Now that Obama has figured out the reason behind income inequality is because the rich dont pay enough taxes can someone on the left please explain this to me: How would your life be better if someone who earned more money than you had to pay an extra 5-10% in taxes? How do "rich" peoples income tax rates hold you back? How much will the average private sector wage go up by once we decide to raise taxes on "the rich?" Seems that just like everything else he has done, Obama is long on rhetoric, and short on substance.
If you do the math, doubling tax rates on the top 20 percent of income earners takes the deficit down a shade, to 7% GDP (from 10% GDP, where we stand today). Under that scenario, the upper middle class would pay roughly 60-80% of their total income in taxes (local, state, federal). That's a roundabout way of saying Obama's fixation with class-warfare is nothing but a gigantic political distraction, and a rally cry to his idiot base ahead of the November election. The real issues this Constitutional Law Professor would rather not discuss are the mountains of Police State legislation he signed under his watch, the shitty economy, the exploding debt, and the massive expansion of wars. I think Obama broke every one of his campaign promises on that front, but that's not the issue. "The issue" is Buffet pays 15% (of 2 Billion), and Joe the Plumber pays 30% (of 40 grand). Yea, that'll fix everything. "Fairness".
Yeah, thats the math im doing, and it appears even if we completely soak the rich it will only take about 400 billion a year off the deficit. Its funny cause dems are pitching this as if its going to be money in everyone else's pocket if we really put the screws to the people who are making the most money, but realistically it isnt even going to put a dent in the deficit. The far left keeps bitching about how tax cuts supposedly caused income inequality, but they cant seem to tell us how private sector wages would be higher today if we taxed the shit out of the rich. So since we already know that wages arent going to go up as a result of higher taxes, we can safely assume the left is just trying to argue to bring the people on the top down, through punitive tax measues. Even if it does nothing to bring up lower class wages, and it does nothing to improve their lifestyle, they still want to see rich people pay out money, cause it brings us closer to everyone having the same amount. This is so typical of left wing thinking, instead of trying to bring everyone up, the plan is just to bring the people on the top down...... we can lower everyones standard of living and have a real fucking liberal utopia.
You can logic your way anywhere. Clinton did try this, and soaked the rich to pay off the debt. Thought it would take 30 years to work. Got us making money in 3 if I remember right, and clearly working our way to solvency. So the rich hated paying... what proved to be to much, to fast. And will do and say and believe anything that will go to not doing that again! We should pay more, but in a balanced way. IMO. And I voted for Nixon and Regan. Sure did not like W. But they tell me to shut up at republican meetings. Just an opinion. I like government, even big government, just think we should have the most efficent one in the world. Just a goal. ....errrrrr maybe less likely than not running a public debt? [I don't mind paying so much if I thought at the same time governement was becoming more efficent. Those ideas don't even seem to remotely go together right now]
The numbers under Clinton were nowhere near the level they are today. You really need to understand what you're talking about before you talk about it.
There is so much noise... it's hard to sort out. My point was just that Clinton's people were off by a factor of 10, using the numbers at the time. And they over reacted. Your point is well taken tho, and I don't claim to know much... or to trust the numbers... now or then!
Clinton was voted in on the recovery to the 90-91 recession, which was followed by a decade of cheap money and aggressive credit growth. That culminated in the tech bubble, spiked revenues (read: surplus years), the NASDAQ crash, and the recession GW inherited when he took office. Clinton had the good fortune of timing - both in respect to when he became President, when he left, and overall household leverage, at the time. IOW, most of his economic good fortune was not his own doing. Had Clinton remained in office, those surpluses in the late 90's would have been erased by the deficits GW ran, to soften the NASDAQ crash (which Clinton created). So the point is rather moot, in regards to "taxing the rich = surpluses". It's totally not the case, and you're conflating a whole other slew of variables with the two you're most concerned with. Fundamentally, the economy is far worse off than the 90's - from a consumer leverage standpoint, real estate, stocks and employment/offshoring. That is to say, the economy can't really "take" more headwind, in terms of higher taxes on the rich. And like Max pointed out, token hikes amount to diddly-squat, in terms of paying down the deficit. The real problems are structural, and began long before Clinton took office. Basically, America ran deficits since the early 80's to prop declining GDP from offshoring and speculative recessions. Clinton added +200 billion to the national debt, after 8 years. So relative to the recent gang of shitheads, he looks great. In absolute terms, he's no hero. Again, even couching the discussion in political terms exaggerates the influence the average economically-illiterate President has over the economy. America needs a President who understands which policies spur wealth creation and destruction. Most people on this trading board don't know what they are.
Dose the public at large know enough to vote in such a president? If the people on ET are so incapable of understanding? ...not an incouraging thought! But thank you, I do think your points are well taken.
You nailed it. It's class warfare. Feel-goodism bullshit. What's absent from this discussion, is the fact taxes are wealth destructive because they reduce the incentives to succeed (money). That's the whole reason capitalism works in the first place (private agents acting in their own self-interest, together, for profit). So when taxes are raised on the rich - who happen to create most of our jobs - the rich work less, start fewer businesses, and expand fewer businesses. The result is job destruction. Obama doesn't talk about that, but that's how it works, even if it is only incremental. And if it's only incremental, there's no point in having the discussion. haha