Posts Tagged ‘income tax’

Obama Wreckovery Adding Whopping 260 Jobs PER STATE

June 30, 2010

Rush Limbaugh made me aware of the math: what’s 13,000 jobs divided by 50 states?  An infinitesimal 260 jobs per state.

So much for Obama’s “recovery.”

And, of course, it gets even worse when you divide that 13,000 jobs by the 57 states that Obama claimed he had visited [I’d forgive him for that if he were born in Kenya; but given that he claims to be a natural-born American, the ’57 states’ thing will always remain an example of the quintessential ignorance about America and everything American of our current president to me].

260 jobs per state.  That’s a record to boast about.  Want to wait in a line to get one of those jobs?

Report: Private sector added only 13,000 jobs in June

The private sector of the U.S. economy added only 13,000 jobs in June, according to ADP employment services, a disappointing number that came in below estimates and portends bad things from the government’s June jobs report due out Friday.

In May, according to ADP, the private sector added 57,000 jobs. But in June? Statistically, across a workforce as big as the United States’? Zero job growth; 13,000 new jobs is a statistically meaningless number.

This is bad news for the economy. If the ADP report is seconded by the Labor Department’s June jobs report, it means that the private sector — which is the engine of growth in this economy, lest we’ve forgotten that, amid all of our various government stimulus programs and subsides — is refusing to add jobs. That means employers are not comfortable enough with their prospects to hire.

In May, according to the government, the economy added more than 440,000 jobs. But almost every one of those was a census worker, jobs that will go away when the count ends in the fall.

Today’s report adds to concerns that the economic recovery is stalling and gives ammunition to the more bearish among us who worry that we’re headed into a double-dip recession.

That “Welcome back, Carter” “malaise” is just an accepted fact from the Obama administration.  They may say something different when they know their statements are going to be publicized, but here’s what they say in private when they think only their worshipers are around:

Vice President Joe Biden gave a stark assessment of the economy today, telling an audience of supporters, “there’s no possibility to restore 8 million jobs lost in the Great Recession.”

Now, let’s go back to September of last year, when Joe Biden said of the stimulus:

In my wildest dreams, I never thought it would work this well.”

Now we find that same guy saying all the jobs that were lost are gone forever.  How’s that for the stimulus working beyond your wildest dreams?

Gateway Pundit includes a graph summarizing the results of Obama’s wreckovery:

Let’s see.  Thanks to Obama, taxes on businesses are going to skyrocket – especially the small businesses, who file primarily as individuals and therefore fall prey to Obama’s shocking increases on those earning more than $250,000 a year.  Businesses are being forced to take into account that they won’t have nearly as much money under Obama, and must therefore plan accordingly.

From Politico:

… Obama’s stated plan to raise taxes on households making $250,000 or more in income is a tax increase on small business. The simple answer to this dilemma can be found in the IRS Statistics of Income Bulletin (Table 1.4, for those who are interested).So what do the data say?

In 2006 (the latest year available), $706 billion of such income was reported to the Internal Revenue Service. Of this, about half was reported by households in the top marginal income tax rate. Interestingly, two-thirds of this income was reported by households making $250,000 per year or more — the very same households that Obama wants to increase taxes on.

Intellectually bankrupt liberals are hyping the Marxist class warfare strategy of demonizing businesses.  But when the government taxes businesses and business owners, businesses and those who own them merely a) raise their prices and pass those taxes on to you the customer, and b) invest less and hire less.  And who ends up getting hurt the most?

Thanks to Obama, taxes on those who create wealth and build the economy by investment are going to shelter their money.  Stephen Moore put it this way:

[I]f you think it’s bad this year, you’re right. It’s going to get a whole lot worse next year because the Bush tax cuts expire. That means that we’re going to see an increase in the capital gains tax. We’re going to see an increase in the tax on dividends, perhaps a doubling or tripling of that tax. And then we’re also talking about higher income tax rates next year. So this is going to be a tough year this year, but I think things get a whole lot worse next year as we see rates across the board increase. And let’s not forget, there’s also a lot of talk about a value-added tax on top of all of that. […]

[T]here’s something called the Laffer curve, and that’s especially true with these investment taxes. I think it’s a big mistake to be raising taxes on stocks and investment at the very time we need businesses to be doing more investment. So a lot of economists think we’re going to have a pretty good year this year, in 2010, but once those new taxes kick in, in 2011, might cause a double-dip recession.

Intellectually bankrupt liberals are hyping the Marxist class warfare strategy of demonizing private investors.  But they are trying to kill the geese that lay the golden eggs.  Rich private investors create opportunities for businesses to grow by their investments.  And private investors – who are investing their own money rather than someone else’s as government bureaucrats always do – are rewarding well-run businesses that will make the most of their capital to most effectively expand and create jobs.

If you tax the investments and seize the profits that investors took risks to obtain, then they will risk less and invest less.  It is as simple as that.  You are killing businesses by taking away the investments that sustain their growth.

Thanks to Obama, the cost of providing health care to employees will go up shockingly.  And employers will HAVE to provide health care insurance, or pay fines.

It’s been a banner week for Democrats: ObamaCare passed Congress in its final form on Thursday night, and the returns are already rolling in. Yesterday AT&T announced that it will be forced to make a $1 billion writedown due solely to the health bill, in what has become a wave of such corporate losses.

This wholesale destruction of wealth and capital came with more than ample warning. Turning over every couch cushion to make their new entitlement look affordable under Beltway accounting rules, Democrats decided to raise taxes on companies that do the public service of offering prescription drug benefits to their retirees instead of dumping them into Medicare. We and others warned this would lead to AT&T-like results, but like so many other ObamaCare objections Democrats waved them off as self-serving or “political.”

Dumbass quiz: do you think that makes a business more or less likely to hire a new employee?

Meanwhile, Obama will massively tax every American by forcing them to buy health insurance, leaving us all with less money to spend purchasing goods and services from businesses.

Thanks to Obama, banks will soon face onerous new regulations that will burden the economy by sustaining the credit crisis:

While certain ramifications of the legislation will only emerge over the coming years, our initial reaction is that this bill will further hinder the U.S. economy’s already fragile recovery. Tough new restrictions on traditional credit products and more onerous capital requirements will further curtail credit availability and product innovation, including affordable credit options designed for higher-risk customer segments. As a result, both industry and economic growth will likely be suppressed for an extended period as banks continue to de-leverage and develop a more thorough understanding of the broad-based structural changes likely to affect the industry in the coming years.

Thanks to Obama, energy will ultimately become far more expensive to already-squeezed businesses.  As Obama taxes productivity, there will be less and less incentive to be productive.

And the added cost to the average household will be some $1,761 a year, leaving us all with less money to spend.  And thus hurting businesses even more.

You add all of these disastrous Obama policies up and you get… absolutely nothing.  At least nothing in terms of jobs.

One day Barack Obama will surely end up in hell, and Karl Marx will say to him, “Well done, my good and faithful servant.”

Advertisements

Why Obama’s Tax Plan Is So Wrong

September 13, 2008

Barack Obama, if elected, promises to enact a tax plan that he claims will “cut taxes for 95 percent of workers and their families with a tax cut of $500 for workers or $1,000 for working couples.”

The statement is patently false, and it is beyond easy to prove it’s patently false.

The 5% of Americans that Barack Obama will attack with tax increases already pay more than 50% of the total income tax burden.  It is simply a naked act of class warfare to demand that people who are already overtaxed pay still more taxes.

To underscore the point above, it is also a fact that 40% of Americans pay no federal income tax at all.

How can Obama reduce federal taxes for 95% of Americans when 40% of Americans don’t pay federal taxes?  He can’t.  It is logically impossible.

What Obama will do is seize more from the wealthy, and – in an act of sheer pandering – give it to people who have not earned it.  He will use the IRS as a welfare agency.  You do all the work; I reap well over half of the benefit.

During his interview with Barack Obama, Bill O’Reilly called Obama’s plan “class warfare,” and Obama replied, “It’s not. Ninety-five percent is not class warfare.”  Sure it is.  Whenever one class of any size votes to take from another economic class, it’s class warfare.

Someone managed to stop Benjamin Franklin’s rolling in his grave long enough to ask him what he thought about Barack Obama’s tax plan.  Founding father Benjamin Franklin responded:

When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”

Wow.  That’s pretty tough.  All Barack Obama is doing is saying, “If you vote for me, I will seize other people’s money and give it to people who did not earn it in a direct transfer payment.”  But Benjamin Franklin understood with razor sharpness how profoundly wrong Barack Obama’s socialism was nearly two hundred years before Obama was even born.

The reason Benjamin Franklin was so diametrically opposed to Barack Obama’s socialist, class-warfare, welfare payment tax plan is because he understood the thought of another man who condemned Barack Obama nearly two centuries before Obama was born.

The 17th Century Scottish historian Alexander Tytler studied the rise and fall of nations and presented his findings in what we now call Tytler’s Cycle. According to Tytler, all nations go from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to freedom, from freedom to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, and from dependence back to bondage. Tytler said the absolutely critical thing that leads a nation to decline from abundance to selfishness and on down the vicious cycle, is when they vote themselves benefits from the national treasury. And Benjamin Franklin understood this basic fact of history.

Barack Obama doesn’t.

This election may come down to whether we want Benjamin Franklin’s independent America or Barack Obama’s socialist America.  It may come down to whether we want to heed Alexander Tytler’s warning to cultures from history, or disregard it.

WSJ Obama Tax 3.0: When even 3 times is NOT a charm

September 10, 2008

The Wall Street Journal offered a publication-wide editorial that pointed out the fact that Barack Obama’s economic plan is now undergoing its third incarnation.

The Obama campaign has been attacking the Bush economic plan, and trying to label McCain’s economic plan for being a “third Bush term.”  But at least they have a plan; Obama now has three.

A pandering-based economic plan that shifts as the winds blow is not one that is worthy of trust.

Read The Wall Street Journal editorial:

Obama Tax 3.0
September 9, 2008; Page A24

The good news is that Barack Obama said on ABC Sunday that he might not go through with his plans to increase taxes.

The bad news is that the economy has to be mired in recession to avoid the largest tax increase in the nation’s history.

Our check of the Dow Jones Factiva database suggests that other than viewers of ABC’s “This Week,” only three or four newspapers carried an account of Senator Obama’s amended tax plan. While it’s possible that the story of a deferred tax increase could shock the media into paralysis, we take it as an encouraging sign. The education of Barack Obama continues apace.

For the record, here is what he told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos.

Mr. Stephanopoulos: “So even if we’re in a recession next January, you come into office, you’ll still go through with your tax increases?”

Senator Obama: “No, no, no, no, no. What I’ve said, George, is that even if we’re still in a recession, I’m going to go through with my tax cuts. That’s my priority.”

Mr. Stephanopoulos: “But not the increases?”

Senator Obama: “I think we’ve got to take a look and see where the economy is. The economy is weak right now. The news with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, I think, along with the unemployment numbers indicates that we’re fragile. I want to accelerate those tax cuts through a second stimulus package, get more money into the pockets of ordinary Americans, see if we can stabilize the housing market, and then we’re going to have to reevaluate at the beginning of the year to see what kind of hole we’re in.”
* * *

Even individuals staring down the barrel of Mr. Obama’s tax increases should not wish for an economic recession to give them a reprieve. The relevant point is that it was early last year, when the “Bush economy” was still humming, that Senator Obama first proposed pushing taxes sharply upward on “the wealthy,” while giving what he calls “tax cuts” (actually they are credits, not rate reductions) to “the middle class.”

At the time, Mr. Obama was the long shot in the Democratic Presidential sweepstakes, and it made some political sense to reassure the party’s intensely liberal primary voters with class-war boilerplate on taxes.

Under ObamaTax 1.0, he would have repealed all the Bush tax cuts, lifted the cap on wages subject to the payroll tax, put the top marginal rate up to 39.8% and raised the rate on capital gains and dividends to at least 25% from 15% now. The official campaign line was that tax rates really don’t matter to economic growth.

Summer arrived, the Clinton challenge was history and with the general election ahead came ObamaTax 2.0. It posited that the top rate on capital gains now would be 20%, described on this page August 14 by economic advisers Jason Furman and Austan Goolsbee as “almost a third lower than the rate President Reagan set in 1986.” This was progress.

Now with the big vote less than 60 days off and John McCain pounding him as a tax-raiser and pulling ahead in some polls, the Democratic nominee has decided to release ObamaTax 3.0, the most interesting upgrade so far. If the economy is still weak in January, a President Obama might defer all of the planned increases.

Several interpretations of this shift are possible, none of which reflect badly on Senator Obama’s political learning curve.

At the bloodless level of simply wishing to win, the Obama camp may have concluded that in the sprint to November it is a losing strategy to be the election’s only doctrinaire tax raiser. A tight race tends to focus political minds, and none forget Walter Mondale’s catastrophic promise in his 1984 acceptance speech: “Mr. Reagan will raise taxes, and so will I. He won’t tell you. I just did.”

Beyond this lies the economic reality of jacking up income, investment and payroll taxes on “the wealthy” amid a flat or falling economy. In the standard narrative, these taxpayers exist as fat cats atop hedge funds, banks and megacorporations. Let’s toss into the vat the top-tier managers of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Beltway’s own fat-cat sinecure.

The reality is that the creators of new jobs in the economy are more likely to be rising entrepreneurs or filers under Subchapter S, who typically pay taxes at individual rates. Hanging three or four tax millstones around their productive necks in January if the economy is weak will likely produce unimpressive growth and job numbers in the first year of the new Obama Presidency, and likely beyond. That in turn could drag down the Democrats in Congress who will get credit for voting these higher taxes into law.

Thus Mr. Obama’s unambiguous answer Sunday to whether he’d insist on his tax increases if the economy is in an official recession: “No, no, no, no, no.” It seems Mr. McCain is right that taxes do matter.

Mr. Obama’s most ardent primary supporters may not like it, but we’ll take the five “Nos” as evidence that Senator Obama may be learning the difference between liberal doctrine and sensible governance.

John Edwards’ “two Americas” is little different philosophically from Karl Marx’s “two classes” (i.e., the bourgeousie and the proletariat).  And Barack Obama is merely beating on the same old economic drum that the far left have been beating for years.

It is the wealthy who create jobs by their leadership, their investment, and yes, their hard work (If you don’t believe me, find a homeless guy and ask him to give you a job).  The simple fact of the matter is that if the wealthy lose their incentive to work and invest, the economy will tank as they withdraw from the market and shelter their assets.

According to the Congressional Budget Office figures (Historical Effective Federal Tax Rates: 1979-2005, released December 2007) on “Individual Income Taxes”:

The top         1% Pays 38.8%
The top       20% Pays 86.3%
The top       40% Pays 99.5%
The bottom 60% Pays 0.6%

The actual facts are just the opposite from what we are routinely told, aren’t they?  Let me put it in capital letters so you can see it better: THE WEALTHIEST 40% OF AMERICANS PAY 99.5% OF THE INCOME TAXES!!! And they’re not paying their fair share?  The Democrats and the media have won the case in the culture by misrepresenting the truth.

And we see a continuation of a deliberate attempt to distort the truth: every time Barack Obama claims that he will cut taxes for 95% of Americans he is lying: the overwhelming majority of the Americans Obama is describing already pay no federal taxes! You can’t divide by zero anymore in economics than you can in mathematics.

When the Bush tax cuts took effect, it threw a lot of people (in that 60% group) off the tax roles entirely, and created a new lower tax rate (people who’d been paying 15% rate paid a 10% rate, etc).  It is a flat out lie to say that the rich benefited unfairly from the Bush tax cuts.

Further, the Bush tax cuts not only increased the total revenues collected by the government, and not only increased the total taxes collected from the rich, but it also increased the actual rate of taxes that the rich paid relative to lower income classes.  And it did so by giving them an incentive to invest more, and produce more.

If I may quote from one of my previous articles:

And not only do the rich pay a higher percentage of their wealth in taxes under the lower taxes of the Bush plan, but they pay a higher ratio of their wealth in taxes than they did when the rates were higher:

for the top 5 percent and 10 percent of earners, the ratio of taxes paid compared with income earned has risen. For example, in 1980, the top 10 percent earned 32 percent of the income and paid 44 percent of the taxes—a ratio of 1.4. In 2004, this group earned more of the income (44 percent) but paid a lot more of the taxes (68 percent)—a ratio of 1.6. In other words, progressivity—in terms of share of total taxes paid—has risen. On the other hand, for the top 1 percent of earners, progressivity has declined from a ratio of 2.2 in 1980 to 1.9 in 2004.

Finally, corporations currently pay a 35% federal tax rate.  Republican Presidential hopeful John McCain wants to reduce that to 25%. Why?  Because he’s trying to make the U.S. more competitive, that’s why! The world average corporate income tax rate for industrial democracies is 24%. The 35% rate – which is the 2nd highest corporate tax rate in the world – makes the U.S. less competitive.  You want to know why jobs are going overseas?  There’s one of the big reasons.  Some of the others are the demands of American labor unions, environmental regulations, the lack of protection from frivilous lawsuits, etc.  But those issues are for another day, and will certainly not be solved by punitive tax rates that only undermine our economy and our jobs.