Taxes on the rich already gone...

It's a good thing we got those rich bastards to pay their fair share...

Remember Obama's tax hikes on the rich to pay debt? He's already spent every penny:

It's a good thing our federal government is going on a strict spending diet to curb its out-of-control borrowing. Otherwise, the latest piece of spending legislation passed Monday worth more than $50 billion might have been substantial.

Good grief! Remember -- how can any of us forget? -- that long, hard fight President Obama just staged to squeeze more taxes out of wealthy Americans?
The top 2% wealthiest already pay 45% of the taxes. But Democrat Obama felt they needed to pay their "fair share," despite the risks that new taxation presents to creating real jobs for the rest of us, Obama already being employed for the next 1,452 days. But who's counting?

The Real Big Spender is off to Las Vegas this morning for a $1.5 million-plus photo op day-trip to sell his immigration reform ideas to a select audience that already likes it.

For weeks Obama traveled the country telling anyone who would listen and some who'd rather not that he's so absolutely positively determined to cut America's $16.4 trillion national debt that he did so much to grow. And he was insistent on milking money from the rich to do just that.

Well, guess what? That $50.4 billion spending bill for, among other things Hurricane Sandy aid, just ate up every single penny of that tax hike for this year, plus another $10 billion. That will go on the debt tab that the $40 billion in new taxes were supposed to start trimming slightly this fiscal year.

Obama is so happy about this new spending that he issued a special statement. Of course, he whined that the spending took so long -- Wow, almost an entire month since the Republican House hesitated and then the Senate had to fight over filibusters.

But Obama promised that he would sign the bill "as soon as it hits my desk."

The three governors of New Jersey, New York and Connecticut -- all Democrats, although Chris Christie used to feign conservatism -- issued a joint statement, also complaining about Washington legislators thinking twice about spending that much of China's money.

They did express appreciation for the charity and especially thanked their congressional delegations for their "tenacious efforts" to get the money for the populous Democrat Northeast to rebuild.

Now, everyone sympathizes with those impacted by Sandy's devastation. And a growing number also sympathize with the pathetic response of Obama's FEMA, although for some reason the media was quicker to pick up on FEMA's Katrina failures under President Bush.

Source

 

Golly gosh, this a sneaky attempt to refer to supply-side economics (despite it being a complete failure and really about 'trickle-up' inefficiency)

 

Call it what you want. Anyone with half a brain knew the tax increase on the rich would generate about 8 1/2 days of government operation.

 

So you're not concerned that they're utilising theory that has shown to be complete pants?

 

Speaking of Hurricane Katrina, has anyone noticed that certain "finger pointers" are now having the fingers pointed at them?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/18/new-orleans-mayor-ray-nagin/1845617/

 

I don't care about your theory. Simple math is all I need.

 

My theory? Don't be silly! Its the theory used in the article that you've used. Its a shame you're unaware of what it says

 

I don't care. Simple math proves that the tax increase on the rich generated minimal revenue.

 

You don't care that you're using articles based on fluff? Okaydokes.

Simple maths, via the laffer curve, informs us that taxes need to be increased further.

 

You could tax all you want. The spending is the problem.

 

You don't seem to have an argument. You started by using a poor article that made bogus claim. You've now realised that tax increases are actually supported through right wing concepts such as the laffer curve. You've therefore had to shift to spending comment, not realising the stupidity of making spending cuts during economic downturn

 

Tax increases during a recession is complete idiocy.

 

General tax increases can be (which you don't have here). Even then you have to be careful, as shown by the balanced budget multiplier (i.e. we cannot make an evaluation until we've understood the fiscal policy choice made)

 

As long as the Democrats blamed the rich for the problems, their class warfare worked (got them re-elected). Now that they have the tax increase that was supposed to balance the budget, and it doesn't come close.

Obviously, it was worse than they thought......

 

Class warfare should refer to the creation of exploitative relations which hinders individual opportunity. You're abusing the term. The creation of 'zero sum game' limitations reflects the nature of the economic paradigm, not the political repercussions and the marginal impact on party politics

 

I don't think they think.

 

What a lying bunch of crap. Just the kind of bull(*)(*)(*)(*) we expect from Investors daily.

 

What numbers do you come up with for the top 2%.

 

I agree. According to CBS:

In 2009, according to IRS data,
The top-earning 1 percent of households paid 36.73 percent of all federal income taxes.
The top 5 percent paid 58.66 percent of all federal income taxes,
the top 10 percent paid 70.47 percent of all income taxes,
the top 25 percent paid 87.3 percent,
the top 50 percent paid 97.75 percent,
and the remaining 2.25 percent of federal income taxes were paid by the bottom 50 percent.

 

If you're not referring to marginal rates, what good are you?

 

You think? What "simple math" proves that?

I'm anxious to see it.

- - - Updated - - -

We are spending proportionately less than in some Reagan years.

Revenues are proportionately at their lowest levels in 6 decades.

How does that make it spending the problem?

 

How so? Taxes were at just 26% during the first three years of the GD when the economy tanked 30%. A tax increase was passed in 1932 raising the top rate from 26% to 63%, and by 1933 the economy turned and by 1934 was growing strongly with that tax increase.

When is a tax increase not "complete idiocy" in your view?

 

The top 5% don't even pay 45% of all taxes. According to the CBO, the top 39.6% of all taxes was paid by the top 5%. And that includes an allocated share of corporate taxes, which they don't pay.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43373-Supplemental_Tables_Final.xls

- - - Updated - - -

Fascinating. But that is only income taxes, which comprise far less than half of taxes paid.

 

Not according to Wikipedia (for 2010).

Payroll $865B, 40%
Income $899B, 41%
Corporate $191B, 9%
Excise, Estate, & Other $208B, 10%

Borrowing, $1,300B, 60%

 

The tax increases for the "rich" beginning this year generated about 8 and 1/2 days of government operation. It is already gone.

Spending is at record levels. Obama has spent more money than any Human in history.

- - - Updated - - -

When people have jobs, businesses are hiring steadily, and sepnding is under control. That's when...maybe.