«

»

What the class warriors are really aiming for: tax everyone more

Thrill had a post up discussing the upcoming tax battle as the Bush tax cuts are scheduled to expire at the end of this year. The donkeys are clamoring for that to happen, because they want stupid people to believe that tax hikes on the rich will somehow cover the $1.3 trillion – estimated since we conveniently have had no budget in the last 3 years to verify it is only this much that they are over spending by – of annual deficit spending we have had since the democrats took over (BLAME BOOSH! – trademark). But the fact is that this tax hike is not going to change anything in any meaningful way.

Let us start with the real numbers, and we can take a look at the Tax Foundation’s site where they have this special report breaking down the numbers. First up, the table showing the Bush tax cut provisions and what is going to happen on January 1st (table 2 in the report):

Major Bush Tax Cut Income Tax Provisions

Let’s break down the tax changes, focusing on income tax brackets. The first thing to notice is that the lowest bracket, 10% goes away. All those that were in that bracket now are moved into the 15% bracket. Note that this apparently still leaves a sizable chunk of people that are not paying income taxes because of some earnings threshold, still not paying any income taxes. All other brackets jump some 3 ½ percent. According to this Tax Foundation’s special report’s table 1, line one, this change across the board will result in a measly $156 billion dollars of extra annual revenue.

Tax Changes Effective 1-1-2013

So an across the board hike of 3 ½ percent for ALL BRACKETS that are currently paying income tax will yield us just $156 billion more. Focusing only on the hike the left wants, the top earner’s bracket, the question begs to be asked: what’s the revenue then? If we want to be generous, apply historical precedent where these rich people already pay 50%+ of the taxes, we can guestimate their share amounts to some $80 billion. Yeah, I am fudging it upwards, but in the grand scheme of things – they are spending over $1.3 trillion more than they are collecting each year – that $2 billion is a rounding error, and then one in the left’s favor. Shit, let’s just say it is an even cool $100 billion they are going to rake in, because these stupid rich people are not going to react at all to the government wanting to fleece them even more. So where are the other $1.2 trillion they need to just break even going to come from? There is no way this gap gets covered by just the rich. Even if they jack their bracket up to over 50%. And that’s the point.

This Obamanomics strategy here is just that: a fake. The intent is to allow the left to pretend they created new revenue by socking it to the group people envy the most. We have had more than a decade of this conditioning. The Boosh tax cuts caused a deficit! (Not the fact government spent more than it took in). Those evil Boosh wars caused the deficit (again: not the fact government spent more than it took in). The rich are not paying their fair share! Boosh’s tax cuts and wars, not the stupid and doomed attempt to social engineer through mortgage lending, caused that horrible economic down turn that still plagues poor genius Obama. Even after 4 years of Obamanomics, and that’s because these evil republicans are protecting their rich fat cat buddies! The fact that 4 out of every 5 of these rich people voted for Obama be damned.

Anyway, back to the plan. So the left socks it to the group everyone loves to hate, and then what? Well, then jack up spending, yet again. After all, they have provided new revenue, and in the mind of the math challenged tools that love this nonsense, they think things are all fine and more spending is no big deal. After all, their buddies in government can just confiscate more from those rich people to cover any new spending, right? Heh, sure. Eventually taxes will have to go up on everybody to cover the gap, or that gap is only going to grow, sine the end goal is to provide an excuse to spend more. And that’s the big goal: an excuse to spend more.

Now, if all that we ere facing was an economic growth crushing tax hike and increased government spending, things would only look ugly. But there is another monster on the horizon that promises to make this bleak scenario downright frightening on account that it is going to not just siphon even more money out of the economy and allow government to mismanage it, but drastically affect employers, and thus employment. And that is on top of the fact that while they told us this thing would end up collecting more than it would cost to sell it, we now know that is not even remotely close to the truth. Yeah, we are talking about Obamacare and the pain that will cause us.

The table below breaks down Obamacare taxes, and man are there a lot of them.

Obamacare Taxes

This monster is just going to have staggering implications. But that’s a post for another day. Right now, let’s focus on why the class warriors really want that tax hike, and that it will not be just on the rich, by necessity.

11 comments

1 ping

  1. Thrill says:

    This is basically it: If the American people want socialism (and I think they do, even if they won’t admit it), then they’re going to have to pay the taxes to support it. The free lunch days are coming to an end whether we want them to or not.

    Anyone who believes that this will come about simply by cleaning out the billionaires needs to see the tables that you’ve laid out. It’s truth. The hidden revenue killer here is that as more and more people leave the work force and see their jobs drop to part-time hours, the government will have to raise taxes further on those who are working.

    It’s a trap.

    Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0

      
  2. Kimpost says:

    A “measly” 157 billion? That would be 1.57 trillion in ten years. That kind of cuts/tax hikes is what’s needed, on many more areas. A trillion here, a trillion there over a ten year period is what you should be looking for.

    Having said that, cutting spending AND getting the economy going again is a difficult balancing act. Can’t raise taxes too much, and you can’t attack spending with an axe either. Scalpel time. The state of the economy is also why neither party (except for Ron Paul types) even tries balancing the budget in the short term.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

      
  3. Thrill says:

    1.57 trillion isn’t enough money and 10 years isn’t fast enough. If Social Security, Medicare, and the unfunded wars aren’t up for serious consideration, we’re just playing with ourselves.

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

      
  4. AlexInCT says:

    A “measly” 157 billion? That would be 1.57 trillion in ten years.

    You must have problems with math Kimpost.Let me break this down for you.

    First off, unless they expire the taxes on EVERYONE, it won’t be close to the 157 billion figure. You must have missed my “best case” or fantasy scenario where they somehow manage to squeeze out $100 billion in new revenue just from jacking up the rates on the rich, like they pretend they want to. But, for simplicity’s sake, let’s stick with that $100 billion number. It is nice and round and will serve the purpose quite well. The tax expiration will then according to your math, yield an awesome $1 trillion over a decade.

    That’s some seriously big number except…

    They are spending, at a minimum between $1.1 and 1.3 trillion annually that we don’t have. My bet is that that number is closer to twice as much, and why we have not had a real budget in almost 4 years. After all, they keep jacking the debt ceiling by a couple of trillion, then they use it up in 6-9 months.

    We now have at least $16 trillion in debt, and the donkeys want to tack on another 2 1/2 trillion so they can go on spending. I bet we are going to reach the new $18.5 trillion in under a year which sure points to them spending a lot more than that extra trillion plus dollars they do each year.

    But back to the math. In ten years at $1.2 trillion, the middle of that $1.1 to $1.3 trillion of deficit spending range, that adds up to a whopping $12 trillion of expenses. That’s a fucking serious number too.

    Now to use that math thing – basic subtraction: $1 trillion in extra revenue over a decade – and man am I being generous here as I am willing to bet they will collect far, far less as people hide their money – goes in the plus column for the decade. In the minus column we add $12 trillion in deficit spending to the ledger. AI am being generous becuase I suspect that will be the best case scenario as they will spend a lot more than that. That leaves us with $11 trillion of new debt at the end of your decade.

    Now THAT is a fucking insane number. And it doesn’t even factor in that the whole “tax the rich” bullshit is really about giving these fuckwads an excuse to jack up spending. Couple in Obamacare’s costs, and that that $11 trillion of new debt will likely be $20 trillion by the end of the decade.

    You might think this shit tax hike is a good deal, and I am not arguing that taxes might eventually be needed to solve our debt problem, but I see nothing but fiscal implosion going down this path of spending more than we have. To get enough revenue – tha $1.2 trillion more a year, they would have to increase the rates – for everyone – so they are collecting 50% more from each payer annually (based off the $2.3 trillion annual revenue number).

    The ONLY answer is to roll back the spending, and roll it back drastically. But that kills their vote buying scheme, so it will never happen while they can control the narrative. So that means that we will keep playing these stupid games, while they rob us blind, and we all hope the house of cards doesn’t just come crashing down.

    The problem is that it will, and I doubt that it will wait till the end of the decade as the one factor we left out is the impact these stupid collectivist policies will have on revenue and the interest we will pay on the other tar baby: inflation due to money printing. Right now we are lucky to be collecting $2.3 trillion annually. I bet that goes down, or stays the same, even as they jack up the rates on everyone. Dead economies produce no golden eggs.

    Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0

      
  5. Mississippi Yankee says:

    While not specifically a tax issue but all revenue must be originated in the House Did you know 8 House seats are still in question seven days after the election?

    Recount rules being; keep counting until the donk wins will remain in place. It won’t change the majority (334-295 as of now) but it is bound to weaken it. BTW St. Lucie Co in Florida where Colonel West is in a recount has decided to investigate why 113% of the electorate cast votes this past Tuesday.

    And people wonder where voter apathy comes from.

    It’s one thing for a Democratic presidential candidate to dominate a Democratic city like Philadelphia, but check out this head-spinning figure: In 59 voting divisions in the city, Mitt Romney received not one vote. Zero. Zilch.

    Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia who has studied African American precincts, said he had occasionally seen 100 percent of the vote go for the Democratic candidate. Chicago and Atlanta each had precincts that registered no votes for Republican Sen. John McCain in 2008.

    “I’d be surprised if there weren’t a handful of precincts that didn’t cast a vote for Romney,” he said. But the number of zero precincts in Philadelphia deserves examination, Sabato added.

    “Not a single vote for Romney or even an error? That’s worth looking into,” he said.

    This is all the kind of news you’re not going to hear about on the TV.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  6. CM says:

    In 2008, McCain got zero votes in 57 Philadelphia voting divisions.

    If it’s dodgy, they’re doing it remarkably consistently.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  7. Hal_10000 says:

    Alex, a few issues with your math.

    But back to the math. In ten years at $1.2 trillion, the middle of that $1.1 to $1.3 trillion of deficit spending range, that adds up to a whopping $12 trillion of expenses. That’s a fucking serious number too.

    First, The trillion dollar deficit only persists if the fiscal cliff is avoided (spending cuts and tax hikes totalling about $600 billion per year). Second, if the spending restraint along of the last two years is shown, this debt is significantly smaller (how much is difficult to say, since welfare spending will go down and revenues up if the economy recovers). Third, you can just do “multiply by ten” because of GDP growth, bracket creep, etc. If you keep spending growth at the pace of the last two years and let the tax rates and payroll tax holiday expire, you’ve basically balanced the budget in the near-term (long term needs Medicare fix).

    We simply can not sustain the government commitments on medicare, social security and defense on 15% of GDP. You are right: the tax hikes are going to have to come down on everyone. The payroll tax holiday will probably be one of the first to go.

    What I suspect we’ll get is an agreement to slowly move the brackets back up over the next four years combined with canceling or delaying parts of the sequester.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

      
  8. AlexInCT says:

    Recount rules being; keep counting until the donk wins will remain in place.

    That’s the way they do everything. It’s not settled until they get their way, and then it is written in stone.

    BTW St. Lucie Co in Florida where Colonel West is in a recount has decided to investigate why 113% of the electorate cast votes this past Tuesday.

    I am surprised we are not hearing of far more incidents like this. I even suspect that any precinct with numbers turning out over 80% should be investigated considering this election was proven to have a far lower turn out than the 2008 one MY.

    BTW, I hear the LSM is trying real hard to make West the bad guy for not just bending over and taking it like so many others have. How dare he question the corrupt left’s supremacy?

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  9. AlexInCT says:

    First, The trillion dollar deficit only persists if the fiscal cliff is avoided (spending cuts and tax hikes totalling about $600 billion per year).

    LOL!

    So you really think they will make these cuts? The fucking collectivists might have no problem socking it to the military, but they certainly will not, under any circumstance, allow their vote buying schemes to be impacted, Hal. We are not going to get anything close to that $600 billion a year.

    In fact, since this whole sham looks obvious as hell to me about them getting some leeway so they can pretend that since they have new revenue, they can jack up spending, I expect the annual deficit number to go up, not down, regardless of what any law says. All you need to do is look back at the last 4 years for proof. For example, the law says we need to have a budget every year: we have not had one for close to 4 years. There are many other such examples.

    Second, if the spending restraint along of the last two years is shown

    I just busted a kidney laughing so hard about that ridiculous statement. This, if you will pardon the parody, is the equivalent of claiming that Clinton is a reformed man because instead of boinking every damned woman he could, he limited himself just to the fat interns. Spending restraint. Heh. You should do standup dude.

    this debt is significantly smaller (how much is difficult to say, since welfare spending will go down and revenues up if the economy recovers).

    You are on a roll man. Keep the jokes coming. Self avowed wealth redistributionists are going to cut welfare spending. The economy will recover. LOL!

    Yeah, sure. And I am sure Team Obama will suddenly enact their secret economy growing plan, the one they have been sitting on for the last 4 years precisely so they could bust it out, right as things looked at their worst, to score a big win. Let me guess? Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny both figure prominently in this new economic plan.

    Third, you can just do “multiply by ten” because of GDP growth, bracket creep, etc.

    You must have missed the part where I was responding to someone that did just that and pointed out how that was the case right? Because I am pretty sure I repeatedly pointed out that I doubted both the revenue number they claim they will collect, regardless of who the extra taxation falls on – it simply is not going to be anything close to what they predict, and fall miserably short, because people will hide their wealth – as well stress that the spending will turn out to be far higher than what they are pretending too. Of course, you may have some insider information I don’t, and I might be totally wrong basing these predictions on what I have seen for the last 4 years. The moon could also be made out of cheese.

    If you keep spending growth at the pace of the last two years and let the tax rates and payroll tax holiday expire, you’ve basically balanced the budget in the near-term (long term needs Medicare fix).

    New math? Or wishful thinking? No wonder they reelected this idiot and his crew if they could convince what you would expect to be reasonably intelligent people that this what will happen or even remotely possible.

    I guess I will have to wait for this to play out to then tell you “I told you so”, just like I had to after people promised me Obama would fix everything 4 years ago.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

      
  10. Hal_10000 says:

    I don’t think the budget will be balanced in the near term because we will not go over the fiscal cliff that is necessary to balance it. But the fact is that the budget has grown 1% each of the last two years, since the GOP took the House.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  11. AlexInCT says:

    I don’t think the budget will be balanced in the near term because we will not go over the fiscal cliff that is necessary to balance it.

    I bet you we go over, and then the left only implements the cuts they want – on the military – while growing entitlement spending. These tools think deficit spending is great as long as the spending is on what they want. After the last 4 years I am under no illusion that these people would do what’s right even when it was a life or death situation. The nanny staters will never abandon their belief that the nanny state is the solution, and thus, we will never get spending cuts, realistic ones and primarily against the big and costly programs, because these are the programs that hand freebees out to those that vote for a living.

    But the fact is that the budget has grown 1% each of the last two years, since the GOP took the House.

    Can you provide me with a citation that shows this is the republican’s fault? I am not saying you are not right, just wondering. And I am surprised that it has only gone up by 1% each year since the default growth is at least 3-4%. And no, I am not defending the republicans either. I would like to see a 40% cut to the budget, and then, I want it done yesterday. Not gonna happen with these nanny staters – in both parties – worried about their bought votes though.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  1. Starving the Budget » Right Thinking says:

    [...] any sensible mix of taxes and spending cuts — is going to mean raising taxes on everyone. Alex’s post made this point very well. Look at the breakdown of where the fiscal cliff taxes are coming from: [...]

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      

Comments have been disabled.