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
mom of 3
September 22nd, 2011
10:31 am
John @ 10:19. I don’t get your point. If I know a private sector company is behaving unethically, I can choose to not do business with them. Not so with the government. It takes my money and down the toilet it goes. People like JF can mock expensive cookies and muffins all day long, but it does not change the fact that the money for the muffins came from a hard working tax payer.
Halftrack
September 22nd, 2011
10:36 am
Obummer in his speech recently said it was about Math as the answer to our problem. If anyone has looked at the (O’Reilly Factor) the last 2 nights would see exactly how the Math comes out. The rich are paying most of the Income Taxes now. The 14 Trillion dollar + debt is the real problem. The fear most Americans have now is that our Congress is afraid to act for the Common Good of all Americans. Congress has got to get over their own paranoia.
HDB
September 22nd, 2011
10:38 am
mom of 3
September 22nd, 2011
10:21 am
Have you considered that Obama’s *disposable* income has increased to a level that he CAN give more to charity!!??
UGA 1999
September 22nd, 2011
10:40 am
Obama is a liar!!
Dearie
September 22nd, 2011
10:41 am
HDB 10:10 am
I am truly sorry you lost your job. It is not just my family and friends that I am concerned for, it is everyone who has to deal with losing their employment, their home and often their pride.
Please clear up for me your dateline. 9/11 did greatly effect employment, but it was in 2001 and two years later when you found work was 2003. I am grateful that you and others were able to find work. But in the ensuing years 2003 – 2011 tell me about their job history. Did all of them continue to work in those jobs or were some let go due to the economy, and are again looking for work. The numbers reflect the latter.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 22nd, 2011
10:41 am
“Because even in the greatest entity, there are FLAWED policies…and many wish to eliminate the flaws, thereby making something great even GREATER!!”
Except as noted, the changes you and others advocate are making things WORSE, HDB. This country is in a DECLINE, not an ascendancy. As the size and scope of our government increases, our decline as a nation follows suit.
“Note that Theodore Roosevelt advocated for universal healthcare….and note that the US is the ONLY major industrialized nation WITHOUT such!!”
Your point being . . .?
“That is something to be considered, would yo think??”
No.
UGA 1999
September 22nd, 2011
10:44 am
Tiberius….nice post.
John
September 22nd, 2011
10:44 am
mom of 3,
“If I know a private sector company is behaving unethically, I can choose to not do business with them. ”
Do you do any business in the financial industry? Bank accounts? Investments? Do you have any debit or credit cards? Do you have health insurance? Private industries do unethical things all the time and not just 1 or 2 companies but entire industry sectors.
“It takes my money and down the toilet it goes. ”
I see that all the time in private companies all the time. And as far as the cookies and muffins…how many millions are given to executives in bonuses and such even as those executives are running their companies into the ground and workers are being laid off?
UGA 1999
September 22nd, 2011
10:46 am
John…..and you think executives set their own salaries and bonuses?
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
September 22nd, 2011
10:50 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.
———
Let me help you with that.
When Obozo loses, Americans win.
And I’m not implying that Obozo isn’t an American, I’m saying he isn’t an American. There’s more to being an American than having a birth certificate. Obozo hates his current country of residence.
MarkV
September 22nd, 2011
10:50 am
mom of 3 @10:31 am “If I know a private sector company is behaving unethically, I can choose to not do business with them. Not so with the government. It takes my money and down the toilet it goes.”
In what fantasy do you live? What is one of the most successful companies in this country: ATT. What is a company in that field people complain most about? ATT. What is the biggest or one of the biggest banks? Bank of America. What bank has been shown most to behave unethically? Bank of America.
And the money the government takes from you goes down to toilet? Are you using highways, air traffic? Do you get benefit from scientific research? Would you refuse government help if natural disaster struck you? Do you mind being defended by the military?
UGA 1999
September 22nd, 2011
10:51 am
Barry….nice post. The fact is that many of the member of congress were elected into their positions to get rid of Barack.
John
September 22nd, 2011
10:54 am
Halftrack
“If anyone has looked at the (O’Reilly Factor) the last 2 nights would see exactly how the Math comes out. The rich are paying most of the Income Taxes now. ”
One thing you conveniently left out (which I’m sure O’Reilly left out as well) is who is taking home most of the income. Give me several million dollars and year and I’d gladly pay more in income taxes than someone making $30,000. You also are not looking at the disparity of income between the working class and executives…executive pay has risen hugely over the last 20-30 years while working class wages have pretty much stayed stagnant.
UGA 1999
September 22nd, 2011
10:56 am
John…..why are you so against someone being successful in this country? How about earning (not giving) several million dollars per year. Also how many employees do these millionaires employ?
Also, if everyones wage increases, what does that do to the value of the dollar in our country? Not internationally, just within our borders?
redneckbluedog
September 22nd, 2011
10:56 am
Taxes increased->->Deficit will go down->->Jobs will be created….That’s about it…Lots of BABY BOOMERS retiring anyway..Taxes are going to HAVE to go up, regardless…
The question AFTER the tax increase is: HOW MUCH SPENDING DOES THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT TO CUT…The BABY BOOMERS WON’T cut Social Security or Medicare…that only leaves defense, basically….I personally wouldn’t object to a defense spending FREEZE…any more than that would start costing jobs….It is time to stop subsidizing energy…renewables are basically, at this point, on a level playing field with oil and gas….We’re going to HAVE to study coal, because oil will be gone in 47.4 years and nat. gas in 74.7 years……
HDB
September 22nd, 2011
10:56 am
Dearie
September 22nd, 2011
10:41 am
As per your request:
I lost my job at United Airlines on 9/25/2001…..and wasn’t able to find a job until Decembe 1, 2003…..and I LOST $20K in compensation! Lost my job again in 4/5/2005…and didn’t find a job until 5/13/2009!!
Many of my friends didn’t find employment fro 9/11 until 2006…and they losy over 70% of their compensation until Obama came into office…now they are comparable to the levels they were in 2001! They were let go due to the economy immediatelt after 9/11….and have yet returned to that level! As for me, I returned to the level I was in 1998…not the 2001 level I had attained PRIOR to Bush’s inauguration!!
Tiberius – Your lightning rod of hate!
September 22nd, 2011
10:41 am
The nation is in decline because some policies that have been invoked…by BOTH sides of the political spectrum…have not been the best for the nation! Cutting educational spending isn’t good for the nation in that we will NOT be developing the workforce needed for the next decades; ignoring health care costs and denying coverage for those with “pre-existing conditions” is just heartless! Tax cuts tht allow businesses to offshore jobs while paying NO taxes leads to the descent; getting into TWO wars and NOT increasing taxes to pay for them as previous administrations have done is absurd!! Not linking welfare spending to education and job training is ridiculous!!
“Note that Theodore Roosevelt advocated for universal healthcare….and note that the US is the ONLY major industrialized nation WITHOUT such!!”
Your point being . . .?”
The point is IF UHC had been invoked during Teddy Roosevelt’s term, we may not have reached the point where we are now……it would have been a part of a better..and LESS EXPENSIVE safety net!! That IS something to consider!!!
The point is this:
John
September 22nd, 2011
10:57 am
UGA 1999
“John…..and you think executives set their own salaries and bonuses?”
Boards do…and who sits on the boards? Their friends…executives sits on the boards of each others’ companies.
UGA 1999
September 22nd, 2011
10:58 am
redneck…please tell me how increasing taxes “creates jobs”?
UGA 1999
September 22nd, 2011
10:59 am
John…..you are all about conspiracy theories arent you. WHO ARE THE BOARD? MAJOR SHAREHOLDERS WHO OWN A STAKE IN THE SUCCESS OF THE COMPANY AND THE EXECUTIVE!!!
redneckbluedog
September 22nd, 2011
10:59 am
Nice article, though, Kyle…Intelligent and thoughtful….You really separated yourself from idealogical idiots like UGA 1999 and John and Lil’ Barry Bailout….
DawgDad
September 22nd, 2011
10:59 am
“I don’t agree with those who think his intention is to destroy the economy or ruin the country.”
Doesn’t matter if that’s his lead intention or not, he and the his socialist backers are doing it. Frankly, I think he and the left are all about take-take-take, as much as they can get away with. He’s led a still on-going open-season raid on the US Treasury and an open assault on our freedoms Constitutional protections; what his intentions are matter little to those of us on the hook for the bill.
HDB
September 22nd, 2011
11:01 am
Lil’ Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
September 22nd, 2011
10:50 am
When Bush won, Americans lost.
That was as evident as Listerine kills bad breath! If you start from 9/11, two wars, job losses…..and end with a financial meltdown (whose origins can be traced to the 80s S&L Scandal…and his brother Neil)…the body of work speaks volumes. In order to correct this downfall, President Obama and Congress had to change policy direction! For some, it HAS been an improvement!
UGA 1999
September 22nd, 2011
11:02 am
redneck….”idiots”…that is all you can come up with? NICE!
redneckbluedog
September 22nd, 2011
11:02 am
Uhhh…you take the tax money and create jobs….have you READ the American Jobs Act..!?!?! Pretty straight forward…..UNLIKE cutting taxes for CEO’s and millionares and BEGGING them to create some $12 an hour jobs…..That makes NO sense!!!!! We’ve been doing that for 10 years and the unemployment rate is over 9%….You need to give up on your TAX CUT FREE MARKET UTOPIAN FANTASY…The truth is 1% of the population holds 40% of the wealth…NO JOBS…10% holds 70%…STILL NO JOBS….Atlas can’t shrug…CEO’s and millionares are hoarding up his capital..!!!!!!
redneckbluedog
September 22nd, 2011
11:03 am
Not just idiots, that would be banal…….IDEALOGICAL idiots…..
UGA 1999
September 22nd, 2011
11:04 am
redneck….and you really think that is going to create long term jobs? At what cost? If it costs the American people $400k to hire someone to lay asphalt….is that a good idea?
There is more of your “hate the rich” crap. Jealous eh?
John
September 22nd, 2011
11:04 am
UGA 1999
Show me anywhere in my post where I said I’m against someone being successful?
Rafe Hollister
September 22nd, 2011
11:05 am
HDB
The only recession I remember from the GWB era began in about 2007, with the housing bubble bust. He was not in office long enough to develop strategies for pulling us out of that. No one can say, he would or wouldn’t, but I believe we would have been in better shape today had a strong Republican been elected in 2008. Barry has taken a falling economy and made it much worse. The worst unemployment rate under Bush was less than 7%. Barry would love to have that rate today.
Any Yes, I am for a Darwanian society, let the productive and successful lead us out of this mess. We need to quit weighing them down and hindering their progress. A rising tide lifts all boats as Reagan said.
UGA 1999
September 22nd, 2011
11:05 am
Redneck…..again you might as well start slinging the “I am rubber you are glue” banter. I wouldnt expect anything more from you.
dbell
September 22nd, 2011
11:06 am
@ ScottSmith There are so many frauds that took place with the mortgages. The government (Barney Frank and posse) felt that everyone should be able to own a home. This wasn’t feasible. I know of teachers in the DC area (both husband and wife were teachers) making around $100,000 together who were given loans on homes of $550,000 with no money down. They were only paying interest and were banking on the home rising in value to be able to get a traditional mortgage. Their credit was horrible and their credit cards were maxed out. I am not a banker, just a teacher turned housewife, but I wouldn’t lend money, especially that amount, to them or many of the other people that were given homes.
The stock market is down today. How many people know that the bets for the stock market tanking are greater than those of the stock market increasing? There is just something about that that makes me think that even if the stock market wasn’t going to crash it will now.
Pensions are tied to the stock market. There isn’t money sitting in bank drawing interest, it’s been invested in the stock market. If the stock market tanks, those on pensions will most likely lose them, as there isn’t enough money to pay the pensions that people were promised. First, people aren’t putting in enough money, and second the values of money in the pension depend on the stock market which hasn’t done very well over the past few years. There is no possible way that teachers who are getting $70,000 a year in pensions are going to be able to get their money. I took my money out of the pension funds in the states that I worked in to put in a retirement account of my own. The combined totals were less than $35,000 with a combined 16 years of teaching. This makes no sense to me, how in 15 more years, I was going to get the pensions promised in these states. I am not the best at math, but it just doesn’t add up to me.
HDB
September 22nd, 2011
11:06 am
UGA 1999
September 22nd, 2011
10:58 am
“redneck…please tell me how increasing taxes “creates jobs”?”
Let me approach your query from this vantagepoint:
By closing loopholes and increasing taxes, an entity would work towards finding the most effective methods to REDUCE their tax liability. By HIRING more employees, the labor costs would summarily REDUCE their tax liability. The incentive to hire MORE people would be increased, the tax base would be BROADENED….and EVERYONE’S taxes could decline!!
UGA 1999
September 22nd, 2011
11:06 am
John…..all of your rhetoric regarding executives making too much money. Should there be some limit to how much any one person can earn in america?
John
September 22nd, 2011
11:08 am
UGA 1999
Why are you against the working class and poor in this country? Don’t you think the working class deserve enough income to feed and clothe their families as well as put a roof over their heads? Do you think the working class should be thrown out on the streets due to being laid off and unable to find a job through no fault of their own?
UGA 1999
September 22nd, 2011
11:08 am
HDB….I own two businesses and your math is way off. IF you are going to raise my taxes I am going to hire less and raise the price of my goods and services. Doing much more damage to the economy.
John
September 22nd, 2011
11:09 am
UGA 1999
Do yourself a favor and look at corporate boards…google those members and see if they are executives themselves in other companies.
UGA 1999
September 22nd, 2011
11:11 am
John…..where did I say I am against the working class. I am ALL for ALL american workers. From ditch diggers to CEO’s.
You use the word “deserve”….I dont believe in that word. I believe a person gets what he earns in life. From work to education. This is why I am against entitlement programs.
UGA 1999
September 22nd, 2011
11:11 am
John…..I am sure they are. No problem with me.
HDB
September 22nd, 2011
11:14 am
Rafe Hollister
September 22nd, 2011
11:05 am
“A rising tide lifts all boats as Reagan said.”
That was JFK, not Reagan…..
“The only recession I remember from the GWB era began in about 2007, with the housing bubble bust.” Not quite….a recession hit right BEFORE 9/11….and those who were LAID OFF as a result of 9/11 (as I was) were caught in the crossfire!! The IT bubble began to burst in June, 2001!!
If you check your history, it’s been evident that Republicans have been behind the majority of the nation’s economic downfalls!! The S&L Crisis of the 80s, the repeal of Glass-Stegall, Taepot Dome — these are REPUBLICAN ideologies that led to the current decline!! The aspect of a Darwinian society that you aren’t looking at is the increase of negative behavior (crime, death……). A nation is only as strong as the weakest among us!
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 22nd, 2011
11:14 am
“Cutting educational spending isn’t good for the nation in that we will NOT be developing the workforce needed for the next decades;”
I have yet to see where ANY spending on education has been cut, HDB. In fact, its risen exponentially over the years and we have dumber people to show for it.
They’re called “liberals”.
John
September 22nd, 2011
11:16 am
Rafe Hollister
“He was not in office long enough to develop strategies for pulling us out of that. ”
Noticed the strategies he started developing….STIMULUS, which John McCain left the campaign trail to fly to DC to claim part ownership of. The same STIMULUS which John Boner cried on the House floor begging Republicans to pass. It was STIMULUS bailing out Wall Street…the same strategies Obama continued and expanded on which Republican now denigrate.
UGA 1999
September 22nd, 2011
11:16 am
HDB….”A nation is only as stong as the weakest among us”…..THAT IS EXACTLY WHY OBAMA MUST GO!
HDB
September 22nd, 2011
11:17 am
UGA 1999
September 22nd, 2011
11:08 am
Question: Isn’t the decision to hire more contingent upon the DEMAND for your services….not the tax burden…and wouldn’t your tax burden DECREASE if you hired MORE since your labor costs would decrease your taxable income???
I’m not advocating hiring for hiring’s sake…but the motivation to hire is not just based on taxes alone!!
UGA 1999
September 22nd, 2011
11:17 am
John….yeah and we are still at 9.2% unemployment! Great job Barack!
UGA 1999
September 22nd, 2011
11:18 am
HDB….actually NO….it is the Demand of your services and the cost of doing business.
John
September 22nd, 2011
11:19 am
dbell
“The government (Barney Frank and posse) felt that everyone should be able to own a home. ”
Isn’t is George W. Bush and Republicans who kept and continue to keep calling for an ownership society? It’s the derivative market (lack of regulations) that took the financial industry much further down…remember AIG, ect.?
HDB
September 22nd, 2011
11:20 am
UGA 1999
September 22nd, 2011
11:16 am
Obama is FAR from being the weakest among us; if one reviews Michele Bachmann (as I have when I lived in Minnesota)…or Rick Perry..or Herman Cain….or Mitt Romney…or the Tea Party…..the weakness seems to be SPREAD…..
The devil I know is better than the devil I DON’T!!
UGA 1999
September 22nd, 2011
11:21 am
John….an ownership society does not mean everyone should own a home. It means they should take ownership of their decisions and lives.
John
September 22nd, 2011
11:22 am
dbell
“The government (Barney Frank and posse) felt that everyone should be able to own a home. This wasn’t feasible. I know of teachers in the DC area (both husband and wife were teachers) making around $100,000 together who were given loans on homes of $550,000 with no money down.”
Did Barney Frank sign the contracts to approve these loans? By saying everyone should be able to own a home does not mean everyone should own a $550,000 home when they cannot afford it. Is was not Barney Frank doing the background checks, income checks, etc and approving these loans.
RCH
September 22nd, 2011
11:23 am
What a fool,
Giving the government more money to spend. This is like placing a cocaine addict in a locked room full of cocaine and asking him to escape.
These millionaires and billionaires make up only .02% of taxpayers but pay over 35% of tax revenue. While you are at it go ahead and take all there money. It will not make a difference in the long term on the deficit. How about the other 50% that pay NO federal income tax. When are they going to pay their far share.
We need the fair tax. Everyone pays when they purchase goods and services, coupled with a balanced budget amendment.(This would also do away with the IRS.Wounder what the savings would be here.
HDB
September 22nd, 2011
11:24 am
UGA 1999
September 22nd, 2011
11:18 am
…and doesn’t the cost of doing business decline when the demand increases….thereby increasing profit…thereby creating incentive to expand…..which decreases costs of expansion…which increases labor requirements….which decreases tax liability…??
I’ve heard from too many businessmen that the tax liability is NOT a majority factor in hiring practices…….