What if Obama does raise taxes on the rich? Then what?
I’ll admit it: There’s a part of me that wants President Obama to get every last tax increase he proposed this week.
Let him close the loopholes and raise tax rates on “millionaires and billionaires” — defined, in his world, as married couples who earn a combined $250,000 a year and individuals who bring in $200,000. Let him tax capital gains at the same rates as wages. Let him squeeze more revenue out of oil and gas companies. Let him sock it to the corporate jet owners.
And then, when the economy keeps foundering and the jobless are still out of work and the budget remains unbalanced, let him tell us what comes next.
You see, I don’t think there is a Plan B, because I don’t think his proposals amount to a Plan A for growing the economy, or creating jobs, or balancing the budget — or for anything besides raising taxes for the sake of raising taxes.
Obama’s quest to raise taxes, especially on “the rich” and corporations, has reached Ahab-like levels of obsession. The question doesn’t matter; for him, the answer is “raise taxes.” The $447 billion piece of legislation he proposed earlier this month was not so much a jobs bill as it was a tax increase-justification bill.
Obama’s already admitted more than once that he knows better than to believe infrastructure jobs involving the federal bureaucracy are truly “shovel ready.”
He may already be too late in calling for schoolhouse renovations if they’re to be completed by the end of next summer.
We’ve already seen, with the bankruptcy of the solar panel manufacturer Solyndra — in the exact month analysts predicted, and despite a half billion in federal loan guarantees — the folly of trying to shove taxpayer dollars out the door to private ventures quickly enough to count as a job-creation measure.
But none of that matters, because I don’t think that’s the point for him.
I don’t agree with those who think his intention is to destroy the economy or ruin the country. I don’t know if he believes his tax maneuvers will have an effect that’s opposite of what basic economics suggests — although I am certain he believes that a more muscular central government is in the public’s best interest.
I don’t know why he would continue to think people will put stock in super-investor Warren Buffett’s anecdote about paying a lesser share of his income in taxes than his secretary, when there are piles of data that make clear this situation is not an epidemic in our country.
I do know that we’ve known about this tax-the-rich tendency since the 2008 campaign. During one debate, Obama said he would raise capital gains taxes even if doing so resulted in less federal revenue, out of his sense of “fairness.”
I don’t know why he would feel that way. There are plenty of dime-store psychological analyses of Obama out there, if you’re into that kind of thing. I just know that one constant for the man who came to the White House as a self-proclaimed “blank screen” has been the push to tax the rich more heavily.
But ultimately, satisfying my curiosity about what Obama would do and say differently if he got his way on taxes, and proved it didn’t work, isn’t worth the collateral damage. Because here are a few other things I know:
I know the Reverse Rumpelstiltskins in Washington can’t take gold out of private hands and spin it into straw fast enough to do more good than harm.
I know that, even by the White House’s own projections, this soak-the-rich strategy won’t come close to balancing the budget — especially when it’s used to justify increasing spending even further.
I know the Obama approach — complicating the tax code even further, just to scratch this anti-rich itch — will only make it harder to reform the tax code. And that will make it harder to draft a broader strategy for reducing deficits and debt.
Finally, here’s something I can only suspect: that Obama’s answer to “what comes next?” once the millionaires and billionaires have been tapped will not be to cut spending as needed to achieve fiscal balance. Instead, it’ll be to define “millionaire” much lower than people who earn just a quarter of that amount.
(Note: This post, my column from Thursday’s print edition of the AJC, draws and expands on a few thoughts I posted earlier this week.)
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
419 comments Add your comment
Starring Kam Fong as Chin Ho
September 22nd, 2011
8:48 am
Reduce spending and institute a consumption tax. Emphasis on reduce spending.
dbell
September 22nd, 2011
8:54 am
@CARLOSGVV What is one’s fair share? No one can say that. Those making more money are already paying more than those that make less. Shoot most people in America pay no taxes.
No one can tell us what the term “fair share” means. It reminds me of Obama’s mantra of hope and change. Well, we’ve had change and lost hope.
Joe the Plutocrat
September 22nd, 2011
8:55 am
UcantCLA, if by 5% tax on every transaction, you mean to include multi-billion dollar hedge fund trades, I am all for it. out economy is in a mess because we have transitioned from a manufacturing/export economy to a financial (paper-shuffling)/import economy. as such, as Bruce lamented; “…these jobs are going boy, and they ain’t coming back…” in addition (the double-dip, as it were), the new income (capital gains, investment income, etc.) is taxed at a lower rate than the blue collar (manufacturing) income of an auto worker, factory worker, over-the road trucker hauling the goods to ports, retailers, etc.). the family farms that once sustained America have been replaced by HUGE corporate farms, which do not pay taxes and often benefit from obscene tax breaks and corporate welfare. seriously, Kyle, did you sleep in ECON?
HDB
September 22nd, 2011
8:57 am
ILLEGALMEANSILLEGAL
September 22nd, 2011
8:32 am
“DEBORAHINATHENS, what exactly do you do in the finance industry because there was this thing called the CRA that took housing down.”
You should QUIT repeating GOP talking points….for the CRA did no such thing! The CRA was created to make banks give loans in the communities that they SERVED! Note that the banks’ reaction was to CLOSE branches in predominately minority neighborhoods to get around the CRA. Plus, the CRA did NOT make banks change their credit requirements! Also, loans guaranteeed by Freedie and Fannie did NOT default at the levels of loans created by mortgage BROKERS!! If yo would also note, mortgage-backed securities caused the market downfall when real estate began correcting itself….and when AIG insured the preponderance of these securities…….the resul is obvious. DebinAthens is right on point!!
carlosgvv
September 22nd, 2011
9:00 am
dbell
For me, a fair share would be, in gereral, a flat tax rate for a family of four making $40,000.00 per yer or more. What do you think?
Ayn Rant
September 22nd, 2011
9:03 am
Kyle, your rambling article on Obama and taxes is uncharacteristically ill-thought and sloppy, even for a wrong-thinking, though usually meticulous writer.
First, try to understand the distinction between the rich and the high-earners. The rich have accumulated wealth, which is not taxed by the federal government. High earners have yearly income that far exceeds their need to support a luxurious lifestyle. They will either save the excess income, which creates more unneeded capital, or the government may confiscate (tax) some of it to spend on job creation and deficit reduction.
A “millionaire” is no rarity today. A middle-income couple who have spent their income wisely, own their home and cars outright, and have saved for their kids’ education and their own retirement, most likely have a net worth of a million or more, even if their annual income is less than $200,000. These “millionaires” enjoy the lowest tax rates in recent history, and would not see their taxes increase if the tax rate on high-earners reverted to pre-Bush levels.
Next, don’t brush off the beneficial effects on the federal budget from taxes on high earners and closing the scandalous tax loopholes and foolish subsidies for Big Business. It’s enough to bring the federal budget into balance over the next 10 years.
Finally, the notion that taxing the high-earners burdens those who create jobs is not quite right. True, the excess income of high earners is likely to be saved rather than spent; that creates capital. Capital may be invested in profitable job-creating equities, but in a stagnant economy, is more likely to be parked in Treasury issues or speculative financial instruments that don’t create any jobs except bankers and traders.
Can a Republican-thinking American ever get serious enough about the state of the US economy to fall back on facts and arithmetic, and give up the voodoo economics that has brought us to so close to economic collapse?
finn mccool
September 22nd, 2011
9:05 am
Ayn rant is spot on
DeborahinAthens
September 22nd, 2011
9:06 am
ILLEGALMEANSILLEGAL, I am the quintessential capitalist…started out as an investment banker/stockbroker. After twenty six years in the business have evolved into a financial planner. And if you think the sub prime lending ills were what brought about the last two recessions, you are not well informed. Read, read, read and stop listening to Boortz, Rush, and Hannity. The things I have seen….!
KyleKyleGoAway
September 22nd, 2011
9:19 am
This, from Mark Cuban’s blog (http://blogmaverick.com/), as a counterpoint to Kyle’s (and every other Republicrazy’s) wrong-headed notions about taxes:
3. Taxes Vs Job Creation
There is an ongoing refrain from some that any increase in Taxes will have a negative impact on investment and job creation. Not true in 99.99pct of cases. Never has been. Never will be. First the .01% times where it may be true. Potentially, a person could have some amount of money less than what they need to start a company because they paid say 1k dollars more in taxes this year than they did last year. This could happen and I’m sure it has happened. but its the exception that proves the rule.
Now the rule…
People driven to succeed are driven to succeed. People driven by money are driven by money. People driven to compete, compete. We live in a country that puts an emphasis on achievement. Not just financial achievement. The ability to set goals and achieve them. We celebrate and reward those that accomplish their goals. It is part of the very fabric of what makes this country so amazingly unique.
Those of us who are driven by money have a number that we strive for. People like me. (If you want to learn more about people like me, read this). We want to be a millionaire. Once we become a millionaire, some of us want more. Some of us don’t. But once you hit the first number you begin to make decisions in your life about how you might get to the next number or just use what you have to make your life (and possibly the life of others) better.
Others set goals and define success and achievement in any number of ways. In no cases do any of them examine the tax rate. In fact, I would be willing to bet that 99pct of us completely ignore the tax rate. Why ? Because we know that the rewards we all value the most came as the result of our efforts. Something that no tax rate is going to take away from us.
The risk of starting a business . The risk of making an investment in the sweat equity of someone else’s efforts. The risk of starting a charity. The risk of taking a new job. The risk of adding a new employee, etc, etc, etc. I have NEVER met a motivated person who has said they would not chase their goals because of tax rates.
Personal achievement is not the only motivating factor that over-rides taxation. Business to business competition ALWAYS over-rides taxation. If you own or run a business you have to best your competitors. As long as they pay under the same tax structure as your business, it’s all about who can do a better job. Not what the tax rate is.
Of course none of this is going to stop big companies from arguing that higher taxes impacts job creation. Of course they are going to argue it. The less they pay in taxes, the higher their earnings per share and the greater the value of their stock and options. If a big company needs employees to stay competitive in their industry(s) you better believe they are going to hire that person no matter what it takes. They will find the money some how. Even if it means lowering their political contributions and lobbying costs or bringing in cash held overseas.
This is a country that competes to win. That is not going to change.
In fact, follow this logic. Its counter intuitive, but its absolutely true. The higher the tax rate on income the more risks us money chasers have to take in order to hit our number. If you want that number, you are going to go for it. Period, end of story. More risk, more companies started, more people hired.”
MarkV
September 22nd, 2011
9:22 am
I do not know if Kyle ever put more silliness in one column before
I know there is plenty of it here.
It is rather amazing that Kyle would think that people should be interested in what he does not know. I am sure those things he has mentioned have plenty of company.
Kyle does not know “why he would continue to think people will put stock in super-investor Warren Buffett’s anecdote about paying a lesser share of his income in taxes than his secretary, when there are piles of data that make clear this situation is not an epidemic in our country.” Is it not because people do not consider Warren Buffet’s situation an “anecdote” and unimportant, even while nobody has claimed it to be “epidemic?”
Kyle does not know if Obama believes his tax maneuvers will have an effect that’s opposite of what basic economics suggests.” Is it not because it is not true about “basic economists,” whatever basic means? Does “basic” means those who are against the Obama’s plan, and “non-basic those who are in favor?
What Kyle knows? He knows that “Obama said he would raise capital gains taxes even if doing so resulted in less federal revenue, out of his sense of “fairness.”
Kyle, what exactly do you have against fairness? Is everything in the tax structure do be done just to maximize revenue, regardless of fairness?
Kyle knows that “the Reverse Rumpelstiltskins in Washington can’t take gold out of private hands and spin it into straw fast enough to do more good than harm.” Is it a great feat of knowledge to know such silly nonsense? Tell us, Kyle, who has suggested that?
Kyle knows that “Obama approach — complicating the tax code even further, just to scratch this anti-rich itch — will only make it harder to reform the tax code “ Explain, Kyle, the big “complication” Obama has proposed. It has been said that the current tax code fills 10,000 pages. Tell us how many pages will “Obama’s approach” create to “complicate the code”?
Glenn
September 22nd, 2011
9:22 am
Yeah were 14 trillion dollars in debt . 42 cents of every dollar just goes to pay interest on our deficit . Seeing neither party is willing to compromise on what gets cut we had better raise taxes . Actually people in suits should probably be looking for change in our couches while we are at work . Then what Kyle ? How about Japan , Korea , and Germany make due without our military and we take care of our selves before we sell treasuries to raise money for other countries betterment . If Israel can have a socialized healthcare system they don’t need three billion annually in aid from us .
Bobito
September 22nd, 2011
9:23 am
The existence of billionaires is proof that the economy is inefficient and imperfect, needing of massive regulation. No one deserves to get paid 1 million a year while other folks get 2000 a month. The government needs to take money from the very rich and give it to the rest of us. It used to be called communism, but it’s just good sense and justice.
Bobito
September 22nd, 2011
9:25 am
The extremely rich aren’t productive. They are parasitic leeches sucking the money out of the rest of us because they can, because they have so much money. They don’t do anything but get richer themselves. It’s not beneficial to anyone else. Many of them would be called criminals if they earned less and didn’t have such good lawyers working for them.
JF McNamara
September 22nd, 2011
9:28 am
mom of 3,
“$10 cookies and $16 muffins? ”
Gimme a break. You don’t think the higher ups of major corporations are eating $10 cookies and $16 muffins? Probably not, they’re wasting it on corporate outings to resorts. Humans are wasteful at times. Government is no different.
Small instances of waste out of a governement the size of ours is expected. There isn’t a rampant waste problem. (except potentially defense spending)
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 22nd, 2011
9:28 am
“I know that, even by the White House’s own projections, this soak-the-rich strategy won’t come close to balancing the budget — especially when it’s used to justify increasing spending even further.”
Money quote, Kyle.
Good column. Anything that brings out the libs in such massive outrage must really hit them in a soft spot.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 22nd, 2011
9:30 am
“You don’t think the higher ups of major corporations are eating $10 cookies and $16 muffins?”
Dumbest post of the day (and there have been soooo many nominees).
JF, you think maybe that those corporations are using money people freely gave to them in exchange for a product they used?
As opposed to having it taken from them?
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 22nd, 2011
9:31 am
“It is rather amazing that Kyle would think that people should be interested in what he does not know.”
And yet, you’re here posting about it.
Peter
September 22nd, 2011
9:32 am
Bob/Kyle – please tell me what laws were passed by Pelosi/Reid and signed by W, or where they overrode his veto, that caused the crash? There weren’t any, so please stop repeating that myth. The crash came from repealing Glass-Steagall (letting banks buy investment and insurance firms – TBTF) and letting Wall Street regulate themselves. They made bets, lost, and the taxpayers had to bail them out. Remember, it was the Bush WH that said they had to act to prevent a depression.
And please stop the BS about raising taxes on people above $250K will hurt jobs. First, companies hire when there is an opportunity to make an extra penny, and the personal tax rates of their execs have nothing to do with that. And, no exec turns down a bonus because they might have to pay an extra 5% in taxes.
And the real job creators are small businessman and entrepreneurs, and they don’t pay themselves that much in salary. They use dividends and expenses to shelter it, or they reinvest it to grow their company if they see demand. What Obama should be proposing is SBA loans and startup investment funds, since banks are not funding them.
November 6, 2012
September 22nd, 2011
9:33 am
OK, here it is for all of you “TAX THE RICH” folks…..
o • THE TAX SYSTEM EXPLAINED IN BEER
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100…
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this…
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7..
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that’s what they decided to do..
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20″. Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men ? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.
And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.
“I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,”but he got $10!”
“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!”
“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”
“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!”
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, as many are considering where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
mike "hussein" smith
September 22nd, 2011
9:38 am
Aurelius at 6:50 points in the right direction. Set one tax rate for both people and businesses (18% sounds good to me, too); end all deductions (including those for political contributions) — and then wait for the right to start howling (because everybody is being treated alike).
ScottSmith
September 22nd, 2011
9:43 am
DBell, I like what you say but I do think there’s more to the mortgage debacle than just the folks trying to keep up with the Jones’ by taking on more debt than they could afford.
In my experience, the deregulation of the banking industry led to the extreme instances of Mortgage Fraud and Speculative Investment which then created the artificially inflated housing values that let “The Jones Families” pull far more value out of real estate than the properties were actually worth.
Now before anyone comments with their opinion, let me explain a few facts about Mortgage Fraud & resultant Foreclosure. In Georgia, there are several zip codes that were in the top 10 for mortgage fraud in the country. I live in zip code 30310 and we were the worst in the state. In my neighborhood of 1200 houses, 1/3 of them were victimized by fraud at least one time and many were used for fraud multiple times by the same individuals.
For those of you who are not familiar with Mortgage Fraud, in short, it is an instance where a real estate transaction is conducted with false or deliberately inaccurate information for the purpose of receiving more revenue from a sale than the property is worth. Fraud happened because there was little to no oversight by the banks and the federal agencies that underwrite the mortgages. Fraud happens when the seller, buyer, appraiser, lender and others deliberately falsify records. It is a felony both at the state and federal level. I have spoken at a GREFPAC conference, appeared in Federal Court at the request of the prosecutor so that I could speak on behalf of the community and I have contributed to an article authored by a UGA professor on the methods to research and remediate fraud.
One example of a fraud transaction is with a new construction house that was sold by the same person two times in less than a year. Both times the house was sold, the buyer was the same. The county records show that the seller acquired the house for $50k and then sold it the following week for $280k. A month later, the original seller re-purchased the same property for $50k and sold it to the same buyer 8 months later for $315k. Nobody ever moved into the house until it foreclosed again and sold to a different party. This was the typical amount of fraud I’ve seen ($250+k per transaction). When you multiply this number by the number of houses that have frauded in just this one zip code (360), you can see how much in mortgages were allowed to be taken from banks without proper oversight.
When the fraud was at it’s peak, the banks used the fraudulent comps as justification to lend more money to honest owners. That’s how the housing crash started. Folks were robbing banks without guns and with the consent of the banks.
We saw the temporary increase in property taxes because of the artificially inflated values and now the county taxes are at their lowest in decades. With reduced tax revenues, we are faced with cuts to services and programs. While I am happy to have less than $500 in property taxes in my Atlanta house, I know that I am not paying enough to ensure that the city and county continue to serve the citizens. Unfortunately, there’s nothing to do until the market recovers and we get some sense to the banking industry…either voluntary or forced by regulation.
The greed of some coupled with the lack of oversight and responsible lending by others has caused the crash of a global economy.
jt
September 22nd, 2011
9:47 am
November 6, 2012
.
Good show.
You forgot to mention that roughly 50% of the price of a six-pack of beer is ALREADY TAXES.
Hidden taxes…………they still from us everywhere we turn……………and still want more.
.
Regardless……..deficit spending would NOT be possible without the FED.
.
Ron Paul has the answer……………but the sheep are just too frightened of marijuana cigarettes and weird beards.
Dearie
September 22nd, 2011
9:48 am
DeborahinAthens 8:00am “Bush shed jobs by the hundreds of thousands, the numbers of which establish the base of our unemployment numbers today.”
My question to you ~ How many people did you personally know that lost their jobs during the Bush years? – I personally knew no one. In the last three years I have 3 family members and countless friends who lost their jobs and have been looking diligently. Open your eyes. Things are not getting better ~ they are far worse. My “out of work” friends will tell you the same…..
mike "hussein" smith
September 22nd, 2011
9:50 am
November 6, 2012: Thank you for regurgitating that asinine column that you attribute to David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D., the right wing’s favorite philosopher. It leaves out a very BIG point: According to his official UGA website, “Contrary to Internet folklore, Dr. Kamerschen is NOT the author of “Tax Cuts: A Simple Lesson in Economics” or “Bar Stool Economics” or anything similar to that. Additionally, he does NOT know who wrote it and he has no opinion on its merits.” So quit spreading your lie.
Old Hippie
September 22nd, 2011
9:53 am
Kyle, your economic knowledge is surpassed only by your crappy writing. Go back to writing about something of which you have some knowledge,whatever that may be.
John
September 22nd, 2011
9:55 am
Better yet Kyle, let’s give the Republicans what they want…reduce corporate taxes to 0%, get rid of all deductions in the tax code and drop everyone’s rate to 9%, get rid of estate tax, get rid of taxes on investments, kill medicare, medicaid and social security, increase defense spending, get rid of every department except defense, privatize everything except defense, abolish all regulations and let businesses do what they want with no regard to workers, consumers and the environment. Do all these things and let’s see the economy soar.
JF McNamara
September 22nd, 2011
9:56 am
Tiberius,
“JF, you think maybe that those corporations are using money people freely gave to them in exchange for a product they used?
As opposed to having it taken from them?”
Its always the one who hurls insults who has no point.
The government is providing service for the tax money that you pay. You have a military, interstates, a functioning government, social security, and many other programs that you benefit from.
You have a choice to not pay the taxes. I hear that Hartsfield Jackson provides you with many other alternatives to the United States of America. The government isn’t forcing you to stay or forcing you to pay the money for the services that you receive from them.
Here is a warning though. You will probably pay more whereever you go, and you will miss living in the greatest country in the history of the world. We won’t miss you one bit though.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
September 22nd, 2011
9:57 am
“No one deserves to get paid 1 million a year while other folks get 2000 a month. The government needs to take money from the very rich and give it to the rest of us.”
———–
Wow. The loser attitude is strong in that one.
malcor
September 22nd, 2011
10:00 am
If you know anyone that works for the government, it is no surprise that money is wasted. A relative of mine retired from a federal agency at 55 years old and is collecting more that $90,000/year plus full medical benefits (I should also add that he’s really not the sharpest knife in the drawer and wouldn’t last 1 week in a corporate environment). On top of the hefty pension, his federal government agency miscalculated the early retirement numbers and didn’t train enough younger people to backfill the retirees jobs. A year latter they hired my uncle back and a rate of $100,000/year. So this guy is double dipping (collecting a $90,0000/yr pension plus a $100,000/yr consultant fee). Instead of investing this $100,000 to a retiree, why didn’t this government agency use this train college graduates? Increasing/decreasings taxes is not the problem. There are hundreds of useless government agencies (outside of medicare and social security) that can be run more efficiently.
duder
September 22nd, 2011
10:02 am
the democracies of the 21st century have failed because “people have been led to believe that they could simply vote for whatever they wanted… and get it, without toil, without sweat, without tears.”
the red herring
September 22nd, 2011
10:02 am
everybody needs to pay a fair tax. the government needs to be “right-sized” so that money is no longer wasted. nobody should be “soaked”. until 80% of americans have some skin in the game the tax system will not be fair nor will enough people care about how efficiently their government is being run and they will not care about how many free loaders are on the take. CUT SPENDING, DOWNSIZE BLOATED FEDERAL AGENCIES and DEPARTMENTS. For every tax dollar increase there should be a minimum of $3 cut. the waste is there and a lot has already been identified. $16 donuts, $500 million loans to green energy companies who are bankrupt, and Cowboy poetry festivals should not be taxpayer backed. Face it both parties have done this to us and that is why the tea party has gained so much strength so quickly– “Taxed Enough Already” for sure.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 22nd, 2011
10:07 am
“The government is providing service for the tax money that you pay. You have a military, interstates, a functioning government, social security, and many other programs that you benefit from.”
Yes, they do, and NO ONE has claimed otherwise. You are simply deflecting from addressing the actual point, JF. As usual.
“The government isn’t . . . forcing you to pay the money for the services that you receive from them. ”
Really? Then I guess if I simply stop paying my taxes no one with a government-provided gun in their government-provide holster driving their government-provided cop car won’t be knocking at my door and eventually providing me housing in a government-provided jail, right, JF?
Oh, and what government should NOT do is pay $16 per muffin at any time. Not with MY money taken from me by the force you say does not exist.
malcor
September 22nd, 2011
10:07 am
I’m confused about the Obama/Buffet plan of increasing captial gains tax. How will this help the middle class? Most responsible middle class citizens have invested company 401Ks (through stocks), so increasing capital gains tax will only hurt middle class retirees and young people trying to save for their retirement. In addition, if capital gains from investments are taxed at a higher rate, why would people want to invest in US? Wouldn’t this hurt the overall economy if investors go elsewhere. How would that be good for growing jobs?
I’d love an Obama support to explain how increasing capital gains taxes will be good for middle class America???
the red herring
September 22nd, 2011
10:09 am
malcor–double dipping is happening in not just federal govt but state and local govt as well. it is a practice that should be outlawed. People who have worked for 30 or more years however and become friends with their bosses simply become more like “a family” and receive this special treatment. Human nature is what it is— still the chosen few or “pets” should not be allowed to do this unless for a very limited amount of time until a replacement can be trained or located (6 months tops).
Rafe Hollister
September 22nd, 2011
10:10 am
Kyle, good column, but you seem confused as to why Barry Oblamer keeps doubling down on his failed policies. You just need to listen to what he says and what he has written, social justice, is his primary focus. He realizes the people he is trying to help, the poor and uneducated, can not ever be on top in a true capitalist environment. The only way to insure equality for all is to bring the top down and bring the bottom up, but there is a limit to how far you can bring the bottom up quickly. It is much easier to bring the top down.
HDB
September 22nd, 2011
10:10 am
Dearie
September 22nd, 2011
9:48 am
“My question to you ~ How many people did you personally know that lost their jobs during the Bush years? – I personally knew no one. In the last three years I have 3 family members and countless friends who lost their jobs and have been looking diligently.”
To answer your query: I personally knew of over 100 people – not including MYSELF – who lost jobs during the Bush Years! We were casualties of 9/11; over 25,000 were laid off from United Airlines immediately after 9/11…and the preponderance of us weren’t able to find jobs for periods of up to and more than TWO YEARS! Meanwhile, many of us were able to find meaningful employment during the Obama years!!
It HAS gotten better….but not where it should be!! In order to change the direction of the ship of state….it takes TIME!!
Westside Guy
September 22nd, 2011
10:10 am
What I can’t figure out is how we have members of congress that were elected to serve the people who’s only priority is to make sure the Obama doesn’t get re-elected. If any of us were to make the failure of our peers or our executives our job’s priority, we’d be out of a job.
If you look at balancing the federal budget like you would balancing your personal budget, how many of you would look only at what expenses you could cut? Wouldn’t you also look at how you could make more money? I know of some folks who have taken on a 2nd job in order to make ends meet. They don’t squander on luxuries and they work as hard as they can as a family to make ends meet.
Our government is working as hard as they can to work against each other. One part insists that they can balance the budget by cutting spending while the other wants to do the equivalent of getting a 2nd job by raising taxes. The one thing that seems to be missing from the congress’ attempt to balance the budget is the entire concept of “balance.” There has to be some give and some take that makes the most sense and serves the people and the nation as fairly as possible.
The president appears to believe that by capitulating to all sides, he’ll help everyone get along. That only works when you’re dealing with rational people. Negotiating with the politicians (both currently in office and those running for office) is about as fruitful as trying to negotiate with a teenager. The teen doesn’t care enough about anything except getting what they want, regardless of whether it’s beneficial to them or their family. If you’ve ever had an difficult adolescent, you’ll see the comparisons. Facts and reality don’t matter. The only thing that matters is getting what they want.
It’s past time that our government (Congress & POTUS) figure out that if they only work for themselves and their party, the rest of the country is going to be left in the cold with no money, no education and no future.
malcor
September 22nd, 2011
10:13 am
It’s funny how people want to ‘force’ billonaires to share their wealth. The same supporters of Obama however are the stingy-est people on earth. Oprah and Warren Buffet alone could cover all the healthcare costs of Americans. Why don’t they step up and do that? That shows their true character…all talk and no action.
mom of 3
September 22nd, 2011
10:14 am
JF—–”small instances of waste?” Hahahahahahahahahahahaha! See Malcor @10AM. Also, my brother works for the government and in his annual review he was told to not work so hard. He was making everyone else look bad. What?!!!!! The millions and millions of dollars wasted annually on poor productivity is not a small instance of waste.
November 6, 2012
September 22nd, 2011
10:15 am
@mike “hussein” smith
September 22nd, 2011
9:50 am
November 6, 2012: Thank you for regurgitating that asinine column that you attribute to David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D., the right wing’s favorite philosopher. It leaves out a very BIG point: According to his official UGA website, “Contrary to Internet folklore, Dr. Kamerschen is NOT the author of “Tax Cuts: A Simple Lesson in Economics” or “Bar Stool Economics” or anything similar to that. Additionally, he does NOT know who wrote it and he has no opinion on its merits.” So quit spreading your lie.
You know “Mike”, I really don’t give a “Rat’s A** who wrote it, that’s not important. The reality is, “I believe it to be basically correct”; however, in your post you failed to refute “the reality”, instead, like most left wingers you chose to attack it for no reason at all. And, “It’s not my lie”, it was obviously written by someone, but not me. Now go back to your “Obama Fantasizing”.
HDB
September 22nd, 2011
10:15 am
Rafe Hollister
September 22nd, 2011
10:10 am
When Bush doubled down on his policies, the nation went into a major recession…and you did not complain!! It’s not that the poor and uneducated can’t get to the top in a capitalistic society….it’s that the FOUNDATION of a capitalistic society is only as strong as the WEAKEST among us! If the foundation isn’t sturdy, the society falls!! For those at the top, insulating thenselves from the issues of those beneath them will only generate further animosity!! Are you advocating a Darwinian society…for that’s where we’re on the verge of going……??
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 22nd, 2011
10:18 am
“You will probably pay more whereever you go, and you will miss living in the greatest country in the history of the world. ”
Why do people who claim this is the greatest country in the world (and it might still be) want to keep changing it, especially when their changes keep making things worse?
John
September 22nd, 2011
10:19 am
malcor @10:00 am
Everything you reported here happens in the private sector as well.
HDB
September 22nd, 2011
10:19 am
malcor
September 22nd, 2011
10:13 am
Are you doscounting the fact of the people who are EMPLOYED by Oprah, Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, et. al.? By their EMPLOYING people, they ARE covering health care costs of Americans! Note when Mark Cuban, Bill Gates, and Warren Buffett are advocating similar policies….there must be something to it….something that Republicans are in denial (not just up the river!)!
mom of 3
September 22nd, 2011
10:21 am
Amen, Malcor. The charitable giving for Obama in the years before he ran for office was pathetic. Now he gives more bc he knows the amount is being scrutinized, not because he wants to. Look it up Obama supporters.
HDB
September 22nd, 2011
10:22 am
Tiberius – Your lightning rod of hate!
September 22nd, 2011
10:18 am
Because even in the greatest entity, there are FLAWED policies…and many wish to eliminate the flaws, thereby making something great even GREATER!! Note that Theodore Roosevelt advocated for universal healthcare….and note that the US is the ONLY major industrialized nation WITHOUT such!! That is something to be considered, would yo think??
Dearie
September 22nd, 2011
10:24 am
I enjoy reading this column because it opens my mind to other’s knowledge and views. When you attack, not debate, you show your true colors. Personal attacks on the writer are juvenile. To the few that write on that level ~ raise your game. Your ignorance is showing.
Benjamin Franklin said it best “Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do”
MarkV
September 22nd, 2011
10:26 am
Tiberius September @9:31 am: “It is rather amazing that Kyle would think that people should be interested in what he does not know.” “And yet, you’re here posting about it.”
Your non sequitur is rather glaring.
Joe the Plutocrat
September 22nd, 2011
10:29 am
malcor, put down the Kool-Aid. increasing capital gains will not “help the middle class” because helping the middle class is not the goal. it will INCREASE REVENUE which (in theory) will ALLOW THE US TO PAY DOWN ITS DEBT. get it? there will also need to be spending cuts and a more feasible approach to the budget process, but your post reflects the “class warfare” nonsense being proferred by the right.
UGA 1999
September 22nd, 2011
10:31 am
Raise Taxes? He will continue to spend our childrens future on useless programs….GREAT JOB PREZ!!