Even worse fiscal news is pouring in, and it’s only the Saturday after the election. If this is the direction we are headed less than a week after the election, how much worse can it get?
Well, in light of recent comments by Obama about taxing the “rich,” I’d like to talk about what taxing the wealthy really means. In response to his statements, stocks fell even further today, after modest gains on Friday morning. The stocks didn’t fall by a ton, but enough to know that his talks caused the decline.
So, what does it mean for the “wealthy to pay a little more?” Well, when you look at it, it really means nothing. Common wisdom, at least according to the media, is that the wealthy don’t pay enough, and the way we can lessen the deficit is by having them pay a “little more.” Seems fair, right?
Walter E. Williams, of Town Hall writes that, “According to IRS 2007 data, the richest 1 percent of Americans earned 22 percent of national personal income but paid 40 percent of all personal income taxes. The top 5 percent earned 37 percent and paid 61 percent of personal income tax. The top 10 percent earned 48 percent and paid 71 percent of all personal income taxes. The bottom 50 percent earned 12 percent of personal income but paid just 3 percent of income tax revenues.”
And according to Bob Ewoldt, “Letting the “Bush tax cuts” expire for the people that make over $250,000 will bring in less than $71 billion in federal revenues. Will that close our budget deficit? In 2012, President Obama proposed a budget that included $3.729 trillion in spending, with a deficit of $1.327 trillion. Given that deficit, $71 billion in additional money amounts to 5.3% of the deficit…Let’s say that we tell the quite-a-bit-less-than-rich that they have to share the sacrifice of our budget deficit, too, and raise the tax rates on everyone in the top 25% (anyone making above roughly $71,000). To take $1.327 trillion from the top 25%, we would need to have their actual tax rate be 25.77%, which means having a marginal tax rate of 43.89% for everyone that makes more than $71,000.”
So, what both of these men are saying is that the federal government would have to take absurd amounts of money–about 90% from the top 1%, and 44% from the top 25%–to balance out the deficit amounted by the Obama administration. In addition to this, the “wealthy” already pay a large percentage of the taxes collected in the United States as it stands.
As most of you already know, I’m sure, the entire story about the wealthy needing to “pay their fair share” is simply envy. That is a large part of why Obama won re-election: envy. And the worst part is, it wouldn’t work. If the top 1% had nearly 9/10ths of their money taken from them, they would not invest in anything. And seeing that many small businesses fall under higher tax brackets, these increased taxes would stifle growth in almost every aspect of the job market–aside from government jobs, which I’m sure will be booming under the Obama administration.
What this means is that envy trumps progress. Obama has fostered class envy in the face of actual financial progress. He used envy in order to get elected, at the expense of our country. Whether that is ideological or malicious, we may never know.
I’ll leave you with one of my favorite quotes:
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”
– Winston Churchill