increases as Cutting ‘Spending in the Tax Code”

Implicit in Obama's Orwellian assertion is that all money belongs to the government, and any that you get to keep is benevolence from our political ruling class master: Obama Refers to Tax Increases as Cutting ‘Spending in the Tax Code”

Video of Obama: Raising Taxes Creates Jobs!

You read that right, raising taxes - ie, pulling money out of the private sector that produces goods and services and putting money into the government sector that only takes but produces nothing - creates jobs according to our community organizer in chief:

"You’re entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts... A modest increase for wealthy individuals is not shown to have an adverse impact on job growth."

Modest to the liberal is somewhere between 99.5 and 100%. Obama seems to have entitled himself to his own facts as his assertion counters the proven economic model known as the Laffer curve where taxes increased beyond a certain point leads to a decrease in tax revenue because of human behavioral changes when those tax increases are rightly seen as punitive. Reducing those taxes actually increases revenue again because of behavioral changes. These behavioral changes are not taken into account in CBO models by the way.

NJ Gov Chris Christie Blasts Obama On Demagoguery: Jet Talk Is Just A "Mask" To Raise Taxes

And he's absolutely correct that it is a mask for more taxes in stealing from those that produce to simply cut checks to those that do not so that the latter can continue to vote for Democrats:

Video: ABC’s Christiane Amanpour Practically Begs Mitch McConnell to Raise Taxes

Your dose of liberal media bias today:

Amanpour should know that historically each $1 in higher taxes results in $1.17 of new spending. And all the tax increases since WWII haven't brought down the debt one red cent. Not one. Increasing taxes to cut the deficit will do just the opposite because Democrats will simply spend it and then some.

Video of Jim Clyburn (D): ‘Closing Loopholes’ Isn’t Raising Taxes

Like everything in the liberal utopia, words are just abstract constructs to be made into whatever the ruling class deems them to be. Like killing babies isn't murder because they don't define them as people, and raising taxes isn't really raising taxes:

Someone call George Orwell beyond the grave...