Posts Tagged ‘tax shelters’

Bill Clinton Says Rich Can Afford To Have Their Taxes Raised – But He Won’t Even Pay Hillary’s Campaign Debts

December 14, 2010

I don’t have the transcript for it, and the closest I could quickly find was this bit from Reuters:

“In my opinion, this is a good bill, and I hope that my fellow Democrats will support it,” Clinton said.

He admitted that as a high earner himself he would benefit from the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans that Democrats, including Obama, dislike. But with an extension of unemployment benefits and a cut in payroll taxes, Clinton said the package was the best bipartisan deal to help the country.

But I directly heard Slick Willy say that he could afford paying higher taxes.  And that even though he would personally suffer, it was the right thing to do for the country.  Because that’s just what a noble guy he is.

And Obama very definitely said it, as the Washington Times article entitled, “Obama: Rich can afford tax hike” should make abundantly clear.

But what Bill Clinton CAN’T seem to afford is wife Hillary’s campaign debts from now more than two full years ago.

The Clinton’s will eventually pay them, I don’t doubt.  With Other People’s Money, of course:

Bill Clinton is giving someone a chance to spend a day with him in New York City to help pay off his wife’s 2008 campaign debt.

The former president has sent out a new fundraising pitch on behalf of his wife, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who still owes her presidential campaign pollster.

Hillary Clinton owed Mark Penn and his firm more than $479,000 as of September, according to a campaign report filed with the Federal Election Commission.

Bill Clinton can pitch for raising income taxes on Other People.  Because he knows damn well he’ll weasel out of them with the help of accountants who are nearly as slick as he is.

He’s not interested in “paying his fair share.”  If he was, he’d write the check for his family campaign debts, instead of trying to sucker you into writing the check to pay off his wife’s debts for him.

Do you think Slick Willy’s going to be digging out his checkbook to pay off YOUR debts anytime soon?

Clinton and other wealthy liberals can say this kind of crap because they are unrelenting hypocrites.  Their souls swim in hypocrisy the way fish swim in water.  And so they know that they can raise taxes to whatever level they can manage, and that they’ll be able to afford every tax dodge and tax shelter and tax loophole that money can buy.

But most people can’t.  They’re forced to basically pay out the maximum rate, because they don’t have the money to afford the tax attorneys who can shelter their assets.  So they get screwed while the Slick Willy’s of the world keep getting other people to pay their debts for them.

And, of course, the Clintons and the Obamas have other little perks that honest people don’t have.  When Bill Clinton was elected as the attorney general for the state of Arkansas, his wife Hillary immediately got hired by the Rose Law Firm.  And when Bill was elected governor, suprise, suprise, Hillary suddenly made partner.  And there was that $1,000 Hillary turned into a hundred grand inside of a year with the painfully obvious benefit of insider trading tips.

And Michelle Obama benefited every scintilla as much from her husband’s political machinery.  Within months of Barack being elected state senator, Michelle Obama received a $195,000 pay increase from the “not for profit” hospital where she worked.  And at that same time, she was suddenly put on boards of companies for lucrative money – yes, including another huge stock payout.

Maybe you get money literally thrown at you on account of your spouse’s political connections.  I don’t.  Maybe the fact that I have to work hard for my money, rather than riding the coattails of a big money political machine and the businesses craving the opportunity to purchase influence makes me less willing to pay more taxes to the government.  Because I can’t tell my political patronizers, “The price just went up.”

And this liberal progressive hypocrisy on taxes and influence peddling with Other People’s Money  is as old as, well, liberal progressivism.

Barack Obama n0minated Tom Daschle to be the Secretary of Health and Human Services – and incredibly powerful position in the advent of the age of ObamaCare.  The only problem was that Daschle the Democrat hadn’t paid his taxes.

This happened again and again with a slew of Democrats who thought that their screed of “paying your fair share” only applied to Other People.  And how DARE you think that Democrats should be held accountable for standards that should only apply to Other People.

Ultimately, Obama’s nomination for Treasury Secretary went through, even though the man who would be in charge of tax enforcement hadn’t bothered to pay his own income taxes.  Because, by that time, it was apparent that finding an honest Democrat was just impossible.

And, of course, we now all know about the history of the Democrat in charge of writing tax laws for everyone else, Rep. Charlie Rangel, the now-disgraced former Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.

But, of course, if you think he should be criminally prosecuted for his abject failure to follow his own tax laws, well, you’re just a racist, aren’t you?

If the Congressional Black Caucus really believed that “the rich should pay their fair share of taxes,” they’d have hung Charlie Rangel up by his balls like he deserved, rather than labeling anyone who pointed out that he was a tax-cheating hypocrite fraud as a racist.

And in a way, the racist Congressional Black Caucus is completely right.  Because all Charlie Rangel did was act like a Democrat.  And if every Democrat was arrested for hypocrisy, I mean, there just wouldn’t be any Democrats walking the streets, would there?

Remember, Charlie Rangel is a good Democrat.  A GREAT one, in fact.  Because he was totally true to the Democrat philosophy: he wanted Other People to pay higher taxes, while he himself slept on the beach in front of his villa – which he hadn’t bothered to pay taxes on in SEVENTEEN YEARS.

Amazingly, Charlie Rangel – who was re-elected yet again in spite of the fact that he is a big fat criminal and a fraud, because that’s just the way Democrats roll – was one of the vocal Democrats spouting their opposition to “the rich” getting away with paying lower than communist-level income taxes.  Because, again, Democrats make up for their ignorance with sheer unmitigated chutzpah.

Rangel should do a lot less talking and a lot more shutting the hell up.

The same thing happened the LAST election, in 2004.  John Kerry was lecturing us in that snotty tone of voice of his on paying our fair share of taxes, and how the rich owed more.

Well, George Bush – the guy who believed in LOWER taxes – basically paid income taxes on the maximum federal income tax rate of 35% without taking deductions he qualified for.  What did the Kerrys pay? How double damn DARE you ask!!!

Kerry’s Wife Pays Less Taxes Than Median Family

“According to HUD, the median family income for the U.S. for 2003 was $56,500.  After applying the standard deduction of $9,500 for married filing jointly we end up with a taxable income of $47,000.  This puts the average family in the 15 percent tax bracket.  Kerry’s wife, using tax shelters, managed to pay only an effective federal tax rate of 11.5 percent, compared with the top federal income tax rate of 35 percent.  She paid $587,000 on an income of $5.1M.

“If Kerry wants the rich to pay more he should start with his wife.”

Despite the release of partial financial information, John and Teresa Kerry have not explained why, if it’s so important for the evil rich to pay more taxes, they didn’t add a voluntary addition to their check to the IRS.

So the arrogant and always snooty Kerrys – who demanded that Other People pay far more on their income taxes paid less than one-third (rhymes with ‘turd’) the tax rate they would have paid if they were honest people who WEREN’T full of hypocrisy over their eyeballs.

Because John Kerry and his rabid wife are Democrats.  And to be a Democrat is tantamount to being a vile pile of slime these days.

Has John Kerry learned the error of his ways and reformed from his hypocrisy?  I hate to tell you, but his yacht screams hell no:

Sen. John Kerry, who has repeatedly voted to raise taxes while in Congress, dodged a whopping six-figure state tax bill on his new multimillion-dollar yacht by mooring her in Newport, R.I.

All this to say that Democrats say “the rich should pay more” only because they are vile dishonest hypocrites who know that they won’t have to follow the rules that they afflict honest people with.

The facts are abundantly clear: allowing citizens – ALL citizens, not just the ones who pass Democrats’ Marxist class warfare test – to keep more of their own money which they earned and they deserve to keep is good for the economy, good for job-creation and even good for the government tax revenues.

Not that you can trust Democrats who are too damn dishonest to bother to pay their own taxes while railing at everyone else to pay more to admit that.

Every Democrat who says that “the rich should pay more” should be checking the box on their tax forms and donating whatever percent they want Other People to pay to the government.  That’s right, you hypocrite Democrats: why don’t you put your money where your mouths are for just once in your life and do what you are demanding that Other People do?

That goes for the more than half of you Democrats who don’t pay ANY federal income taxes at all.  You can file a tax form.  You can check that box.  You can give 39.6% of your money – or whatever you demand that Other People pay – to the government.  You’re just too damn full of hypocrite to do so.

So you just eat dirt, you Bill-and-Hillary Clinton John-and-Teresa Kerry Tom Daschle Timothy Geithner Charlie Rangel Democrats.  You can be as self-righteous – or as Barack Obama himself called you, “sanctimonious” – as you want.  But you know and I know that you’re really nothing but a bunch of lousy greedy hypocrites who want Other People to pay YOUR “fair share.”

Advertisements

Why Barack Obama and Democrats Are Wrong On The Economy

July 11, 2008

Let me ask you a question: when did a poor person ever give you your job?

Let me be even more precise: when did a poor person ever give you a high paying job with excellent benefits?

Hello? Is this thing on? Do I hear crickets chirping?

The fact of the matter is this: all the Marxist-style class-warfare demagoguery of the Democrats aside, we desperately need the rich and the jobs they create by means of their education, expertise, inspiration, hard work, and investment.

How many times have you heard the phrase, “the rich need to pay their fair share of taxes?” from Barack Obama and from Democrats?

Do you have any idea how much the rich are paying in taxes?

In 2005, the top 1% paid 39.4% of the federal income tax burden. The wealthiest Americans have been increasingly paying more and more of the total tax burden. In 2000, the wealthiest 1% paid 37.4%.

According to the Treasury Department, perhaps for the first time ever, the richest 1% of taxpayers will have paid more than 40% of the income tax burden. The top 5% will pay just under 60% of the total taxes. The richest 10% will pay 70% of taxes.

The top 50% of income earners will pay 97% of the tax burden. The bottom 50% of income earners will pay only 3% of taxes. And the the bottom 45% of income earners will actually pay 0% of the federal tax burden. Americans in the bottom quintile who have jobs get reimbursed for some or all of their 15 percent payroll tax through the earned-income tax credit (EITC), a fairly efficient poverty-abatement program.

The richest 1.3 million tax-filers — those Americans with adjusted gross incomes of more than $365,000 in 2005 — paid more income tax than all of the 66 million American tax filers below the median in income. Ten times more.

If that isn’t “a fair share,” I don’t know what would be.  It is simply a fact that the rich are most definitely paying their “fair share” and then a whole bunch more.

The Democrat Party today consists of demagoguing liars, ideologically-brainwashed fools, the hopelessly naive, and the inexcusably ignorant.

Unfortunately, we have more liars, fools, and naively deluded, and ignorant people in this country today than we’ve ever had before. And, given the fruits of the liberal-dominated education system, we will continue to have more and more of all four of these classes of people. Liars, fools, the naive, and the ignorant constitute a powerful voter block indeed.

What is fascinating is that the tax plan that Demcocrats falsely claim “favors the rich” actually end up requiring the rich to pay the overwhelming majority of the tax burden.

Prior to the Reagan Revolution in 1981, the top marginal federal income tax rate was 70% (it is currently 35% under President Bush). At the 70% rate, the top 1% paid only 19% of the federal income tax burden, and the top 5% paid 37%. With the tax rate cut in half, the top 1% are paying more than twice as much of the total tax burden – nearly 40% – and the top 5% are paying nearly 60%.

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.

There are several reasons for this relationship between lower tax rates for the rich and the rich actually ending up paying more taxes:

First, when one punishes hard work, creativity, and investment, the result will invariably be less hard work, creativity, and investment. Let me put it this way: I need some yard work done, liberals. How about you come over and break your back working for me, and when your finished, I’ll give you 30% of your wages, and give the other 70% to all those “poor” who didn’t do anything? Don’t like that deal. Guess what? Nobody else does either.

Another reason lowering taxes actually results in the rich paying more taxes is the reduction in sheltering assets:

Keep in mind as well that the IRS only records the income that taxpayers report. Its data don’t include income that the rich hide in tax shelters or otherwise defer. And there is evidence that lower tax rates since 1981 have caused the rich to declare more of what they earn. In 1980, when the top income tax rate was 70%, the richest 1% paid only 19% of all income taxes; now, with a top rate of 35%, they pay more than double that share. With lower rates and fewer tax loopholes after the 1986 reform, there is less incentive to shelter income to avoid tax.

With high taxes, there is a greater incentive to pay accountants to move assets around to conceal them or bury them in non-taxable locations. As long as there are taxes, there will always be tax shelters, of course, (I still remember my outrage in 2004 over learning that George Bush – who called for lower taxes – was paying the maximum tax rate of 35% while John Kerry – who called for everyone else to pay higher taxes – was sheltering his own wealth and paying less than 18% in taxes). But lowering taxes reduces sheltering, and makes it more worthwhile to invest.

A third reason that lower taxes for the rich result in the rich paying more taxes is due to the incentive to increase their investment. Stephen Moore, the senior economics writer for the Wall Street Journal editorial board, points out that the capital gains tax is essentially a voluntary tax because asset owners can avoid it by simply holding onto their stocks, homes, or businesses. This “lock-in” effect can be economically inefficient, because owners have a tax incentive to hold on to poor investments rather than drawing out the cash and putting it into assets that would be more productive. When the capital gains tax is cut, people unlock their assets and reinvest in other enterprises.

The 1997 tax reform, passed by a Republican Congress under President Clinton, reduced the capital gains tax rate from 28 percent to 20 percent, and taxable capital gains nearly doubled over the next three years. The 2003 reform brought the rate down to 15 percent, and between 2002 and 2005 there was a 154 percent increase in capital gains reported as income.

Democrats cry that gains by the rich have come at the expense of the declining living standard for the middle class. But that is simply stupid. Think of Bill Gates, the wealthiest man in America. Has Bill Gates made your life better, or worse (periodic aggravation over some stupid computer glitch aside)? Bill Gates has made the work of millions of businesses and individuals more easy and more productive. And if Bill Gates suddenly took his tens of billions of dollars and moved to France, the income distribution in America would all of a sudden appear far more equitable, but no one would be better off (except in France, which would all-of-a-sudden become tens of billions of dollars richer).

Barack Obama has come out and stated that he would raise the capital gains tax. He falsely believes that only the rich pay them, but he is simply wrong. The latest polls show that 52 percent of Americans own stock and thus benefit directly from lower capital gains and dividend taxes. Reduced tax rates on dividends also triggered a huge jump in the number of companies paying out dividends. As the National Bureau of Economic Research put it, “The surge in regular dividend payments after the 2003 reform is unprecedented in recent years.” Dividend income is up nearly 50 percent since the 2003 tax cut. And money market funds, pension funds, and various other vehicles which are very invested in the rewards of lowered capital gains benefit the overwhelming majority of Americans.

Barack Obama also claims that he will lower taxes for most Americans, but the reality is that most Americans pay very little in taxes. Again, the bottom 50% are paying only an infinitesimal percentage of the taxes, so you can’t give them much of a tax cut by definition. Yet these are the people to whom the Democrats claim to want to give tax cuts. Just how much should the rich be expected to pay? How will penalizing their productivity not undermine that productivity? At the same time, Obama is committing himself to spending nearly two trillion dollars in new spending. And when the rich begin to reduce their investments, shelter their money, and conceal their assets in tax-free vehicles, where do you think he will go to get the money to fund his programs?

The simple fact of the matter is that the richest Americans are paying far more than their fair share of taxes. As Stephen Moore notes:

But Barack Obama has decided the rich still don’t pay enough. He would redistribute the tax burden even more heavily on small business owners and the entrepreneurial class (two-thirds of the tax filers in the highest income tax bracket are small-business owners.) The nonpartisan Tax Foundation’s Scott Hodge has just crunched the numbers on the Obama plan and concludes that “more than $131 billion would be redistributed from the top 1 percent of taxpayers to all other taxpayers.”

Sounds fair, no? Only 1.13 million taxpayers, out of some 128 million, would end up paying higher taxes, according to the Obama camp.

But in the real world, who ends up paying a tax is not just the person on whose tax return it falls. History has demonstrated time and again that raising tax rates on the wealthy in the name of “redistribution” leads to so much income shifting, reduced work and investment, and redeployment of money into tax shelters, that the rich usually pay less, not more taxes, at higher rates. The burden of paying for government shifts to others, including some who may not file an income tax return at all – because they no longer have jobs or no longer earn enough to pay income tax…

Somebody needs to give the Obama campaign a refresher on all this. The Tax Foundation’s Mr. Hodge wonders: “Can a tax system so focused on redistribution be compatible with economic growth?” Probably not but the Obama brain trust wants to give it a try anyway.

The Tax Foundation had this to say about the Obama plan:

“Under the Obama plan for 2009,” explains Hodge, “more than $131 billion would be redistributed from the top 1 percent of taxpayers to all other taxpayers.”

As a result, the top 1 percent of households would pay more federal taxes of all kinds than the bottom 80 percent of households. That lopsided distribution under Obama does include payroll taxes and other federal taxes, but it excludes the new payroll tax hike that Obama plans to levy on people making more than $250,000 because details about that plan are currently unclear.

“In other words,” says Hodge, “it is at this point a cautious estimate to say that in 2009, under Obama’s plan, 1.13 million Americans would pay more in all federal taxes than 128 million of their fellow citizens combined.”

This is outright confiscation. It is Democrats urging their voters to seize the assets of a minority of voters. It is “the tyranny of the masses” that our founders so rightly feared. And it is wrong.

Lower taxes for the rich result in more investment, a stronger stock market, more hiring, and more products and services that benefit people’s lives. The redistributionism favored by Democrats, on the other hand, result in counterproductive policies that hurt the very people that they propose to help.

In a Foreign Affairs article titled, “An Empty Revolution: The Unfulfilled Promises of Hugo Chávez,” Francisco Rodríguez points out that:

Even critics of Hugo Chávez tend to concede that he has made helping the poor his top priority. But in fact, Chávez’s government has not done any more to fight poverty than past Venezuelan governments, and his much-heralded social programs have had little effect. A close look at the evidence reveals just how much Chávez’s “revolution” has hurt Venezuela’s economy — and that the poor are hurting most of all.

You’ve heard that proverb: “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”? Whoever coined it probably had liberals in mind.

When President Bill Clinton took office, he initially veered to the left with the help of a Democrat House and Senate. The result was so disasterous that the largest political landslide in U.S. history occurred under his watch, with Republicans and their “Contract With America” sweeping in. And the economic strength of the mid 1990s was due far more to the resurgence of Republican ideas than it was to the wisdom of Democratic economic stratgies.

As we consider the prospect of the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate becoming president with a filibuster proof Democratic Congress, we should soberly consider the disaterous lessons of redistributionism and socialist style governments and learn from those mistakes rather than repeat them.