Joe
Scarborough keeps asking the same question on his Morning Joe show. How will Obama’s raising the tax rate on the
upper 2% of income earners generate any significant amount of revenue? Were this to happen … Warren Buffet won’t be paying
any more taxes. Michael Moore won’t be paying
any more taxes. Harvey Weinstein won’t be paying any more taxes. Jon Corzine won’t be paying any more
taxes. Hedge fund managers won’t be
paying any more taxes. Anyone who earns
money from dividends or capital gains … or those who can afford a good tax
attorney won’t be paying any more taxes under Obama’s scheme.
Do you find
it strange that these people are also the ones who have been the big fund
raisers for Obama? So Obama, by being so
fiercely adamant in his fiscal-cliff solution, can let his plutocrat friends off
the hook while, at the same time, appear to be appeasing the Wall-Street
Occupiers. The people who will be paying
more taxes will be those schlemiels who earn $250,000 to $500,000 per year in ordinary
income and don’t have any significant offsets.
They are the ones who will be taking in the shorts. And they are the ones, as the small business owners, who are said to be the
major job creators in the country.
On the other
hand, how might Obama go after the real millionaires and billionaires? He could limit total deductions and other
income-tax offsets to something like $35,000 or $50,000 or $75,000 … just like
what Mitt Romney had proposed in the Presidential debates … and like what the
Republicans are currently offering in the fiscal-cliff discussions. Under this methodology Warren Buffet, Michael
Moore, Harvey Weinstein, Jon Corzine, hedge fund managers, and their ilk would
be the ones taking in the shorts … instead of the small-business job creators. And, using this methodology, raising $800
billion in taxes (or much more depending on the limit put on deductions) over
ten years would be a piece of cake.
Therefore,
one could reasonably conclude that The Barry’s insistence on just raising taxes-rates
on the 2%-ers is really, in truth, a sly payoff to his benefactors by our consummate demagogue-in-chief.
Postscripts: Please don't assume that, by my not mentioning spending and entitlement cuts, I do not favor them. I do. I think they are a must and the ratio of government spending cuts to revenue additions should be at least 6:1. Also don't infer from the above that I would like to increase the tax rates on dividends and capital gains. I don't ... however I would be in favor of eliminating the "carried interest" tax loophole that hedge fund managers enjoy. It is a distasteful taxing gimmick and it would be a tragedy if this carried-interest tax avoidance loophole was the reason taxes went up on actual capital gains and dividends.
Postscripts: Please don't assume that, by my not mentioning spending and entitlement cuts, I do not favor them. I do. I think they are a must and the ratio of government spending cuts to revenue additions should be at least 6:1. Also don't infer from the above that I would like to increase the tax rates on dividends and capital gains. I don't ... however I would be in favor of eliminating the "carried interest" tax loophole that hedge fund managers enjoy. It is a distasteful taxing gimmick and it would be a tragedy if this carried-interest tax avoidance loophole was the reason taxes went up on actual capital gains and dividends.
1 comment:
I agree with all your suggestions, plus eliminating the Bush tax cuts for wage earners who make more than $500k.
Post a Comment