Robbing the Rich

Tait Trussell is a national award-winning writer, former vice-president of the American Enterprise Institute and former Washington correspondent for The Wall Street Journal.


Pages: 1 2

Taxation is as much about ideology as it is about income. President Obama and liberal Democrats who control Congress are obsessed with an anti-wealth, anti-business philosophy. They can’t seem to control it—like someone who is demon-possessed. This mindset was revealed clearly by Obama when he departed from his teleprompter last April in a speech in Quincy, Illinois, about Wall Street reform. He said: “I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money.” Obama’s own income according to his tax 1040 for 2009 was $5,505,409. Maybe that’s more than enough for him.

In October of 2008, when Obama was campaigning in Toledo, Ohio, he was approached by Joe Wurzelbacher (Joe the Plumber) who asked Obama if he believed in the American dream. He said he was concerned if Obama was going to raise his taxes and told Obama he wanted to buy a company. It was then that Obama made clear his socialist leanings, telling Joe that he was planning to raise taxes to “spread the wealth around.” Ever since cartoonists started drawing “the rich” as fat guys smoking big cigars, top earners have been under siege from the Left.

Today, what is particularly occupying the minds of America’s earners and producers who make the country grow is the maddening mist of uncertainty over what the tax laws will be after the end of this year. That’s when the so-called Bush cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 are due to expire.

Paul Krugman, The New York Times columnist and demigod of the left wing, maintains America “wouldn’t be as cash-strapped” if politicians “were willing to consider at least some tax increases” rather than preserving “tax cuts for the very affluent, at a budget cost of $700 billion over the next decade;…when we give millionaires more money…there’s a good chance that most of that money will just sit idle.” But being a Nobel Prize winner and professor of economics and international affairs at Princeton doesn’t give him eternal wisdom.

The notion that if tax cuts on the very rich expire, there will automatically be a $700 billion return to the Treasury is wrong, according to the Tax Foundation, which has been analyzing taxes since 1978. “People change their behavior when faced with starkly lower tax rates. They earn more money, which generates more tax revenue. Just how much is hard to estimate.”

The anti-wealth, anti-business line of attack of the Obama administration targets Americans earning more than $200,000 a year or $250,000 for couples. But as Ralph Reiland, in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review writes:

An analysis of IRS data for 2007 shows the top 1 percent of income earners receiving 22.8 percent of income and paying 40.4 percent of all federal income taxes. Similarly, the top 5 percent of income earners received 37 percent of total income and paid 60.6 percent of all federal income taxes. In short, the top 1 percent of income earners paid more of the total federal income tax bill than the bottom 96 percent of income earners…Obama doesn’t talk about these numbers….He fails to acknowledge that our current lack of job creation is directly linked to American businesses sitting on nearly $2 trillion in cash, reluctant to invest and expand in the anti-business, anti-rich, high-tax environment….

A fatal flaw in Obama’s world of taxes is that he has forgotten about a major principle of American taxation—graduation. Why should the $250,000 figure apply to both the hard-working businessman and those such as LaBron James, who have atmospheric wealth? Where is the idea of a graduated tax when it comes to the rich of all measures?

One of the major arguments for retaining the Bush tax cuts has been that a large portion of well-to-do small businesses provide the nation’s jobs. A continuing dispute among the political class rages over whether small business is a major source of jobs and to what extent small business people are well-off enough to be beholden to Obama’s arbitrary tax rates. The Department of Labor says the nation’s 17 million small, non-farm businesses constitute 99.7 percent of all employers, employed 52 percent of the private workforce, and accounted for 51 percent of the nation’s sales. Small business-dominated industries provided 11.1 million new jobs between 1994 and 1998, virtually all of the new jobs created during that time period. “Small businesses ….provide 67 percent of first jobs and produce 55 percent of innovations.” Also, “40 percent of home-based businesses” happen to be operated by people with disabilities.

Pages: 1 2

  • http://www.tarandfeathers.shugartmedia.com Tar_n_Feathers

    Oh for God's sake, Krugman, get off it. Just give me one example where "we give millionaires more money." What money is that? Where did it come from? What was the nature of the transaction? Ignorance and stupidity is one thing. Doing it on purpose is the stock and trade of the Left. If you can pretend that you don't understand economics, then I suppose you can't be held responsible for the destructive consequences of your kicked-in-the-head ideas.

  • tanstaafl

    So if the Prez thinks that 5.5 mill is enough…………….well, I can't say I'll ever come close to earning that…………unless I run for public office.

    • MsJuJuB

      Too late for that. The citizens of Bell, California purged all of their high flying Democrat City "leaders" renamed as the thieves that took the city for tens of millions in salaries and benefit packages. Sorry T, I did not mean to imply that you are a Democrat. That would be insulting and uncalled for. Love the outfit.

  • USMCSniper

    In the words of Hank Reardan, which I agree with: work for nothing but my own profit — which I make by selling a product they need to men who are willing and able to buy it. … I do not sacrifice my interests to them nor do they sacrifice theirs to me; we deal as equals by mutual consent to mutual advantage — and I am proud of every penny that I have earned in this manner. . . . I refuse to apologize for my ability — I refuse to apologize for my success — I refuse to apologize for my money – and you can only have if you seize it by force.".

    • Your Best Nightmare

      Whomever this Hank person is, he sounds like the usual Neo-Con drivel. I can do what I want to whoever I want, how I want. Selfish, stupid, sociopathic ideals seem to always come from the usual stooges.

      • American thinker

        Try reading an amazing book called ATLAS SHRUGGED and learning where your inane ideas come from Mr. Mooch. You and your ilk TAKE from people who produce in the name of fake concerns for "the people" until there are no earners left to support you.

        IDIOT, your not anyone's best anything, just another parrot who knows not what he talks about.

        • Your Best Nightmare

          OMG, LOL, Atlas Shrugged? No wonder the ideas sounded so nutty. Ok, you and your "selfishness is god" people can go hang together in your little "gulch".

          • USMCSniper

            Ah wet dream's little brother "Your Best Nightmare" doth gain self esteem by ridiucle of his betters. "He spews forth the equivalent of "Mommy I throwed mud on them, so there."

  • WilliamJamesWard

    I have nothing to apologize for or is that nothing for which to apologize.
    If I had all of the money sunk into social security and medicare and the interest
    it would have brought me I would be rich. the investments I could have had the
    nicer things in life, the encouragement of seeing, having and using what I earned,
    it would have been sweet. When you look into the government funds banks and
    see IOU notes from the Congress and think what that could have meant to you
    and your's it is sickening and the sickening class of government crooks want
    more and will squeeze it out of you until you are dead and then rob the corpse.
    One day the people will have had enough, maybe November……………..William

  • blotto

    Look if the Dems want taxes, how come they NEVER talk about wealth taxes? Why is tax talk always about income taxes?

    With a wealth tax the truly wealthy albeit most of which are progressives would pay their fair share and the small business owner would pay less. This means the small business owner could expand his company and hire more workers.

    Does Soros need all his money? Gates? Buffett? How about LeBron paying 40% of his wealth in taxes back to those who need it? What is so wrong with a wealth tax?

    After all it is the progressive uber wealthy who want to do good with their money. Well here is the simple answer. They pay regular taxes but also pay their wealth tax.

    Leave the middle class alone and even the upper class who create jobs.

    • johnnywood

      blotto you have quit peachin` and gone to meddelin`. but I think it would be a great idea.