The tariff was the funding source for most of government for about a century.
Once upon a time there was no federal income tax. No estate tax. No gift tax. No payroll tax. No capital gains tax. And no corporate tax. Taxes we take for granted today didn’t exist a century or so ago. The country was a lot leaner back then. People kept most of their money. And took care of their families.
The federal government used to fund everything thing they did with tariffs. A tax on imports. Paid in ports. As ships unloaded their goods. Far away from most people. And few people complained. Our first excise tax was a different story. A 7 cent per gallon of whiskey incited the Whiskey Rebellion. After fighting the Revolutionary War to escape the oppressive taxation policies of Great Britain the people were in no mood for a new tax. The whiskey tax lasted for about a decade. Then they repealed it.
This left tariffs as the funding source for most of government for about a century. But even that grew controversial. And began the divisions between North and South. The North protected its industry with protective tariffs on iron products, textiles (wool and cotton) and agricultural goods. Shipped from the more industrialized Britain. Which Britain responded to with tariffs of their own. On cotton and other agricultural products grown in the South. So the more the North protected their industries the more difficult it made for the South to export their raw goods.
In 1913 the progressives reintroduced the income tax and taxed the rich at 1%.
This wasn’t the only difference of opinion the North and South had. And their differences resulted in war. The North was able to win the American Civil War with its expansive industry. But the war devastated the country. Especially the South. Which lost about 8.6% of her population. To get an idea of what an 8.6% population decline is consider this. That percentage of the current U.S. population is approximately 27 million. So the losses the South suffered were similar to what the Soviets lost on the Eastern Front during World War II.
The South may have lost more of its population. But the North suffered nearly the same number of war dead. She just had a larger population to begin with. To run all of that industry that won the war. America’s first modern war was a costly one. And one that President Lincoln had to turn to a new source of revenue. The federal income tax. Which taxed the rich. At 3%. Then it taxed the super rich at 5%. But after they paid down the war debt they repealed America’s first income tax.
Then came the progressives. And their taxes. In 1913 they reintroduced an income tax. Taxing the rich at 1%. And the super rich at 6%. To fund an expanding federal government. Then came World War I. To fund the war they increased the tax rate on the rich to 15%. And the super rich at 77%. The top marginal rate fell during the Twenties. But FDR raised it back up during the Great Depression. Until it reached 94%. Where for every dollar they earned in and above the top income bracket they got to keep only 6 cents.
Few would be able to write a check on tax day to pay their full tax bill.
Then came all the other taxes. And they just kept coming. Our tax bill grew to staggering amounts. Which posed a problem for the taxing authorities. As people just didn’t keep that kind of money around. They worked. They raised their families. And what little they had left they put into the bank for their retirement. Making it very difficult for them to pay their tax bill when it came. Especially when it was 30% or more of their entire income. So what to do?
The Founding Fathers created a nation out of a tax rebellion. And then when that nation levied its first excise tax they got a little rebellion of their own. Being opposed to taxes is part of the American DNA. So the taxing authorities had to somehow hide the large amount of taxes we were paying. That is, they had to reduce the transparency of these taxes. For if you don’t know what you’re paying in taxes you really can’t get mad at paying high taxes.
Enter the withholding tax. The greatest sin government ever perpetrated against the people. For it takes our money before we ever get it. Conditioning us to accept ‘net’ pay as the norm. And making ‘gross’ pay some meaningless payroll jargon. Because you can’t spend ‘gross’ pay. You can only spend ‘net’ pay. Which is the only pay people care about. Making it not only easier to hide the soaring amount of taxes people were paying. But because it’s so easy to hide what we’re paying they could raise those taxes to confiscatory heights. Because we never have that money in our hands. We never see it. It goes from our employer to the taxing authorities. Which is the only way they could collect these soaring amounts. For few would be able to write a check on tax day to pay their full tax bill. As people just don’t keep that kind of money around.
Tags: excise tax, federal income tax, gross pay, imports, income tax, net pay, North, rebellion, rich, South, tariff, tax, tax bill, taxes, taxing authorities, whiskey, withholding, withholding tax
Week in Review
For the first time in history a credit reporting agency (Standard and Poor’s) downgraded the U.S bond rating in 2011. Why? The agency said they needed to see $4 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years. The best Congress could do was $917 billion in spending cuts over 10 years. And the creation of a super-committee to find another $1.5 trillion. For a total of $2.417 trillion in spending cuts. At least, on paper. That never happened. After winning reelection the president held out for and got increases in tax rates. So he could increase spending.
So how did the U.S. get to where they needed to cut $4 trillion in spending? Well, a large part of it has to do with abortion (see 55,772,015 Abortions in America Since Roe vs. Wade in 1973 by Steven Ertelt posted 1/18/2013 on LifeNews.com).
The United States marks 40 years of legalized abortion in all fifty states at any time for any reason throughout pregnancy on January 22nd, the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision. Since that time, there have been approximately 55,772,015 abortions that have destroyed the lives of unborn children.
Taxpayers pay taxes. And how do we get taxpayers? By having babies. So when we aborted over 55 million babies the effect on tax revenue was profound. We can see how by making some assumptions. And doing a little math.
First of all, 55,772,015 abortions over 39 years come to on average 1,430,052 abortions a year. Dividing this number by two to pair off couples for baby-making that comes to 715,026 couples. Without abortion available we’ll assume about 80% of these couples will have children.
The first babies of the 715,026 enter the workforce 20 years later. So in that year the number of additional workers paying taxes equals 2,002,072 (1,430,052 + (0.8 X 715,026)). The following year the second child of this couple enters the workforce while another couple’s first child enters the workforce. This brings the additional workers paying taxes equal 3,146,114. And so on until each couple brings in three new taxpayers into the workforce. Over a decade the number of new workers paying taxes equals 110,685,999.
Assuming a median income of $50,000 these 110,685,999 taxpayers earn a total of $5.5 trillion over ten years. Assuming an effective federal income tax rate of 18% the total federal income tax these people would have paid equals approximately $996 billion.
Using the 12.4% Social Security tax rate (both employer and employee) the amount of Social Security taxes these people would have provided over 10 years equals approximately $686 billion.
Using the 2.9% Medicare tax rate the amount of Medicare taxes these people would have provided over 10 years equals approximately $160 billion.
Adding these taxes together (Social Security and Medicare) they add up to $847 billion. Adding this to the amount of federal income taxes brings the amount of taxes these people would have provided over ten years to about $1.8 trillion.
When they wrote Social Security and Medicare into law the average family size had fallen from around 5 to about 3.5 over a decade or so. If you take that $1.8 trillion and adjust it for 3.5 children (1.8/3 X 3.5) the lost tax revenue equals $2.15 trillion. At 4 children that lost tax revenue comes to $2.5 trillion. At 5 children that lost tax revenue comes to $3.1 trillion. At 6 children it’s $3.7 trillion.
Today’s seniors entered child-bearing age long before women’s liberation, birth control and abortion. So most women got married and had children. It is not uncommon for today’s seniors to come from families of 10 children or more. This is significant because when the actuaries set up Social Security and Medicare they assumed these trends would continue. But they didn’t. The birth rate (and the population growth rate) declined since Social Security and Medicare became law. Causing the population to age. More people are now leaving the workforce and collecting Social Security and Medicare benefits than there are workers entering the workforce to pay for them.
Abortion has been a part of this decline. In a current 10-year projection we are seeing anywhere from $1.8 trillion to $3.7 trillion in lost tax revenue due to abortion. If Roe v. Wade didn’t legalize abortion and the Left didn’t assault the family (encouraging women NOT to get married or have children) during the Seventies as radical feminism took off there would have been a lot more births. Perhaps as many as those actuaries thought there would be when they calculated the costs of Social Security and Medicare.
If normal family patterns had continued not only would these abortions not have happened families may have had more children. Producing more taxpayers. There were 3,136,965 live births in 1973. The average family size then was about 2.5. If you divide the number of births by average family size you get about 1,254,786 families having children. If each of these families had one additional child that additional 1,254,786 children would be approximately 87.7% of the average number of abortions. If these children grew up to have three children of their own we can calculate this additional tax revenue the same way we did for the loss revenue from abortion. Or we can multiply the loss revenue from abortion ($1.8 trillion) by 87.7% to approximate what those additional children in 1973 would contribute in a ten-year projection today. Approximately $1.9 trillion. Adding the losses from abortion and families having one less child brings the total of loss tax revenue to $4.04 trillion. Which equals the $4 trillion S&P was looking for in spending cuts.
So what is the cause for America’s deficits? Is it because the rich aren’t paying their fair share in taxes? No. It’s because of abortion and birth control. And radical feminism. That attacked the family and encouraged women to do anything but get married and have children. Something FDR and his New Dealers never designed Social Security and Medicare to take into account. For FDR and his New Dealers were sexists. As are Social Security and Medicare. These programs require women to marry and have children to stay solvent.
Tags: $4 trillion, $4 trillion in spending cuts, abortion, average family size, babies, family, federal income tax, federal income taxes, legalized abortion, Medicare, Medicare tax, radical feminism, Roe vs. Wade, seniors, Social Security, Social Security tax, spending cuts, tax revenue, taxpayers, women's liberation, workforce
Over 99.5% of all Rich People ARE paying Federal Income Taxes
President Obama won reelection by denigrating Mitt Romney. He didn’t win by running on a successful record. He did not win by running on a plan to pull the economy out of one of the worst recoveries in history. No. He won it by getting people to hate Mitt Romney. And by getting people to hate Republicans. Who they painted as evil rich people who want nothing more than tax cuts for the rich. And to take away birth control and abortion so only rich people can have access to them. As well as taking welfare benefits from the poor. It’s called class warfare. And it can be very effective. For it won President Obama a second term despite a horrible first term by almost any metric you measure it. At least based on the majority of the electorate that just believed the rich aren’t paying their fair share. So let’s just see who is paying what (see Table 3. Number of Individual Income Tax Returns, Income, Exemptions and Deductions, Tax, and Average Tax, by Size of Adjusted Gross Income, Tax Years 2001-2010).
The above chart shows who are NOT paying any federal income tax. Approximately 40% of all taxpayers. Are these the evil rich people like Mitt Romney? And those rich Republicans? No. Contrary to the Left, it’s not the rich. They’re paying their taxes. It’s the poor and the middle class not paying their fair share. Those earning $5,000 and less pay virtually no federal income taxes. Over 80% of those earning from $5,000 to $13,000 pay no federal income taxes. You have to get up to those earning $25,000 or more before more than half of that income group pays any federal income taxes.
We don’t see who actually pays the majority of federal income taxes until we get into the middle class. Where those who DON’T pay any federal income taxes rapidly drop away. Those at the low end of the middle class taking advantage of the tax code to maximize their tax credits and deductions (mortgage interest, energy tax credit, medical and dental Expenses, child and dependent care credit, etc.) to reduce their tax bill. While those at the higher end of the middle class are likely small business owners suffering a business loss. Or a personal or business bankruptcy. Approximately 0.8% of those earning $100,000 – $200,000 pay no federal income taxes. While less than half of one percent of those earning $200,000 or more pay no federal income taxes. Perhaps this tiny sliver of income earners are not paying their fair share. But one thing for certain is that over 99.5% of all rich people ARE paying federal income taxes.
Those earning $1,000,000 and more account for less than 1% of Tax Exemptions and Deductions
So are the rich taking advantage of the tax code to reduce their taxable income and federal tax bill? We hear a lot about tax loopholes. Those perfectly legal tax credits and deductions written into law by the United States Congress. That both those on the Left and those on the Right take advantage of. Yet those on the Left have convinced enough of the electorate that these legal credits and deductions are tax evasion. And that only the rich on the Right are using these to evade paying their fair share. So who is taking the biggest advantage of the tax code to reduce their tax bill? In 2010 this totaled about $3 trillion. Is this why those earning $100,000 or more paid no income tax? For those few not paying any federal income tax? Not exactly. (The dollar amounts in the following charts are in thousands of dollars.)
In 2010 taxpayers claimed in total about $3 trillion in exemptions and deductions. The deficit in 2010 was about $1.3 trillion dollars. So perhaps this is the reason why we had a deficit in 2010. This is what the Left would have us believe. It’s those tax loopholes that the evil rich take advantage of to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. The only problem with this is that it’s not the rich taking advantage of these tax loopholes. It’s the poor and middle class.
Those earning $1,000 and less account for less than 1% of these exemptions and deductions. Those earning $1,000,000 and more also account for less than 1% of these exemptions and deductions. It’s those earning from $1,000 to $1,000,000 that are taking advantage of these tax loopholes. Especially those earning from $50,000 to $200,000. The only income groups claiming 10% or more of the nearly $3 trillion in exemptions and deductions claimed. So not only are the evil rich paying federal income taxes whatever they claim as exemptions and deductions doesn’t even come close to what the poor and middle class are claiming.
Prosperous Economic Times brought about by Tax Cuts INCREASED Tax Revenues
These numbers don’t exactly support the claim that the rich aren’t paying their fair share. They’re paying federal income taxes. And what tax loopholes they exploit hardly makes a dent in the amount of tax revenue the IRS collects. Which can only mean one of two things. Either the poor and middle class need to pay more federal income taxes. Or the federal government is just spending too much. Well, as we just witnessed in the fiscal cliff debate, President Obama and the Left want to raise taxes. Blaming the record Obama deficits on the Reagan and Bush tax cuts. Their deal includes higher income tax rates on households earning $450,000 or more. But NO spending cuts. Which will be a problem.
In 2010 the total adjusted gross income totaled just over $8 trillion. Most of which came from 4 income groups. About a trillion each from those earning from $50,000 to $75,000, from $75,000 to $100,000 and from $200,000 to $500,000. Those earning from $100,000 to $200,000 earned in total almost $2 trillion. Which means the new higher tax rates aren’t going to bring in much new tax revenue. Because they aren’t taxing the people with the money. The middle class. And with some additional spending instead of spending cuts the deficit will only grow larger. So this whole fiscal cliff debate was nothing but theatre. For it wasn’t about deficit reduction. It was about politics.
The Left wants to destroy the Republican Party. And to do that they need to turn prosperous economic times brought about by the tax cuts of the JFK, Reagan and Bush administrations into the source of all our problems. Yes the economy boomed, goes the argument, but at what cost? Massive deficits. Deficits not brought about by tax cuts. But by spending. For those prosperous economic times brought about by tax cuts INCREASED tax revenues. The deficits resulted from spending increases greater than the revenue increases. But with a successful campaign of class warfare they have revised history. Those deficits are now the result of the rich not paying their fair share. Which helped them increase tax rates on the rich today. Because the Left got everyone to hate the rich. And the Republican Party. Even though the rich are the only ones paying their fair share. In fact, they’re paying more than their fair share. But the majority of the electorate doesn’t know this. Because of that successful campaign of class warfare.
Tags: Bush, Bush tax cuts, class warfare, deductions, deficit, deficit reduction, evil rich, evil rich people, fair share, fair share of taxes, federal income tax, fiscal cliff, hate the rich, income tax, IRS, middle class, Mitt Romney, paying their fair share, poor, poor and the middle class, President Obama, raise taxes, Reagan, Republicans, rich, rich people, spending, spending cuts, tax bill, tax code, tax credits, tax cuts, tax evasion, tax loopholes, tax revenue, taxable income
Week in Review
Thanks to withholding tax people don’t fully appreciate how high their taxes are. They know they’re high. So high that gross pay means nothing to them. Workers only speak of ‘net’ pay. Or ‘take home’ pay. The money they actually get. Not that strange fictitious ‘gross’ pay on their paycheck stub. Whatever that is. And what is gross pay? Their pay. It’s their money. And they would have had it when they cashed their paychecks if their employers didn’t withhold it so they could give it to the government. And why does the government use the withholding tax to take our money? Because if we had to write a check at the end of the year for our full tax amount there would probably be a nationwide tax revolt. Which is why the taxing authorities take that money before it gets into our hands. Because once it is in our hands people may be less willing to hand it over to the taxman. Which is probably why the Founding Fathers didn’t include any withholding taxes in the Constitution. They did not want to make it easy for the government to take our money.
So how high are the taxes on the middle class? Pretty high (see Government Will Take Almost Half Your Paycheck in 2013 by Patrick Tyrrell posted 8/13/2012 on The Foundry).
A middle-class taxpayer’s income is subject to a 25 percent federal income tax. Then there is the federal Social Security and Medicare payroll tax of 13.3 percent in 2012—5.65 percent of that is removed from the employee’s paycheck, and the remaining 7.65 percent is paid by the employer. (In reality, the employee pays the entire 13.3 percent, because the employer’s portion of the tax does not affect the cost of labor: The employer would pay the employee 7.65 percent more if there were no employer’s portion of the payroll tax.)
So the 25 percent federal income tax plus 13.3 Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes equals 38.3 percent going to federal taxes in 2012.
And then there are state taxes. According to the Tax Foundation, the average state’s income tax rate for the middle-class taxpayer is 4.82 percent, which brings the total to 43.12 percent in federal and state taxes.
In Billy Joe’s Movin’ Out (Anthony’s Song) he says, “You can pay Uncle Sam with the overtime. Is that all you get for your money?” The point being is this. Yes you can give up your Saturday and work some overtime. But is it really worth it when you can only keep about $0.57 of each additional dollar you earn? Not really. Which is why a lot of people who work with their hands will do ‘side work’ for cash under the table. So they can keep every penny of every dollar they earn.
Or some will work some hours serving tables in a restaurant. For a little extra spending cash. I worked with a lady who did. A devout liberal Democrat. And part of the middle class. I asked her if she reported all her tips so she could pay her fair share of taxes on those earnings. Even though she was a steadfast liberal Democrat voter who always voted ‘yes’ to increase tax rates on others she said the government had already taxed her enough. So that those supplemental earnings should be hers free and clear. Of course, that’s not how the tax law works. You make more you pay more. She wouldn’t give me a definitive answer on whether she reported all her tips as income. But it was interesting to hear her say that high tax rates were fair. As long as she didn’t have to pay them. Well, her taxes will be going up. Fair or not.
And it’s going higher, thanks to the nearly $500 billion in tax increases for 2013 that some have called Taxmageddon. In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent. This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent.
When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.
It’s like we divorced our government in the state of California. And we lost half of everything we earn to a spiteful ex. Half! Yeah, that really encourages you to work hard and build your business and hire more people. So you can deal with the labyrinth of government regulatory compliance. Lawsuits. Insurances. Drug testing. Sexual harassment training. All the while hearing the government tell you, “You didn’t build that.” That you somehow won life’s lottery to riches. And that you’re greedy for not wanting to pay more taxes. And for what? To keep half of every dollar you earn? It would be a lot easier just to lay off all your workers. Shut down your business. And go to work for someone else. And let them deal with these headaches. Like they did in the Roman Empire as it was collapsing under the weight of her welfare state. Until the Romans passed laws forbidding people from quitting the work they were doing.
The sad thing is that so many people will vote to perpetuate this binge of taxation. While they themselves will do everything within their power to avoid paying their own ‘fair share’ of taxes. While demanding the rich pay more. Even though the top 10% are already paying 70% of all federal taxes. The truth is that the rich can’t pay these taxes. There just aren’t enough of them. Even if you take everything they earn. Which leaves the middle class to make up this tax shortfall. So they take half of everything they earn. And will continue to take more as their spending continues to grow. And if people begin to quit the hard jobs because they can’t keep their earnings perhaps the government will step in like the Romans did. And force people to be doctors. To run pharmaceutical companies. To build the next new technology. It’s happened before to an empire that began as a limited republican government. So it can probably happen again. Besides who would have ever thought that the country borne out of a tax rebellion would one day take half of every dollar a middle class worker made? No one would have seen this coming. And yet here we are. Paying half of every dollar we earn to Uncle Sam.
The Founding Fathers would be flabbergasted. Upset. And saddened. To see what had become of their beloved republic. And their experiment in limited self-government.
Tags: fair share, federal income tax, Founding Fathers, gross pay, income tax, middle class, net pay, overtime, paychecks, payroll tax, republican government, take-home pay, tax rates, tax rebellion, taxes, Taxmageddon, taxpayers, withholding tax
Americans find Taxes Repugnant and have a Long History of Making this Repugnance Known
American independence began with a tax revolt. The ratification of the U.S. Constitution happened only with safeguards against the new federal government from growing too powerful. And great efforts went to limiting the amount of money it could spend. For a long time all federal tax revenue came from import tariffs. Then from sales of federal lands as the population moved west. It took a civil war for us to impose an income tax. Our first income tax was 3% on incomes over $800 (or about $20,000 today). The first income tax was a flat tax. They passed this income tax to pay for the war. They repealed the income tax following the war. Americans wouldn’t see another federal income tax until 1913 when we ratified the Sixteenth Amendment. And President Woodrow Wilson signed into law the Revenue Act of 1913.
Woodrow Wilson was a progressive. The precursor to today’s liberals. Who thought beyond the limited government of our Founding Fathers. They wanted to expand government. To make it a part of our everyday life. Where the brilliant progressive politicians would make better decisions for us than we ever could. And their changing of society included the funding of the federal government. For their income tax was a progressive tax. Everyone paid a flat tax of 1% on income of $3,000 or more. About $66,100 today. Then the progressive taxes came into play. Adding another percentage to the income tax rate for increasing amounts of income. The thresholds for these increases were as follows: $20,000 (roughly $440,400 today), $50,000 ($1,101,000 today), $75,000 ($1,651,600), $100,000 ($2,202,100), $250,000 ($5,505,300) and $500,000 ($11,010,700). The top marginal tax rate on the super rich (earning $11,010,700) was 7%.
Our second income tax was quite controversial. A lot of people hated it. For Americans find taxes repugnant. And have a long history of making this repugnance well known. But thanks to the American Civil War a generation of men was lost. And a generation of boys grew up without fathers. Tended on by doting mothers. Smothering them with love and affection. And these boys grew up without knowing the manly hardships of life. And they entered politics. Becoming those early progressives. Who wanted to change the government into a great doting mother. And now they could. For they had their income tax.
Few paid the Confiscatory Tax Rates of the Seventies by Hiding their Income in Tax Shelters
The rich paid our first federal income taxes after the Revenue Act of 1913. And these were very small percentages we had them pay. Back then the top marginal tax rate was lower than our lowest income tax rate today. Think about that. The richest of the rich paid only 7% of their income ($11,010,700 or more today) in federal income taxes. While today single people earning the lowest bracket of taxable income (from $0 to $8,700) pay 10% of their income in federal income taxes. Clearly the growth of government exploded thanks to the Sixteenth Amendment. Much as our Founding Fathers feared it would if they had too much money to spend.
Of course, this is ancient history. Few know about this today. For few could even tell you why we fought for our independence. Or even who we fought for our independence from. (We fought for our independence from Great Britain because of their policies to tax us despite our having no representation in Parliament. That’s where the phrase taxation without representation came from). Today high taxes are sadly just an accepted part of life. In fact, we have referred to our paychecks as take-home pay. Our net pay. Because gross pay is a myth. No one sees their gross pay. About a third or more of that disappears in withholding taxes. So gross pay is a meaningless expression for us today. (It wasn’t before the Sixteenth Amendment or before the progressives came to power). Something that we sadly accept. And we now fund our lives on the take-home pay the government allows us to keep. All the while accepting these high tax rates.
Government spending took off in the Sixties and the Seventies. As did our taxes. If we had once thought that a 7% tax on incomes of $11,010,700 or more was an outrage, we didn’t see anything yet. In 1978 the top marginal tax rate was 70% on incomes of $351,712 or more. And there were 25 marginal tax rates. As shown here adjusted for inflation (sources: Tax Rates, Tax Receipts, and Celebrity Incomes).
In this example we calculated the average of some top celebrities. And the top celebrities on average earned about $30,000,000 in 2010. Using the 1978 tax brackets they would have owed $20,936,506 in federal income taxes. Or approximately 69.8% of their total income. Which is pretty much equal to the top marginal tax rate. Of course, few paid these confiscatory tax rates. They hid their income as best as they could in the Seventies. In tax shelters. And you know they did because despite these confiscatory tax rates the federal government still ran budget deficits. Having to print money to pay for their explosion in government spending.
The Low Tax Rates of the Eighties created so much Economic Activity the Opposition called it the Decade of Greed
The heyday of Keynesian economics was in the Seventies. After Richard Nixon decoupled the dollar from gold the Keynesians were free to print money to stimulate the economy. Which was their answer to ending a recession. Stimulus spending. Have the government print money to create economic activity that wasn’t happening in the private sector. Their policy tool to end a recession was inflation. By pouring money into the economy people would borrow it and buy cars and houses and furniture. And everything else under the sun. Creating a surge of economic activity. And creating jobs in the process as businesses must hire new workers to meet that government stimulated demand. With the dollar decoupled from the ‘cross of gold’ the Keynesians were finally able to prove their mettle. And solve all the country’s economic problems. It was the dawn of a brave new world.
And that world sucked. For the implementation of Keynesian economic policy proved those policies did not work. Instead of replacing high unemployment with inflation they just added high inflation to the high unemployment. Something that was impossible to happen in Keynesian textbooks. But it happened. Stagnant economic activity. And inflation. What we called stagflation. We added the unemployment rate to the inflation rate to come up with a new economic indicator. The misery index. The economy was so miserable during Jimmy Carter’s 4 years in office that he lost in a landslide to Ronald Reagan. Who was a proponent not of Keynesian economics but of the Austrian school. Or supply side economics. And the Austrians believed in low tax rates. For low tax rates would stimulate economic activity. And the greater amount of economic activity would generate a greater amount of tax revenue even at lower tax rates. Let’s look at that same celebrity paying taxes a decade later under Ronald Reagan.
Much simpler. And more in keeping with the Founding Fathers. Instead of paying 70% of their earnings in federal income taxes they will only pay 28% (again, equal to the top marginal tax rate. Which is pretty much the only tax rate the rich pay). That’s still a lot of money to give to the federal government. But it’s so much smaller that in many cases it was cheaper and easier to pay Uncle Sam than trying to hide that income. So economic activity took off in the Eighties. It was so great that the opposition called it the Decade of Greed. Out of sour grapes because their policies could never produce anything like it. But what about tax revenue? Those on the Left say this economic activity came at a price. Exploding deficits. Well, the deficits did grow. But it wasn’t because of the cuts in the tax rates.
Higher Tax Rates do not Necessarily Increase Tax Revenue
In 1978 total tax revenue was $1,113.6 billion. In 1988 total tax revenue was $1,421.1 billion. So Reagan’s cuts in the tax rates produced $307.5 billion more in tax revenue. An increase of about 27.6%. Dropping the top marginal tax rate from 70% to 28% actually increased tax revenue. So the cut in tax rates did not cause the deficits. It wasn’t a revenue problem. Revenue went up. Spending just increased more. And it was this excessive government spending that caused the deficits. Not the tax cuts.
The lesson here is that higher tax rates do not necessarily increase tax revenue. Because changes in tax rates changes behavior. Higher tax rates discourage people from investing in businesses. They discourage businesses from expanding. Or hiring new workers. Higher tax rates may decrease the opportunity costs for hiding income. The cost and inconvenience of hiding income in tax shelters and offshore accounts may become less that the cost of paying higher taxes. Like it was during the Seventies. Where despite confiscatory tax rates the government could not generate enough tax revenue to meet their spending obligations.
Income tax rates grew from a very small percentage on only the largest of incomes to high tax rates on very modest incomes. And yet our deficits have never been larger. Proving that our tax rates are either too high and dampen economic activity (as well as encouraging people to avoid paying their taxes). Or that government spending has just grown too large. More than likely it’s a combination of the two. A fact that would shock and dismay the Founding Fathers were they alive to see what we did with the republic they gave us.
Tags: American Independence, Austrian, Civil War, confiscatory tax rates, Constitution, Decade of Greed, deficits, economic activity, federal government, federal income tax, federal income taxes, federal tax revenue, flat tax, Founding Fathers, government spending, gross pay, high inflation, high taxes, high unemployment, income, income tax, income taxes, inflation, Keynesian, Keynesian economics, low tax rates, marginal tax rate, Progressive, progressive tax, Reagan, recession, Revenue Act of 1913, rich, Ronald Reagan, Seventies, Sixteenth Amendment, stimulus spending, take-home pay, tax brackets, tax revenue, tax shelters, taxes, top marginal tax rate, unemployment, Woodrow Wilson
Nationalism, Socialism and Communism forced a more Fair, Just and Equitable Society onto the People
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels published the Communist Manifesto in 1848. Launching a war against capitalism. And private property. Intellectuals and those in academia loved this stuff. And labor leaders. Because it was a path to power. Especially for those who could not create wealth. Unlike the great wealth producers. Like the industrialists. The entrepreneurs. Small business owners. The productive middle class. That is, the capitalists. Who work hard and achieve success. By using their talent and ability to create wealth. Moving up the economic ladder. Creating income inequality. The ultimate sin of capitalism. According to Marx and Engels. Intellectuals. Academia. And labor leaders.
In the Communist Manifesto Marx and Engels single out the accumulation of private property as the source of all our problems. The capitalists, the bourgeoisie, have an insatiable appetite for private property. They just can’t get enough of it. And therefore oppress their workers, the proletariat, to maximize their property. By paying them less and less to maximize their profits. So they can use those profits to buy more and more property. Which keeps the proletariat in perpetual and abject poverty. And concentrates all the wealth into the few hands of the bourgeoisie. And the only way to correct this great inequity was through a worker’s revolution. Where the proletariat rises up and takes the private property of the bourgeoisie and gives it to the state. So it belongs to everyone. Especially to those who did not create it. A very popular idea among those mired in perpetual and abject poverty. Who are easily swayed to support this more fair, just and equitable distribution of other people’s wealth.
These progressive views enthralled Europe. Especially after the Industrial Revolution created some appalling conditions for workers. And they took this opportunity to put them into practice. It was the 19th century that gave us the ‘fair’ political systems of nationalism, socialism and communism. That began the process of transferring wealth from the capitalists to the anti-capitalists. Precipitating the economic decline of Europe. Making America the new economic superpower. Which still maintained the principles of free market capitalism throughout the 19th century. Until the anti-capitalistic teachings of Marx and Engels took hold in the progressive government of Woodward Wilson. Bringing back the federal income tax Abraham Lincoln used to pay for the Civil War. But unlike Lincoln Wilson had no intention of repealing it. The federal income tax was here to stay. As progressives began building that more fair, just and equitable society.
The Soviet Union Depended on the West for Food because their Forced Collectivized Farms couldn’t Feed their People
But the equitable movement in America was not as intense as it was in Europe. Or Russia. Which was taking the teachings of Marx and Engels to their logical end. They had a worker’s revolution. They became communist. And forced that more fair, just and equitable society on their people. Whether they wanted it or not. And those who objected they systematically killed. Or exiled to a Siberian gulag. For Joseph Stalin’s rise to power was brutal. As was the Soviet Union. Even making a deal with Adolf Hitler to split Poland after the Nazi-Soviet invasion of Poland that launched World War II. Then Hitler double-crossed their Soviet ally and attacked the Soviet Union. And the Nazis nearly overran them. The Nazis were in Leningrad (present day St. Petersburg). At the gates of Moscow. And in Stalin’s city. Stalingrad. The Soviets were unable to resist the Nazi onslaught. The only thing that saved them was material aid from the capitalist West. The Soviet T-34 tank (the best in the war). And, of course, the millions of Soviet people the Soviet generals could throw into the Nazi killing machine to wear the Nazis down.
No one suffered like the Soviet people did during World War II. The US and the UK each lost about a half million people. A terrible loss. The Soviets, though, lost about 25 million people. A number that just numbs the mind. This was the second Russian invasion that had brought an enemy to the gates of Moscow. The first were the French a century earlier under Napoleon. There wasn’t going to be a third. Wherever their armies were at the end of World War II they pretty much stayed. Turning Eastern Europe into a communist bloc. And to make the Soviet Union a mightier nation they embarked on a rapid industrialization program. To make it a modern power like those great nations in the West. But unlike them they were going to do it the ‘smart’ way. With their command economy. Where their brilliant state planners would marshal their resources and do what the free market economies did in the west. Only instead of taking about a century their Industrial Revolution would take only 5 years.
With no industrialists, entrepreneurs, small business owners or a middle class it fell upon the state planners to industrialize the Soviet Union. As well as feed the Soviet people. Well, they industrialized the Soviet Union. But never brought it up to par with the industrialized West. Worse, they couldn’t feed their people. Despite having some of the most fertile farmland in all of Europe in the Ukraine. The Soviet Union depended on the West for food. Because their forced collectivized farms didn’t work like Marx and Engels said they would. And they didn’t work in China, either. Where another brutal communist dictator, Mao Zedong, killed tens of millions of his people by starving them to death. By forcing a more fair, just and equitable society onto the Chinese.
Time Froze behind the Iron Curtain and People Lived pretty much Forever in the 1940s
At the end of World War II, like at the end of World War I, no one wanted to think about war anymore. Winston Churchill, though, did. For he saw what the Soviet Union was doing. And saw the spread of their communism as a threat to Western Civilization. He gave a speech at Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri, in 1946. And said, “From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic an iron curtain has descended across the Continent. Behind that line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe.” There was now an Eastern Europe. An East Germany. And an East Berlin. All behind the Iron Curtain. All in the Soviet sphere. All communist. Where they all suffered under a more fair, just and equitable society. Whether they wanted it or not. And they clearly did not. For the Soviets had to build a wall in Berlin to prevent those in East Berlin from escaping to West Berlin.
The intellectuals, academia and labor leaders loved Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Union. They thought communism was the enlightened future. Probably because they didn’t have to live in it. But what is surprising is that a lot of college students have this affection with communism. To this day they still wear t-shirts emblazed with the beret-wearing Che Guevara. Who helped Fidel Castro bring that more fair, just and equitable society to the Cubans. Who have been trying to escape it ever since by practically swimming to Florida and free market capitalism. But the college students and their professors still yearn for a Soviet-style economy in the United States. And condemn capitalism as they sit in coffee bars sipping their lattes. Enjoying social media on their smartphones. Wearing the latest fashions. Enjoying the latest movies. The newest music. And dream of that more just society. Where they redistribute wealth fairly and equitably. And the rich pay their fair share. Just like in East Berlin. Where life was fair. But it was nowhere as enjoyable as in the unfair West.
Time froze behind the Iron Curtain. When West Berlin enjoyed the best Western Civilization had to offer in music, fashion, food, entertainment, etc., East Berlin didn’t. For they were frozen in the 1940s. Western music was decadent. So instead of rock and pop music you listened to classical music. Instead of the latest Hollywood movies you went to the ballet. You didn’t watch Western television. Read Western books. Or newspapers. No. You only saw things approved by state censors. And that were patriotic. Why? To prevent their people from seeing how much better life was on the other side of the Iron Curtain. Where they enjoyed the latest and the best of everything. Whereas inside the Iron Curtain you went to the black market for any real luxuries. Like a pair of blue jeans. Which they didn’t sell in East Berlin. Because they were decadent. Why, they wouldn’t even sell a t-shirt with a communist icon on it. Because you just didn’t wear something like that in the 1940s. But college kids will attack capitalism. And support the fairness of socialism and communism. Even though the things they enjoy come from free market capitalism. And are simply not available in the communist command economy. Because the accumulation of private property is the greatest sin of capitalism. And not allowed under communism.
Tags: ability, abject poverty, academia, anti-capitalists, Berlin, bourgeoisie, capitalism, capitalists, collectivized farms, command economy, Communism, Communist, Communist Manifesto, create wealth, East Berlin, East Germany, Eastern Europe, Engels, entrepreneurs, equitable, Europe, fair, federal income tax, forced collectivized farms, free market, free-market capitalism, Friedrich Engels, Hitler, income inequality, Industrial Revolution, industrialists, inequity, intellectuals, Iron Curtain, just, Karl Marx, labor leaders, Marx, Marx and Engels, middle class, nationalism, perpetual and abject poverty, Poland, poverty, private property, profits, Progressive, proletariat, Russia, small business owners, socialism, Soviet Union, Soviets, Stalin, state planners, talent, talent and ability, wealth, West, West Berlin, Western Civilization, workers, workers' revolution
Week in Review
No one likes paying taxes. For workers want to keep their hard earned money. So it’s always been puzzling how the tax and spend politicians keep getting elected. And keep raising our taxes. Or is it (see HALF of Americans don’t pay income tax despite crippling government debt posted 2/22/2012 the Daily Mail)?
In 2009, just 50.5 per cent of Americans paid any income tax to the federal government – the lowest proportion in at least half a century…
In 1984, the middle of the Reagan era, 85 per cent of Americans paid federal income tax, meaning just 34.8million people did not…
The conjunction of fewer taxpayers with higher welfare payments has led to intense pressure on the public purse, with the national deficit running at $1.3trillion per year.
The Heritage Foundation argues that the reduction in the number of taxpayers will create an electorate dominated by non-taxpayers, who will always support higher taxes and spending because their own money is not at stake.
About half of all Americans pay no federal income tax. No wonder they vote for the tax and spend politicians. Because it’s not their hard-earned money that they are taxing spending. It’s other people’s hard-earned money.
We keep hearing everyone say that the rich need to pay their fair share. It would appear they are. In fact, it appears that they are paying more than their fair share. They have to be. Because if half of all Americans aren’t paying any taxes the rich must be paying more than their fair share. For they’re paying for those who aren’t paying their fair share. Half of all Americans.
The thing that made Britain great was Parliament. Representative government. Having the people who paid the taxes have a say in how those taxes were spent. It kept the Crown from spending those taxes irresponsibly. Which greatly influenced the Founding Fathers. Who made it difficult for the new federal government to spend irresponsibly. Back at the Founding you had to have skin in the game to vote. In other words, if you weren’t a taxpayer you didn’t vote. Since then things changed. Now people who don’t pay taxes can vote to spend other people’s money. And when someone else is buying people rarely say ‘no’ to more government benefits. No matter the consequences. And those who pay no taxes have no problem increasing tax rates on those who do.
This road we’re on can only lead to one place. The end of the country as we know it. Much like the Greeks are experiencing right now. Which in inevitable when people have a say in spending other people’s money.
Tags: federal income tax, half of Americans don't pay income tax, income tax, spending other people's money, Tax and spend, taxes, taxpayer
Raising Taxes on the ‘Rich’ to Close the Deficit will put the Country into a Depression
Roll up, roll up for the misery tour. Roll up, roll up for the misery tour. The Obama Misery Tour is waiting to take you away. Waiting to take you away (see Obama kicks off Midwest bus tour with harsh words on the economy by Zachary A. Goldfarb posted 8/15/2011 on The Washington Post).
Obama, who kicked off a three-day Midwest bus tour Monday focused on the economy, cited comments made by Republican presidential hopefuls at a GOP debate last week.
“I know it’s not election season yet, but I just have to mention the debate,” where Republicans said they would not increase taxes under virtually any circumstance, Obama said at a town hall. “Think about that. That’s just not common sense.”
Neither did raising the deficit from $455 billion to $1.65 trillion, Mr. President. In fact this spending was downright irresponsible. Your administration spent an additional $1.195 trillion we didn’t have. And you’re planning to spend more. We have a deficit problem because we have a spending problem. Not because people aren’t paying enough taxes.
“You’ve got to send a message to Washington that it’s time for the games to stop. It’s time to put country first,” Obama said, his voice rising. “Some folks in Congress … would rather see their opponents lose, than America win.”
Mr. President, you increased the deficit by 263%. That is not good for the country. In fact, one could say that you are the ‘some folks’ you refer to who would rather see their opponents lose than America win.
He called on Congress to pass measures to hire construction workers, a trio of trade bills, an overhaul of patent laws and new tax credits to spur new jobs for veterans.
You had supermajorities during your first two years in office. You could have passed any legislation you wanted to spur new jobs. Instead, you made your priority the passing of Obamacare. Something that did not spur any jobs. And only will increase the deficit.
And hire construction workers? Wasn’t your Keynesian stimulus bill supposed to do that? Create some $800 billion in shovel-ready projects? Of course that’s hard to do when 88% of that bill was pork and earmarks. Sort of a Democrat wish list to satisfy some 40 years of wants and desires.
Speaking about the national debt, Obama called for an overhaul of the tax code that would force the wealthy to pay more taxes and an overhaul of entitlement programs…
“I’d like to see the ultra-rich pay their fair share,” said…a nurse from Rochester. “He’s got to be a politician, but I’d like to see a bit more push.”
“I think he’s doing a good job. He inherited a very big deficit,” said…a financial planner from Rochester. “He and Michelle are the first residents of the White House to be familiar with both organic food and leftovers.”
The wealthy just aren’t wealthy enough to pay down the deficit. If you crunch the numbers, and define anyone who earns $159,619 or more as wealthy, you’ll have to raise the federal income tax to an effective rate of 87.6% (see You can’t Reduce the Debt $4 Trillion by Raising Taxes, at least not Mathematically). That means the government would have to take 87.6% of everything they earn. That includes the billionaires and the millionaires. And everyone earning $159,619 or more.
Is this possible? Well, if you earn $159,619 annually, that’s $13,301.58 gross pay each month. After your federal income taxes are withheld, that leaves a whopping $1,649.40 to pay your state taxes, your mortgage, your car payment, your groceries, health insurance, car insurance, gasoline for your car, etc. Of course, they won’t be able to have these things at this high tax rate. In fact, they won’t have any money left to spend. Consumer spending over all would nosedive us into a full blown depression. Making things even worse than they are now.
So what is Obama going to do next?
Obama is scheduled to go on a 10-day family vacation to Martha’s Vineyard on Thursday after completing the economic tour.
While many Americans can no longer afford to take the family on a vacation, he will be spending 10 days in the very swanky Martha’s Vineyards. Where billionaires and millionaires like to vacation. And get away from the rabble. Us.
Politicians are Whores who sell themselves to the Highest Bidder
The johns threaten to withhold their money from the prostitutes in Washington (see Starbucks CEO urges halt to U.S. political donations by Lisa Baertlein posted 8/15/2011 on Reuters).
In his letter on Monday, Schultz [Starbucks Corp. CEO] invited executives to join him in a “pledge to withhold any further campaign contributions to the President and all members of Congress until a fair, bipartisan deal is reached that sets our nation on stronger long-term fiscal footing.”
Men are interested in one thing. According to all the stereotypes. And when women want something, they can simply withhold this one thing. Again, according to the stereotypes. Eventually the man caves because he can’t live without that one thing. What a great analogy. Because all politicians are whores who sell themselves to the highest bidder. And those buying political favors can simply withhold their money to get what they want. Which is how government works. Sadly.
Schultz also urged fellow CEOs to invest in projects or new products that will perk up the economy at a time when fear and uncertainty have made businesses unwilling to invest, consumers unwilling to spend and banks unwilling to lend.
Expand supply in the face of a shrinking demand? Not a good idea. Austrian economists call this malinvestment. This kind of thinking didn’t help ward off the Great Depression. And it won’t work here. You create real demand by cutting taxes. Giving people more money to spend now. Next week. Next month. And next year. This creates confidence. Not a one-time stimulus that provides consumers with money to spend one time. A tax cut will increase demand. And once consumers are demanding more business will start hiring more.
I guess a guy who has convinced people to buy over-priced coffee just assumes businesses can make consumers do anything. But would he open a new Starbucks next to an existing one? No. Why? Because what would probably happen is that each store will have half the business of the first store. While doubling the overall costs for that business. So that would be a malinvestment. So he wouldn’t do it. Yet he is asking his fellow CEOs to do just that.
Obamanomics has Failed so let’s Return to the Successful Policies of Reaganomics
It’s been about three years. Record government spending hasn’t done anything but increased the deficit. And get U.S. credit downgraded. You can make all the excuses you want. But eventually you have to answer for your policies. Obama’s policies have failed. And left us worse off than we were.
The Keynesian way has once again failed. Perhaps we should give the Austrian way another try. Because when Reagan did, those policies worked.
We tried Obamanomics. It failed. So let’s go back to Reaganomics. At least it has a track record of success.
Tags: billionaires, consumer spending, deficit, deficit problem, demand, depression, federal income tax, government spending, jobs, Keynesian, malinvestment, Martha's Vineyard, millionaires, Misery Tour, Obama, Obama Misery Tour, Obamanomics, politicians, prostitutes, raising taxes, raising taxes on the rich, Reagan, Reaganomics, spending problem, stimulus, supply, tax cut, taxes, wealthy, whores
Figures don’t Lie but Liars Figure
Mark Twain said figures don’t lie but liars figure. And there’s been a lot of that going around. Lying. Especially about taxes. Where the rich just can’t catch a break. They pay far more tax dollars than the poor/middle class. Yet you wouldn’t know that based on the political rhetoric coming from the Left. And the incessant drive to raise the top marginal tax rates. To make the rich pay their ‘fair’ share. Or punish them. For being rich. So we can lower the tax burden on the little guy. The working class people struggling to put food on the table for their families.
Of course, anyone taking the time to crunch the numbers, or read a history book, will see something completely different. And that the Left can only advance their agenda by lying. Because people with a job want to keep their job. And they see the Left’s agenda as anti-business. And job killing. Anytime you hear government talk about being ‘fair’ look out. Chances are you are about to be screwed. For their idea of fairness and equality is truly Orwellian. The Left’s idea of equality is when they are more equal than everyone else.
So they champion the poor/middle class. Say they are looking out for their interests. But they’re not. They just want their money. And their votes. So they’ll say whatever they think they want to hear. Anything to maintain their positions in government. The ruling elite. And one of their most effective tools is class warfare. At the heart of which is tax policy.
Taxing the Rich Transfers Tax Burden to the Middle Class
There is a fundamental misunderstanding about tax policy in America. Everywhere, really. You see, they’ve beaten it into our heads that the way to get the rich to pay their fair share is to increase their tax rates. You do that and you transfer the tax burden from the poor/middle class to the rich. The funny thing is, though, when you raise the tax rates on the rich the exact opposite happens. You transfer the tax burden from the rich to the poor/middle class. How can this be, you ask? Well, let me explain.
Consider two income examples. Someone who makes $50,000 per year. And someone who makes $1,000,000 per year. Based on the 2008 tax tables (with a top marginal rate of 35%), the federal income tax each pays is approximately $16,980 and $454,000, respectfully. Now, what do you notice about these numbers? That’s right. The $454,000 is a lot bigger than the $16,980. It’s over 26 times the amount of taxes the person earning $50,000 pays. Now think about that. If only one more person becomes a millionaire (let’s say an entrepreneur quits his day job and creates the next great invention), the government will collect the same amount in taxes it would take from 26 new $50,000/year jobs added to the economy. Let’s say 2 venture capitalists strike it rich and both become millionaires. They would add the same tax revenue it would take 52 new $50,000/jobs to generate. Three new millionaires = 78 new $50,000 jobs worth of taxes. See a pattern? The more millionaires there are paying taxes the less the poor/middle class have to pay in taxes. Or, conversely, the fewer millionaires are paying taxes the more the poor/middle class have to pay. So the more millionaires there are paying taxes, the more the tax burden transfers from the poor/middle class to the rich.
Well, based on that, the best thing we can do for the poor and middle class is to make as many millionaires as possible. And how do you do that? It’s pretty easy. Sort of like a dog having puppies. They already know how to do it. They don’t need any special help. All they need is for us to get out of their way. And give them a business-friendly environment. Where a small business owner will risk his or her life savings on that business to get rich. Or a venture capitalist will risk his or her money on an untried entrepreneur with a really good idea to get rich. And how do you get people to take risks and invest large sums of money? By giving them a chance to get rich in the process. And you don’t do that with high tax rates. Because high tax rates increase the ‘cost’ of these investments. And when the cost gets too high, they look for other things to do with their money. If the return on investment is taxed to the point that they can make the same return without any risk, they won’t take any risk. And just leave their money in the bank.
The more Millionaires we have the Less Taxes the Middle Class Pays
Of course this all makes good sense. But bad politics. Especially on the Left. For they are all about fairness and redistribution of wealth on the Left. And you can’t be fair and redistribute wealth unless you demonize the rich. Because you have to take wealth from someone before you can redistribute it. And who has wealth? Why, the wealthy, of course. Who are greedy. Who don’t pay their fair share of taxes. And profit by exploiting the poor/middle class. Or so goes the liberal mantra. So to show how much they care for the poor/middle class, they try to raise taxes on the rich. By constantly trying to raise the top marginal rates. Of course, as noted above, doing this actually hurts the poor/middle class. By making them pay a much larger share of the total tax burden than the rich pays. Let’s look at some numbers.
We keep hearing about this evil 1% who has the majority of the wealth in this country. So let’s look at this by the numbers. One percent is one in one hundred. So let’s assume we have 100 taxpayers. One millionaire who earns $1,000,000 per year. Twenty ‘poor’ people earning $15,000 per year. And 79 ‘middle class’ people earning $50,000 per year. Based on the 2008 tax tables, the annual income tax each owes (going from poor to rich) is approximately $4,500, $17,000 and $454,000. Their total tax contributions (in the same order) are approximately $91,000, $1,342,000 and $454,000. Or, as a percent of the total, 4.8%, 71% and 24%. Please note that it’s the middle class that pays the bulk of the tax burden (71%). Even though they each pay only a fraction of what the millionaire pays. Because one millionaire can pay only so much. But the ‘fraction’ 79 middle class people pay adds up. The sum total of their taxes equals approximately three times what that millionaire pays. Which proves the point that the fewer millionaires there are the more the poor/middle class has to pay in taxes.
Now let’s say nine people prospered very well and moved from the middle class to the rich. There are still 20 ‘poor’ people. But with the 10 people that now earn $1,000,000 per year, there are now only 70 middle class people earning $50,000 per year. This changes the total tax contributions (going from poor to rich) to approximately $91,000, $1,187,000 and $4,538,000. Or, as a percent of the total, 1.6%, 20.4% and 78%. Now the rich are paying the vast majority of all taxes (78%). Which proves the point that the more millionaires there are the less the poor/middle class have to pay in taxes.
Figures don’t Lie but Liberals will Figure
Well, sure, you can use all your facts and figures to show things that make sense. But making sense doesn’t necessarily apply in politics. Because tax policy is a lot more than just funding the government. It’s about winning elections. And the one great dilemma in all of politics is this. The people with the most money to tax are in the middle class. Because of their numbers. They may pay less per person than the rich but their numbers add up. And they are the largest voting bloc. Because of their numbers. Which presents quite the problem. Politicians want their money. But if they take too much of it they may lose their votes. So what to do? You take their money. While making it look like you’re punishing the rich.
The more government spends the greater this problem gets. Deficits grow larger. Which adds to the national debt. Interest payments on that debt take up an ever larger part of the federal budget. Add that to out of control growth of entitlement spending and what do you get? A big problem. And greater deficits. Which are getting harder and harder to finance. Soon you’re borrowing money to pay your borrowing costs. You need cash. Or you need to cut spending. And you know you’re not going to do that. Because cutting spending doesn’t help win elections. So you look for more cash. And you can’t go the easy route and just create more millionaires. Not after demonizing them so much. Doing that would be tantamount to saying you were wrong and/or lying all these years. Besides, the anti-business environment currently in place doesn’t encourage any risk taking by the rich. So they’re sitting on their money. Which leaves the middle class. So we start hearing code words. Fair share sacrifice. Tax the rich. It’s not fair to give millionaires and billionaires tax breaks paid by the poor and middle class. This means the poor/middle class is about to get screwed. Either by higher taxes (or reduced tax breaks and credits). Or they’re going to raise the top marginal tax rates which will transfer more of the tax burden from the rich to the poor/middle class.
Of course, screwing the poor/middle class is what it’s all about. The Left uses them. All of the time. Through lies and deceit. For our lives would be better if we had a lot more millionaires. And less progressive tax rates. That encouraged more economic activity. And created more jobs. But the liberal left could care less about that. Based on the evidence. And history. When they run for office they run as moderates. Because they know they can’t win elections running as liberals. Barack Obama was the most liberal senator in the Senate. Yet when he ran some were comparing him to Ronald Reagan. And you only lie like that for one reason. To hide who you really are. Tax and spend liberals. Who have made the middle class the bank for their tax and spend policies.
So while figures don’t lie, liberals will figure.
Tags: Big Government, business friendly environment, class warfare, cut spending, cutting spending, economic activity, economy, entrepreneur, fair, fair share of taxes, fairness, federal income tax, funding the government, get rich, high tax rates, income tax, invest, jobs, marginal tax rates, middle class, millionaires, politics, poor, redistribution of wealth, return on investment, rich, take risks, Tax and spend, tax burden, tax dollars, tax policy, tax rates, taxes, votes, winning elections
Greece Burning – Public Sector Pay and Pensions Bankrupting the Nation
Things got ugly in Greece during their 2010 financial crisis. At least three died one day during rioting (see Greek financial crisis explained posted 5/6/2010 on The BBC).
Three people, including a pregnant woman, have been killed during riots in Athens.
And why were the Greeks rioting?
Many of the protesters are public service workers, whose salary comes from the tax payer…
They object to their government’s plan to get Greece’s economy back under control.
It includes a freeze on public sector pay, raising the tax on fuel, and cutting pensions.
And why did Greece find herself in a position to take these austerity measures?
For years, Greece has been spending money it doesn’t have.
The government there took advantage of the economic good-times to borrow money and spend it on pay-rises for public workers and projects such as the 2004 Olympics.
France Burning – Early Retirement Age Bankrupting the Nation
Things weren’t much prettier in France. They, too, were facing out of control state spending. So they, too, tried to cut their spending. And it didn’t go over well with the people (see Proposed retirement age change prompts riots in France by The Associated Press posted 11/4/2010 on The Chicago Sun-Times).
Workers opposed to a higher retirement age blocked roads to airports around France on Wednesday, leaving passengers in Paris dragging suitcases on foot along an emergency breakdown lane.
Outside the capital, hooded youths smashed store windows amid clouds of tear gas.
Riot police in black body armor forced striking workers away from blocked fuel depots in western France, restoring gasoline to areas where pumps were dry after weeks of protests over the government proposal raising the age from 60 to 62.
And what was their greatest fear of these austerity cuts?
Many workers feel the change would be a first step in eroding France’s social benefits – which include long vacations, contracts that make it hard for employers to lay off workers and a state-subsidized health care system – in favor of “American-style capitalism.”
The United Kingdom Burning – Cheap College Tuition Bankrupting the Nation
Meanwhile, in the U.K., they’re having their own riots. And the rioters attacked the Royal Family. Fortunately for Prince Charles, his car took the brunt of the attack (see Prince Charles’s car kicked in tuition riot by The Associated Press posted 12/9/2010 on CBC News).
“We can confirm that the royal highnesses’ car was attacked by protesters on their way to their engagement at the London Palladium this evening. The royal highnesses are unharmed,” a statement from Prince Charles’s press secretary said.
And why were the people rioting? Much like in Greece and France, the U.K.’s generous social benefits are bankrupting the nation.
Cameron’s government describes the move as a painful necessity to deal with a record budget deficit and a sputtering economy. To balance its books, the U.K. passed a four-year package of spending cuts worth $129 billion, which will lead to the loss of hundreds of thousands of public sector jobs and cut or curtail hundreds of government programs.
The government proposed raising the maximum university tuition fees in England from $4,780 a year to $14,000. Students reacted with mass protests that have been marred by violence and have paralyzed some campuses.
Not Burning Yet – Social Security and Medicare Bankrupting the Nation
Social Security and Medicare are going broke. And will. It’s just a matter of time. When they came into being, there was an expanding birth rate. Actuaries counted on those birth rates to continue. But they didn’t. The baby boom generation had only about 3 children per family. Whereas their parent’s generation often had 10 kids or more.
Social Security is like a Ponzi Scheme. There are no retirement accounts. Payroll taxes from workers today pay the retirees of today. Think pyramid scheme. As long as the base of the pyramid (those workers paying taxes) grows at a greater rate than the tip of the pyramid (those collecting benefits) the scheme works. But with the reduction in birth rates and our aging population, the pyramid has inverted. The tip of the pyramid is growing at a greater rate than the base is. As the ‘size’ of the tip and the base approach each other, eventually one worker will support one retiree. And if a retiree lives on, say, $30,000 a year, do the math. In a two-income family, one income will support a retiree. And nothing else. And that just ain’t sustainable. Ergo, Social Security will go broke.
Ditto for Medicare.
Obamacare – Tinder, Gasoline and a Match
All right, we’ve seen how out of control state spending has led to austerity measures throughout Europe. And rioting. We have two huge entitlement programs pushing our county down the same path. Europe is cutting costs (even when cities are burning in the process). And what do we do? We double down. We add a third entitlement behemoth that will make Social Security and Medicare look tiny in comparison.
Obamacare. Affordable health care for everyone. Because the government is going to force everyone to buy health insurance. Because the more people who pay premiums, the lower each premium needs to be. Think pyramid scheme. You need more to pay in (the base) than collect benefits (the tip). Because this ain’t insurance. It’s the mother lode of welfare entitlements. And it’s also something else. Unconstitutional (see Opposition to Health Law Is Steeped in Tradition by David Leonhardt posted 12/14/2010 on The New York Times).
On Monday, a federal judge ruled part of the law to be unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court will probably need to settle the matter in the end.
But that doesn’t stop the Obamacare cheerleaders.
We’ve lived through a version of this story before, and not just with Medicare. Nearly every time this country has expanded its social safety net or tried to guarantee civil rights, passionate opposition has followed.
The opposition stems from the tension between two competing traditions in the American economy. One is the laissez-faire tradition that celebrates individuality and risk-taking. The other is the progressive tradition that says people have a right to a minimum standard of living — time off from work, education and the like.
Yes, the two competing traditions. The individuality and risk-taking that has defined America until Woodrow Wilson and the Progressives came along. And the entitlement mentality. Also known as European Socialism. Like they have, had, have in Greece, France and Great Britain. And we’ve seen how that has worked. But we don’t learn from the lessons of history, do we?
The federal income tax, a senator from New York said a century ago, might mean the end of “our distinctively American experiment of individual freedom.” Social Security was actually a plan “to Sovietize America,” a previous head of the Chamber of Commerce said in 1935. The minimum wage and mandated overtime pay were steps “in the direction of Communism, Bolshevism, fascism and Nazism,” the National Association of Manufacturers charged in 1938.
When my dad worked gross pay meant something. Today it’s all about net pay. What’s left after taxes. Taxes have grown so great that a single wage earner has trouble raising a family. Unlike those families back before the baby boom. When a single wage earner could raise 10 kids. So, yes, the federal income tax has greatly changed the American experiment in individual freedom.
Social Security has ‘Sovietize’ America. Retirees live in fear of losing their state benefits. And they know that it’s in their ‘best interest’ to support the state. And they do. At the voting booth. Potato. Tomato. The only difference is that we don’t have gulags in Siberia here. But we don’t need them. Because the threat of cutting a retiree’s benefits scares them enough to toe the party line.
And now we want to add national health care to the mix. Because every other rich country has jumped off that bridge.
It is clearly one of the least radical ways for the United States to end its status as the only rich country with millions and millions of uninsured.
There’s a reason why the U.S. does not pay for millions and millions of uninsured here. Why? See Greece, France and the U.K. above.
Guaranteeing people a decent retirement and decent health care does more than smooth out the rough edges of capitalism. Those guarantees give people the freedom to take risks. If you know that professional failure won’t leave you penniless and won’t prevent your child from receiving needed medical care, you can leave the comfort of a large corporation and take a chance on your own idea. You can take a shot at becoming the next great American entrepreneur.
With every previous major expansion of the safety net, history has had a chance to prove the naysayers wrong. It may yet in the case of universal health coverage. But the decision now seems to rest with the nine members of the Supreme Court.
Again, see Greece, France and the U.K. above. As nice and compassionate as it sounds, it just doesn’t work. European Socialism. If it did, it would have worked in Greece, France and the U.K. But it didn’t. And that should scare the hell out of us here. Because we’re heading down the same road.
And history may just prove the naysayers were right.
Tags: affordable health care, austerity cuts, austerity measures, bankrupting the nation, benefits, Cheap College Tuition, early retirement age, entitlement mentality, entitlement programs, entitlements, European Socialism, federal income tax, France, Greece, Greek financial crisis, health insurance, individual freedom, individuality, Medicare, National health care, Obamacare, out of control state spending, pensions, premium, Progressive, public sector pay, retirees, riots, risk-taking, social benefits, social safety net, Social Security, state spending, state-subsidized health care system, the U.K., tuition riot, United Kingdom, welfare, welfare entitlements