Today Obama identified another group that according to his twisted logic, has for too long not paid their 'fair share' of taxes. This time it is businesses. Just because we have about the highest business tax rate in the world (with Federal, State and Local, approximately 39%) does not count. Just because we tax businesses on foreign profits--which few to no other countries do--means nothing. They have been slackers. Just because they provide the vast majority of jobs and wealth in this country doesn't count a bit. Obama is now making sure that they will either pay what he determines is a fair tax rate, or they can leave. What do you think they will do? No company would choose Ireland, for example which only has a 10% business tax rate, over the US, right?
This is not the first time Obama has chosen to use class warfare to dupe the idiotic American public, think of his 'tax cut for 95% of Americans'. Well since less than 50% of Americans actually pay any taxes, that is a neat trick. A tax cut for those who don't pay Federal taxes is what again, exactly? And I won't even mention the 60 cents a pack the millions of smokers have to pay to fund his SCHIP program. Or the billions in new energy taxes his cap and trade scheme will collect from every single American that uses any source of energy.
And of course, all the 'rich' who make over $250,000 a year is the other group of tax cheats. They haven't been pulling their weight, either, right? I am waiting for just how much Obama thinks is a fair share of the money they work for every day. No matter how many years they scrimped and saved, how many years they went without, the high school dropout, drug dealer, welfare queen, homeless person down the street is now just as equal to the fruits of their labor. This is Obama's promise: 'a vote for me is a vote for the fruits of other peoples' sweat.'
But hasn't Obama forgotten the 50% of Americans who don't pay any federal income taxes at all? Why aren't they contributing? They use the vast majority of government services, but pay nothing? Seems to me that if it is free--as it is to them--they won't value it very much. Seems to me they have not been paying their 'fair share' for quite some time. Why exactly is it again that they should benefit from my hard work? Shouldn't they reap the benefits of their own efforts? Stealing the benefits of my sweat from me, to give to them, just makes them not try harder, and makes me no want to put forth the effort to achieve. And besides, shouldn't they have to pay something for all those goodies they get, like free health care (medicaid, SCHIP) free money (earned income tax credit) and the thousands of other ways Obama spends taxpayers money--my money--on them to buy their vote for him?
As you can see from the above, I have begun posting essentially raw thoughts. The collectivists are doing so many things to destroy America so fast, that I can't spend the time to wordsmith.
Showing posts with label Socialism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Socialism. Show all posts
May 4, 2009
Oct 17, 2008
Income Inequality: How To Lie With Statistics
I know it doesn't come as a surprise to anyone, but a new article by Alan Reynolds, Cato Senior Fellow, shows just how simple it is to "prove" income inequality has been growing in recent years. (You can read the full article here) Obama routinely uses this canard to dupe his worshipers, er, I mean followers. As Barry is reputed to have an above average IQ (130), one would doubt that he, too, has been taken in. Maybe he is too busy trying to dig up the paperwork a Federal Judge in Pennsylvania has ordered him to produce which proves he applied to have his American Citizenship restored? I know that would distract me if I had spent years seeking a position which has citizenship as a legal prerequisite.
Anyway, back to 'income inequality'.
Every collectivist progressive loves to tout how 'due to the Bush Tax Cuts, the top 1 percent got filthier rich and the poor just got poorer.' They often cite studies from this or that progressive organization such as the Brookings Institute or the Pew Charitable Trust. As Dr Reynold's article is rather short, there is no need to recreate it here, but suffices to say that it is a simple as choosing what year the comparison begins or ends with. Another simple method is to use before tax numbers to justify increasing taxes. Finally, what components of a group's income are included as income for the various brackets compared is used. The differences can be dramatic.
What Reynolds demonstrates is that the only real way to compare is via actual tax rates, per group over the same time-frame using the same data-set--in other words, comparing apples to apples. Here is a concise breakdown using a single Congressional Budget Office set of data (Dr Reynolds does not actually put this in a table, so I did) This table actually included one of the two years (1979 and 2002) that are routinely used to demonstrate income equality:
That is right, folks. Those minus signs are payments to the bottom 20% through things like the Earned Income Tax Credit and other giveaways. Of other people's money. If you were constrained by money in choosing your child's college, for example, now you know where that money went. And yes, everyone has received a tax break. But by far those in the bottom quintile have 'benefited' much more (1.4, vs 4.5 vs at least 4.9).
Although I probably shouldn't stray too far from the point, one perspective that I can't get away from is: In light of the above, just how is Obama planning to give a 'tax cut' to 95% of working Americans?
Anyway, back to 'income inequality'.
Every collectivist progressive loves to tout how 'due to the Bush Tax Cuts, the top 1 percent got filthier rich and the poor just got poorer.' They often cite studies from this or that progressive organization such as the Brookings Institute or the Pew Charitable Trust. As Dr Reynold's article is rather short, there is no need to recreate it here, but suffices to say that it is a simple as choosing what year the comparison begins or ends with. Another simple method is to use before tax numbers to justify increasing taxes. Finally, what components of a group's income are included as income for the various brackets compared is used. The differences can be dramatic.
What Reynolds demonstrates is that the only real way to compare is via actual tax rates, per group over the same time-frame using the same data-set--in other words, comparing apples to apples. Here is a concise breakdown using a single Congressional Budget Office set of data (Dr Reynolds does not actually put this in a table, so I did) This table actually included one of the two years (1979 and 2002) that are routinely used to demonstrate income equality:
| Year/Bracket | Top 1% | Middle 20% | Bottom 20% |
| 1979 | 21.8 | 7.5 | -- |
| 1989 | 19.9 | -- | (-1.6) |
| 2000 | -- | 5.0 | (-4.6) |
| 2005 | 19.4 | 3.0 | (-6.5) |
That is right, folks. Those minus signs are payments to the bottom 20% through things like the Earned Income Tax Credit and other giveaways. Of other people's money. If you were constrained by money in choosing your child's college, for example, now you know where that money went. And yes, everyone has received a tax break. But by far those in the bottom quintile have 'benefited' much more (1.4, vs 4.5 vs at least 4.9).
Although I probably shouldn't stray too far from the point, one perspective that I can't get away from is: In light of the above, just how is Obama planning to give a 'tax cut' to 95% of working Americans?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)