By the numbers..

The Chicago Sun-Times has this article dealing with Obama’s recent claim that his new plan to plunder $1.5 trillion from the evil productive was not class warfare based on the math. As many of us pointed out Obama was lying when he said this was not class warfare because the math proves it is just that.

When President Barack Obama rails against “millionaires and billionaires,” as he does often, Republicans accuse him of trying to divide the country by class. In his speech calling for $1.5 trillion in tax increases, mostly on high-income earners, Obama declared, “This is not class warfare. It’s math.” The problem for him is that his math doesn’t add up.

Those that point out this is class warfare are dead on, and the math proves it. From the article:

For starters, Obama’s tax increases hit individuals making $200,000 and families and small businesses earning $250,000. That’s far from being a millionaire. Sen. Charles Schumer, one of a number of the Democrats critical of Obama’s tax plan, notes that $250,000 “doesn’t make you rich at all” in high-cost-of-living, high-tax New York.

Furthermore, the numbers dispute Obama’s assertion that “the wealthy” don’t pay their fair share of taxes, according to an analysis of recently released IRS data for 2009 by the nonpartisan Tax Foundation. The study shows that taxpayers earning more than $200,000 accounted for 25 percent of the nation’s adjusted gross income for that year but paid 50 percent of the $866 billion in 2009 income taxes.

Even democrats are pointing out this plan stinks. And while donkey class warriors like Chuck Schumer do the Macarena trying to pretend the problem isn’t that the issue is that this bill has defined “rich” at a ridiculously low level, that is immediately apparent to anyone looking. The reason Obama keeps bringing down the definition/threshold of what’s considered rich, while continuing to pretend he really is only targeting those greedy billionaires and millionaires that obviously got their money by taking it from others and thus are not paying their fair share, is because there simply are not enough rich people from which these class warriors are able to confiscate all the money they are currently spending from.

As the second paragraph in the quote points out those making more than $200K a year account for 25% of adjusted gross income, but paid an unbelievable 50% of the income taxes collected. And yet, they are told they need to pony up more so the Keynesian class warriors can keep their failed vote buying schemes funded. In fact, the dirty secret is that based on how much cash these collectivist, class warrior, big government aristocrats want/need to control and spend, they will have to dumb down that threshold that defines “the rich” to a way lower number – to families making around $60-80K at a minimum – and jack up the amount they take in order to scrounge up enough cash to barely break even.

When taxes collected from individual earners amounts to $866 billion, and you are running a $1.5 trillion gap, even if we are to believe they are going to make drastic cuts – which sane people should not for the obvious reasons – and all you try to do is get about half of that from these individual owners, you are looking at almost doubling what was taken in 2009! If you double what the supposed rich – those making $200K and more – pay, you are still short by half of what you need to cover that $750 billion number. And if we are generous and grant them that they then make cuts that amount to half of what’s still missing, it is still obvious that what we are left with a big gap between what’s taken and what’s spent. The article also points out the following about corporate tax income.

Also, those awful corporations that left-wing Democrats hate so much pay a lot of taxes. The 1,900 largest corporations accounted for two-thirds of the $227 billion in 2009 corporate income taxes, according to the foundation.

There is no way they are going to fleece corporations for that much new income. Even if they doubled what corporations pay, and that would kill the economy outright, but these tools are economic illiterates anyway so it doesn’t take much pretending to go there, it is obvious that the burden on the individual earner is going to be the lion’s share. When we have a $1.5 trillion deficit, or if you are inclined to be generous – which I am not – and allow for them actually making big cuts, the numbers still don’t mesh. There is no other conclusion but that middle class would have to be soaked in order for them to keep the near 50% that currently don’t pay federal income taxes, but get back money through the IRS wealth redistribution scheme that passes for tax policy these days, larded enough to vote for them.

The math simply doesn’t add up. No matter how you slice it, what we have now is unsustainable and soaking the rich will not save the day, ever. It does add up, of course, if you are using the math to prove it is all about class warfare. The only class that makes out is the political aristocracy that bases its existence on convincing the least productive they are entitled to the money of others, and that if they allow these aristocrats to live large, they will fleece the productive real hard under the guise of social justice.

Now on to some more revelations in this article.

The numbers measuring the impact of Washington’s stimulus programs aren’t any better. The Federal Reserve declared Wednesday that the country faces years of low growth and announced a new $400 billion economic salvation program. The Dow nose-dived 283 points Wednesday and 391 Thursday. A couple of weeks ago, Wall Street reacted with another plunge after Obama announced his latest $447 billion jobs program.

That cobbled-together mixture of temporary tax cuts, short term credits and infrastructure spending is supposed to create 2 million jobs. Do the math and that comes out to the government spending $223,000 for each new job.

That’s a little better than Obama’s first stimulus package. That one, totalling $821 billion, is supposed to have created or saved as many as 3.6 million jobs — a figure widely disputed — which translates into $228,000 per job.

I won’t bother to point out how destructive these Keynesian wealth redistribution scams that fool no one has been on our economy. The numbers do that job quite well. More math! But even if you are stupid enough to buy the concept that its governments that create jobs, can you not see that under the best case scenarios – and I do not for a second buy the numbers bandied about by the Keynesians on how many jobs either patronage bill one or the new and improved patronage bill 2 will create – the cost is insane? Do you seriously believe you could sell such a business plan to a bank if you where a private investor looking for a loan? Fuck, this is insane and stupid.

And now for some fun.

That’s small potatoes compared with the Department of Energy’s program of $40 billion in loan guarantees to promote green energy. Half the money has been spent to create a total of 3,545 direct jobs, according to a Washington Post analysis, That’s $5.6 million per job. But rest assured, the DOE says once the full $40 billion in financing is disbursed, 60,000 jobs will be found — more than $666,000 for each new worker.

Does this sound familiar? Where did someone say exactly something like this only to be called a liar, based on a slight of hand calculation that would make David Copperfield feel awed by the illusion, used? Wink, wink…

Comments are closed.

  1. AlexInCT *

    What’s your point? That the “rich”, and as the left defines them the people that are lumped in this group seems to get bigger and bigger as the threshold of what it means to be “rich” keeps coming down lower and lower, should be made to pay more? That there is still a lot of wealth to fleece from them? I am not sure I get it.

    What I do get is that the left will have to rob a lot more people than they let on, of a lot more money, to cover the gap. And once they start that they are not going to do any serious cutting, no matter how big their promise was to “share the burden”. You can look at what our new governor Malloy has done here in CT for the preview.

    Thumb up 2

  2. blameme

    And Obama is talking about raising Income and Capital Gains taxes on the rich, which means for this discussion the numbers that Alex references are accurate.

    Geez Hal. I know your salary depends on taking from others, but c’mon man.

    Obama is saying billionaires and millionaires, but then the details include 200k etc. That is what is relevant to an INCOME TAX discussion. Then, Alex goes on to show that even fleecing these VIA INCOME TAX HIKES will still not come close to closing the gap.

    Yes, we know everyone pays payroll taxes, but when discussion THIS TAX PLAN, INCOME TAX is what is relevant – your left leaning heart notwithstanding.

    Damn, I miss the big guy around here.

    Thumb up 1

  3. Hal_10000

    That makes no sense, blame. If you’re talking about taxes, you have to talk about all of them. I’m not disagreeing with the overall point as you’ll see in my next post. I just think we need to quit using garbage numbers. The proper evaluation of the tax burden is how much money you paid versus how much money you earned. It doesn’t matter whether it’s a capital gains tax, an income tax or a martian tax. All that does if obfuscate the issue. (In fact, I’d say that’s the point of our tax system).

    Look, both sides are talking some crap here. The left is pretending that Warren Buffet’s 17.4% tax rate is typical of the rich, which is baloney. The federal tax rate on the rich is about 30% . They typically site numbers that don’t include EITC or credits for the poor. Those omissions deliberely skew the numbers to say something that is false: that the tax burden on the rich is too low.

    But the Right is citing income taxes and ordinary income as though that is the only thing to consider. That’s bullshit too, designed to pretend that the tax burden on the rich is higher than it actually is. Money from cap gains counts the same as money from anywhere else.

    Maybe having a low cap gains and investment income rate is good to encourage risk-taking. I’m not convinced of this. But you simply can’t discuss this issue when you’re putting your hands over the half the picture. You have to consider all the income, all the taxes, all the credits. Then we can have a discussion.

    Thumb up 0