Surtax on wealthy in UK results in lower revenue

posted at 9:15 am on February 22, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Barack Obama has spent the last several months insisting on a tax hike for higher income earners in the US, casting it as an issue of “fairness” and of deficit reduction.  In his State of the Union speech, Obama used the word “fair” or a derivative nine different times, and calling for the wealthy to pay their “fair share” of taxes — even though the wealthy account for a much higher percentage of income-tax revenues both as a share of the revenues and as a share of income than the rest of the population.  Democrats have tried to push through a “surtax” on income over a million dollars in a year in order to put Obama’s rhetoric into reality.

Speaking of reality, the UK did exactly what Obama and the Democrats propose to do here — pass a surtax on high-income earners.  The new tax rate of 50%, which took effect at the beginning of the year, was expected to raise a billion pounds in extra revenue each month.  So how did that work out?  Tax revenues dropped by more than £500 million:

The Treasury received £10.35 billion in income tax payments from those paying by self-assessment last month, a drop of £509 million compared with January 2011. Most other taxes produced higher revenues over the same period.

Senior sources said that the first official figures indicated that there had been “manoeuvring” by well-off Britons to avoid the new higher rate. The figures will add to pressure on the Coalition to drop the levy amid fears it is forcing entrepreneurs to relocate abroad.

The self-assessment returns from January, when most income tax is paid by the better-off, have been eagerly awaited by the Treasury and government ministers as they provide the first evidence of the success, or failure, of the 50p rate. It is the first year following the introduction of the 50p rate which had been expected to boost tax revenues from self-assessment by more than £1billion.

Oopsie!  It turns out that the wealthy can find ways to shelter income when government drives the cost of taxes high enough to make it worthwhile.  If that means taking their money and going where the tax laws are more welcoming to investment, then this particular population has fewer barriers to making that solution work than most of the middle class.  Instead of gaining more revenue, the UK will end up losing revenue, and not just from the sheltering — but also in lost economic growth as the wealthy have to put that capital to sleep rather than make it work in the economy.

Obama’s plan to hike capital-gains taxes to 20% and push a surtax on higher earnings will produce the same result here.  The capital that might have gone to work in the US will go to work somewhere else or not at all, which will not just kill the direct revenues expected in static tax analysis from the hike, but also discard the revenues that would have occurred had the capital been put to work here.  That’s the lesson from the British face-plant on surtaxes, and hopefully the US learns that lesson the easy way.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Because to Libs it’s not about revenues. It’s about “fairness”.
Oblamer said so to Charlie Gibson a couple years ago.

Dexter_Alarius on February 22, 2012 at 10:19 AM

Yeah, that’s right. The April 2008 ABC News debate. Ed should have seen whether he could find a clip on that. If I recall correctly, Gibson set it up by noting that tax revenues historically had risen during periods of low capital gains tax rates. At first, Obama kind of double clutched, suggesting that he wasn’t at all aware of this relationship. But then, he “recovered” by offering his famous line that “it’s about fairness.”

Libs: cutting off their noses (tax revenue) to spite their faces (those who pay capital gains taxes).

Problem: members of GOP in Congress will somehow not be able to use this information to shove it down the throats of liberals.

BuckeyeSam on February 22, 2012 at 11:00 AM

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year — $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That’s not fair.

And what I want is not oppressive taxation. I want businesses to thrive and I want people to be rewarded for their success. But what I also want to make sure is that our tax system is fair and that we are able to finance health care for Americans who currently don’t have it and that we’re able to invest in our infrastructure and invest in our schools.

And you can’t do that for free, and you can’t take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children and our grandchildren and then say that you’re cutting taxes, which is essentially what John McCain has been talking about. And that is irresponsible.

You know, I believe in the principle that you pay as you go, and you don’t propose tax cuts unless you are closing other tax breaks for individuals. And you don’t increase spending unless you’re eliminating some spending or you’re finding some new revenue. That’s how we got an additional $4 trillion worth of debt under George Bush. That is helping to undermine our economy, and it’s going to change when I’m president of the United States.

MR. GIBSON: But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up.

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, that might happen or it might not. It depends on what’s happening on Wall Street and how business is going. I think the biggest problem that we’ve got on Wall Street right now is the fact that we’ve got a housing crisis that this president has not been attentive to and that it took John McCain three tries before he got it right.

And if we can stabilize that market and we can get credit flowing again, then I think we’ll see stocks do well, and once again I think we can generate the revenue that we need to run this government and hopefully to pay down some of this debt.

Video: Obama’s redistributionism on capital gains taxes
posted at 1:40 pm on April 17, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

ITguy on February 22, 2012 at 11:03 AM

Paging Bayam, come in Bayam.

Bayam?

Bueller?

angryed on February 22, 2012 at 10:12 AM

Heh, sounds like a thread that is Tailor made for her – Oh wait, it doesn’t confirm the flawed notions of National Socialism…. Never mind.

Chip on February 22, 2012 at 11:05 AM

Because to Libs it’s not about revenues. It’s about “fairness”.
Oblamer said so to Charlie Gibson a couple years ago.

Dexter_Alarius on February 22, 2012 at 10:19 AM

Exactly right.

This is why the libs/statists’ ultimate wet dream is for One World Government. They want to impose their vision of “fairness” (by way of punitive taxation), with no way out for anyone (except them, of course).

AZCoyote on February 22, 2012 at 11:12 AM

It’s almost as if wealthy people were had options about manner in which they draw income out of their assets. If only the Government could have predicted that.

FineasFinn on February 22, 2012 at 11:15 AM

And who is the worst deficit spender in history? Never mind, you won’t answer that.

So you are saying tax revenues went down after the Reagan and Bush tax cuts? Is that what you are saying? Because it must be what you are saying considering this thread is about revenues going down in Britain after tax rates were increased.

NotCoach on February 22, 2012 at 10:51 AM

I am refuting a statement that has no basis in reality is what I am doing. So, other people can go off topic with complete lies and no one can then refute them? Reagan and the Bushes didn’t balance their budgets so to act like they were fiscally responsible is a lie. Tax revenue is not the only thing important when talking about fiscal responsibility, if I make $200K per year and spend $300K, I am not fiscally responsible.

To get at your point. Revenue went down from 1982 to 1983 (one of Reagan’s tax cuts was in 1981). It also went down from 2000 to 2001 (first Bush tax cuts) to 2002 to 2003 (second Bush tax cuts). It wasn’t at 2000 levels again until 2005. It did not go down in any year during the Clinton administration (and oh my gosh(!), he even raised taxes once). It went down again from 2008 to 2009, I could say that some of that was from the total economic meltdown in 2008, but if you want to say Obama caused it, fine, you can have that one and the last two years. I would say the bursting of asset bubbles has changed the tax revenues more than the tax rates over the last 10 years.

sob0728 on February 22, 2012 at 11:16 AM

“It turns out that the wealthy can find ways to shelter income “

In other words, stop hiring the people they need to help them make more money. Or stop working altogether and live off their savings until Obama is back in Chicago.

multiuseless on February 22, 2012 at 11:17 AM

The left really believe in this nonsense of fairness that they use in all their metaphors for reasons that are fiction. Over and over they use it to convince the right that they owe it to the people who are not as successful as they wish they were. Just because you weigh 200 pounds is no reason to be refused as a horse jockey in their eyes. Makes me wonder how many people watch the program, “Dirty Jobs” that are lefties?

mixplix on February 22, 2012 at 11:21 AM

sob0728 on February 22, 2012 at 11:16 AM

This thread is about tax revenues and how to reduce them. Yes, we all know revenues are only half of the government budget component. And I don’t see any excuses in this thread for spending. So what is it you think you are addressing?

To get at your point. Revenue went down from 1982 to 1983 (one of Reagan’s tax cuts was in 1981). It also went down from 2000 to 2001 (first Bush tax cuts) to 2002 to 2003 (second Bush tax cuts). It wasn’t at 2000 levels again until 2005. It did not go down in any year during the Clinton administration (and oh my gosh(!), he even raised taxes once). It went down again from 2008 to 2009, I could say that some of that was from the total economic meltdown in 2008, but if you want to say Obama caused it, fine, you can have that one and the last two years.

You ever hear of the word, recession? Each of your examples of revenues declining are from years in which our economy was in recession. Tax revenues tend to decline during a recession regardless of changes to tax laws. Under the Obama recession revenues refuse to recover primarily because we are in what seems to be a never ending recession.

NotCoach on February 22, 2012 at 11:30 AM

This thread is about tax revenues and how to reduce them. Yes, we all know revenues are only half of the government budget component. And I don’t see any excuses in this thread for spending. So what is it you think you are addressing?

I was addressing the exact quote that I quoted in my first comment. Someone on the thread said liberals don’t understand how to be fiscally responsible. I directly addressed that point. Clinton was fiscally responsible. It may have been off-topic, but I wasn’t the one who took the thread in that direction. Do you have reading comprehension issues?

You ever hear of the word, recession? Each of your examples of revenues declining are from years in which our economy was in recession. Tax revenues tend to decline during a recession regardless of changes to tax laws. Under the Obama recession revenues refuse to recover primarily because we are in what seems to be a never ending recession.

NotCoach on February 22, 2012 at 11:30 AM

I understand what a recession is, I thought maybe you didn’t. You asked if tax revenues went down after those Reagan and Bush tax cuts. I answered that they did, in fact, go down after those cuts. Sorry for answering your question and making you look dumb.

sob0728 on February 22, 2012 at 11:39 AM

sob0728 on February 22, 2012 at 11:39 AM

So are you saying that the story was wrong, that revenues should have gone up?

Do you really think that people won’t react to their hard earned property being stolen from them?

Chip on February 22, 2012 at 11:48 AM

Clinton was fiscally responsible.

Yes, of course he was. He agreed with the Republicans, then took credit for their success.

2L8 on February 22, 2012 at 11:49 AM

The liberal argument will be that rich people shouldn’t be allowed to “hide” their money in the first place, or move funds/businesses off-shore. Cue more regulations & taxes? *facepalm*

Violina23 on February 22, 2012 at 11:56 AM

So are you saying that the story was wrong, that revenues should have gone up?

Do you really think that people won’t react to their hard earned property being stolen from them?

Chip on February 22, 2012 at 11:48 AM

So, are you saying that every tax is stealing? What should the federal rate be? I’d like to know your opinion. You tell me what you want to pay for and how much it should cost.

I am not saying revenues should have gone up. I am saying that tax policy is not as important as everyone wants it to be. Cheap oil is much more important than decreasing the highest marginal tax rate if you want to lower unemployment and get the economy going again.

sob0728 on February 22, 2012 at 12:02 PM

Clinton was fiscally responsible.

Yes, of course he was. He agreed with the Republicans, then took credit for their success.

2L8 on February 22, 2012 at 11:49 AM

They weren’t very successful at being fiscally responsible when Bush was in office and the Republicans controlled everything.

sob0728 on February 22, 2012 at 12:07 PM

sob0728 on February 22, 2012 at 12:02 PM

I see you buy your strawmen in bulk, but you didn’t even get close to addressing what I asked in the question:

Do you really think that people won’t react to their hard earned property being stolen from them?

Chip on February 22, 2012 at 12:08 PM

Clinton was fiscally responsible.

Erh….a conservative Congress supplied fiscally responsible revenue and spending bills for Clinton to sign.

Unless you think Billy did it on his own…?

BobMbx on February 22, 2012 at 12:08 PM

I see you buy your strawmen in bulk, but you didn’t even get close to addressing what I asked in the question:

Do you really think that people won’t react to their hard earned property being stolen from them?

Chip on February 22, 2012 at 12:08 PM

That’s not a strawman argument. Answer the question: at what point is the tax rate stealing? 20%? 40%? 50%? When does taxation become stealing, I would like to know the answer.

It would be helpful for our economy if we knew that answer, so please tell me. So, at 25% will you just pay willingly? But once it gets to 50% you are going to start hiding your money? We need to find the right midpoint in there, please let me know what it is.

sob0728 on February 22, 2012 at 12:23 PM

Unless you think Billy did it on his own…?

BobMbx on February 22, 2012 at 12:08 PM

Do you think Reagan did it on his own? Just wondering…

sob0728 on February 22, 2012 at 12:26 PM

Erh….a conservative Congress supplied fiscally responsible revenue and spending bills for Clinton to sign.

Unless you think Billy did it on his own…?

BobMbx on February 22, 2012 at 12:08 PM

Surely you think the Republicans are responsible for the housing policies put into place while he was president then, no?

sob0728 on February 22, 2012 at 12:29 PM

I think maybe, most likely!, that if I were in that income class I would invest heavily in other countries making products that compete with Great Britain.. Same here if Obama get’s his way.

dahni on February 22, 2012 at 12:30 PM

Do you really think that people won’t react to their hard earned property being stolen from them?

Chip on February 22, 2012 at 12:08 PM

sob0728 on February 22, 2012 at 12:23 PM

Okay, so you can’t answer that – I get it.

The point at which governmental theft will effect people varies.

But the best illustration of this is the Laffer curve.

The larger point is that this theft does have an effect – as aptly illustrated by the story.

Therefore it is impossible the ‘redistribute the wealth’ without destroying the economy – do you at least understand that?

Chip on February 22, 2012 at 12:39 PM

Therefore it is impossible the ‘redistribute the wealth’ without destroying the economy – do you at least understand that?

Chip on February 22, 2012 at 12:39 PM

Dude – give it up. He’s not here to learn or discuss. He’s here to disturb the fecal matter. That’s all.

He knows it – but he’d never acknowledge it – because wealth is unfair. If you hold on to that premise – none of your fancy facts matter.

CycloneCDB on February 22, 2012 at 12:54 PM

Do you really think that people won’t react to their hard earned property being stolen from them?

Chip on February 22, 2012 at 12:08 PM

I need more information. At what point is it stealing? You can’t answer that then? I need a number.

Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy in 1993 and the economy grew greatly after that. So, I guess, no, I don’t understand that it would ruin the economy. Mostly because it’s wrong.

sob0728 on February 22, 2012 at 12:55 PM

He knows it – but he’d never acknowledge it – because wealth is unfair. If you hold on to that premise – none of your fancy facts matter.

CycloneCDB on February 22, 2012 at 12:54 PM

Now here is a REAL strawman. When did I say wealth was unfair?

sob0728 on February 22, 2012 at 12:56 PM

Paging Bayam, come in Bayam.

Bayam?

Bueller?

angryed on February 22, 2012 at 10:12 AM

Heh, sounds like a thread that is Tailor made for her – Oh wait, it doesn’t confirm the flawed notions of National Socialism…. Never mind.

Chip on February 22, 2012 at 11:05 AM

If you want a Cheap Imitation, Paul Krugman’s Teaching Assistant sesquipedalian is amusing folks on the corporate taxation thread…

Del Dolemonte on February 22, 2012 at 1:03 PM

I need more information. At what point is it stealing? You can’t answer that then? I need a number.

sob0728 on February 22, 2012 at 12:55 PM

Easy. The number is 0.0000001%. Anything above 0 is stealing when the govt confiscates my money to give to someone else.

angryed on February 22, 2012 at 1:13 PM

Interesting question posed above…

When does taxation become stealing?

Well, to be honest, when a tax is levied in the first place.

All taxation is stealing. Period.

If I wish to donate my time, services and money to any cause I wish, from maybe establishing a local school for my kids and those of my neighbors, fine, let me donate. Let others donate.

If we see a need for a hospital, and several neighbors get together and build a hospital…and ask if I wish to donate my labor, services or cash….and allow me the choice to do so…fine, not a problem.

But the minute an entity, government, for example, requires under penalty of imprisonment, or the seizure of my land, capital, my person, and demands that I give government money so that government can give it to others, not of my choosing…yes…taxation is theft, stealing.

What is so hard to understand about that?

And voting for those who would deign to steal from me, or others, taking our land, capital, labor, and services from us…to benefit others not of our own choosing, not under our own volition, is acting as an accessory to theft…no less a criminal than those who knock on my door and strong arm me and my family so they can get stuff.

The taking of anything, without the non-coerced express prior approval and consent of the owner of that which is taken is theft…stealing.

coldwarrior on February 22, 2012 at 1:16 PM

Therefore it is impossible the ‘redistribute the wealth’ without destroying the economy – do you at least understand that?

Chip on February 22, 2012 at 12:39 PM

Dude – give it up. He’s not here to learn or discuss. He’s here to disturb the fecal matter. That’s all.

He knows it – but he’d never acknowledge it – because wealth is unfair. If you hold on to that premise – none of your fancy facts matter.

CycloneCDB on February 22, 2012 at 12:54 PM

I realize that – which is why he insists on the nitpicking the number question in an attempt to deflect off the main point:

That high taxes have a very detrimental effect on the economy and will therefor make it impossible to implement some sort of social justice – Marxist paradise.

Chip on February 22, 2012 at 1:23 PM

Oh noes… Rush is going off on Romney for his new tax stuff. Stay tuned.

Fallon on February 22, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Oh noes… Rush is going off on Romney for his new tax stuff. Stay tuned.

Fallon on February 22, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Just heard it – Santorum may have just won the nomination. What a moron Romney is. The fact he even uses the phrase “1%” makes him something less than “Severely Conservative”.

CycloneCDB on February 22, 2012 at 1:31 PM

That high taxes have a very detrimental effect on the economy and will therefor make it impossible to implement some sort of social justice – Marxist paradise.

Chip on February 22, 2012 at 1:23 PM

Clinton raised taxes and it worked. It did not have a detrimental effect on the economy. A 100% top tax rate would be terrible, a 70% top tax rate would not work, but a 0% tax rate would also not work. To claim that ANY tax raise would be detrimental to the economy is wrong. Clinton proved that. You mention the Laffer curve, but you have no idea where we are on that curve. Is it not possible that England is in a different spot on that curve than we are and raising taxes could possibly lead to more revenue for the government of the United States? Or would you like to pinpoint for me where we are on the Laffer curve?

sob0728 on February 22, 2012 at 1:34 PM

All taxation is stealing. Period.

If I wish to donate my time, services and money to any cause I wish, from maybe establishing a local school for my kids and those of my neighbors, fine, let me donate. Let others donate.

If we see a need for a hospital, and several neighbors get together and build a hospital…and ask if I wish to donate my labor, services or cash….and allow me the choice to do so…fine, not a problem.

But the minute an entity, government, for example, requires under penalty of imprisonment, or the seizure of my land, capital, my person, and demands that I give government money so that government can give it to others, not of my choosing…yes…taxation is theft, stealing.

What is so hard to understand about that?

And voting for those who would deign to steal from me, or others, taking our land, capital, labor, and services from us…to benefit others not of our own choosing, not under our own volition, is acting as an accessory to theft…no less a criminal than those who knock on my door and strong arm me and my family so they can get stuff.

The taking of anything, without the non-coerced express prior approval and consent of the owner of that which is taken is theft…stealing.

coldwarrior on February 22, 2012 at 1:16 PM

Your local army is going to get its clock cleaned by my national one. Then you are going to be living under a government you didn’t vote for. A 0% tax rate is ridiculous.

sob0728 on February 22, 2012 at 1:36 PM

sob0728 on February 22, 2012 at 1:36 PM

The US Constitution requires an armed force. Being a citizen and maintaining that citizenship asks that the populace support an armed force.

Representative government allows a voice for the citizens to demand that force or ask for its abolition.

How it is paid for should not rest on the shoulders of “rich” citizens, and the Constitution addresses this.

The individual income tax is by its very nature a coercive theft of property from individual citizens.

If under my rubric one supports an armed force then one joins that same armed force. I did. Did you?

The point of my post was to show that coerced taking of anything from anyone without their express prior approval is theft. You asked a simple question, at what point is taxation stealing.

At the point that tax is levied.

coldwarrior on February 22, 2012 at 1:50 PM

Raising taxes = lower revenues

Happens everytime. This should be written in stone as an immutable law. Like the laws of physics.

Bitter Clinger on February 22, 2012 at 1:54 PM

I will gladly pay the gov’t to provide those services outlined in the constitution ..
Military … and roads …. as far as I am concerned that is all the federal gov’t needs to be concerned about … the state gov’t has other responsibilities but the federal gov’t … those are the two biggies …. there are others to be sure ….
but giving my money to ppl is not one of them …

conservative tarheel on February 22, 2012 at 1:54 PM

The left progressives want “fairness” in taxes?
***
I fear that the progs will also want to define what is “fair”.
freedomfirst on February 22, 2012 at 10:22 AM

That’s exactly what they want to do.
But, if you ask them “what’s fair?”, they can’t answer you.
It’s just always “higher than it is now”.

Dexter_Alarius on February 22, 2012 at 1:55 PM

The point of my post was to show that coerced taking of anything from anyone without their express prior approval is theft. You asked a simple question, at what point is taxation stealing.

At the point that tax is levied.

coldwarrior on February 22, 2012 at 1:50 PM

thank you … you did it so much better then I did ….

conservative tarheel on February 22, 2012 at 1:57 PM

coldwarrior on February 22, 2012 at 1:50 PM

So, a volunteer army that provides their own weapons then? That’s how you plan on defending your utopian taxless country? Have fun voting for Ron Paul.

sob0728 on February 22, 2012 at 2:00 PM

Raising taxes = lower revenues

Happens everytime. This should be written in stone as an immutable law. Like the laws of physics.

Bitter Clinger on February 22, 2012 at 1:54 PM

you are not familiar with the Laffer curve then?

sob0728 on February 22, 2012 at 2:01 PM

Have to wonder how many Americans know that the very first counter-revolution to the great American Revolution was instigated by “government” taxing citizens…not only out of their cash, but out of their livelihood.

coldwarrior on February 22, 2012 at 2:03 PM

conservative tarheel on February 22, 2012 at 1:54 PM

no, actually you did a better job because you agree that you may need roads and a military funded by the government through taxes.

sob0728 on February 22, 2012 at 2:03 PM

sob0728 on February 22, 2012 at 2:00 PM

Tariffs and excise taxes worked well to fund government for most of our existence as a nation.

These were voluntary taxes, as well.

coldwarrior on February 22, 2012 at 2:05 PM

How many people Remember “The Luxury Tax”?

You know, the tax that wasn’t stopped by the words, “Read My Lips.”That tax, the one Romney Advisor John Sinunu brokered with George Mitchell.

Anyway, that tax was supposed to address Defecit Reduction as well.

Only, it didn’t raise the revenue expected, and it DESTROYED the Boat Building Industry in America costing Blue Collar workers Thousands of Jobs.

It was quietly repealed during the Clinton Administration, with little or no fanfare, or any mention whatsoever on the MSM.

jaydee_007 on February 22, 2012 at 9:49 AM

I do, I do!!! ;)

Also proves that altho Pappy Bush served under Reagan for 8 years, he didn’t learn a lick about real voo-doo economics. In of itself, VDE was just projection of the Rockefellerians against supply-side economics.

I’ll also bet, based on Mittness’ 59 point plan that he believes he can tinker on the margins of the current tax tables and make it work. That’s why he’s severely mistaken if he thinks he’s conservative.

AH_C on February 22, 2012 at 2:12 PM

Tariffs and excise taxes worked well to fund government for most of our existence as a nation.

These were voluntary taxes, as well.

coldwarrior on February 22, 2012 at 2:05 PM

Oh, did they work well? The whiskey excise tax led to the Whiskey Rebellion and the Smoot-Hawley tariff prolonged the Great Depression. So, I wouldn’t say they worked all that well.

Also, it isn’t 1860 anymore, so I don’t think excise taxes and tariffs will work.

sob0728 on February 22, 2012 at 2:13 PM

sob0728 on February 22, 2012 at 2:13 PM

No, it is not 1860 anymore.

It is 2012.

So, 49.5 percent of the population taking from 50.5 percent of the population, with the government acting as enforcement agent is perfectly OK with you?

Allowing government (the Executive branch) without the advice and consent of Congress (advice and consent of the governed) to act as sole determinant of fiscal policy, to increase spending, to increase taxation, in the pursuit of “fairness” which is not mentioned at all in the Constitution nor the supporting documents, to include the Federalist Papers, is perfectly fine.

Rex Lex is a perfectly legitimate notion of governance? Let the “king” make it up as he goes along…or in this case, let Obama wing it because he has a whim or two?

Not.

coldwarrior on February 22, 2012 at 2:20 PM

I have always felt that the Republicans in congress should appear to make a big stink but then let passage of the tax hike legislation just barely squeak through with the support of a few moderate Republicans. Then watch it fail miserably, as it surely will, and use it as more evidence of The One and the Democrats’ incompetence and failed policies.

AttaBoyLuther on February 22, 2012 at 2:28 PM

sob0728 on February 22, 2012 at 2:01 PM

So you would agree that above a certain point more taxes are counterproductive and therefore it’s impossible to ‘Spread the wealth around’ as expressed by our dear El Presidente Downgrade?

Chip on February 22, 2012 at 2:33 PM

to increase taxation, in the pursuit of “fairness” which is not mentioned at all in the Constitution nor the supporting documents, to include the Federalist Papers, is perfectly fine.

coldwarrior on February 22, 2012 at 2:20 PM

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence[note 1] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”

Depends on your interpretation of that statement. Do you agree with Madison or Hamilton? Even they had differing views on what it meant.

sob0728 on February 22, 2012 at 2:35 PM

So you would agree that above a certain point more taxes are counterproductive and therefore it’s impossible to ‘Spread the wealth around’ as expressed by our dear El Presidente Downgrade?

Chip on February 22, 2012 at 2:33 PM

Those are two separate statements. At a certain point are higher taxes counterproductive? Yes, I would agree with that. Are we at that point right now? I would say no.

sob0728 on February 22, 2012 at 2:38 PM

The left really believe in this nonsense of fairness that they use in all their metaphors for reasons that are fiction. Over and over they use it to convince the right that they owe it to the people who are not as successful as they wish they were. Just because you weigh 200 pounds is no reason to be refused as a horse jockey in their eyes. Makes me wonder how many people watch the program, “Dirty Jobs” that are lefties?

mixplix on February 22, 2012 at 11:21 AM

What they hate is for anyone to have higher status than they do. Class warfare is their way of rationalizing pulling down anyone who has outdone them.

And any job involving getting your hands dirty is for plebs, not for the Patricians

LarryD on February 22, 2012 at 2:44 PM

What they hate is for anyone to have higher status than they do. Class warfare is their way of rationalizing pulling down anyone who has outdone them.

And any job involving getting your hands dirty is for plebs, not for the Patricians

LarryD on February 22, 2012 at 2:44 PM

Yep, that’s totally why Warren Buffett is pushing for higher taxes on millionaires.

sob0728 on February 22, 2012 at 2:46 PM

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

First of all…what about that little phrase :

“but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States?”

Second, what about that term :

“Provide for … general Welfare of the United States?”

If taxes, a form of duties, imposts and excises, are to be uniform in all states, why is it that we have a “progressive” income tax rate at all?

Uniform means uniform…the same. For all. In all states.

And what does “general welfare” actually mean?

Dividing up the wealth and spreading it around?

Or making it necessary for government to allow for and to establish and maintain an environment where those who wish to work to their hearts and wallets content are free to do so? With the sky being the limit to their successes?

Or is it sending out “gubmint” checks every two weeks so others can live off the backs of those who do work and are required, not asked, to pay taxes, a theft of their time, labor, capital and money?

coldwarrior on February 22, 2012 at 2:56 PM

So you would agree that above a certain point more taxes are counterproductive and therefore it’s impossible to ‘Spread the wealth around’ as expressed by our dear El Presidente Downgrade?

Chip on February 22, 2012 at 2:33 PM

Those are two separate statements. At a certain point are higher taxes counterproductive? Yes, I would agree with that. Are we at that point right now? I would say no.

sob0728 on February 22, 2012 at 2:38 PM

Clearly you want to avoid talking about the ‘other ‘ issue there – so are you under the impression that scams like wealth redistribution can work?

Chip on February 22, 2012 at 3:00 PM

Clearly you want to avoid talking about the ‘other ‘ issue there – so are you under the impression that scams like wealth redistribution can work?

Chip on February 22, 2012 at 3:00 PM

No, I don’t think people who make $15,000 per year should have to pay the same tax rate as someone who makes $200,000 per year. If they keep their $15,000 at a 0% tax rate and I get taxed at 35% and keep $130,000, I do not consider that a wealth redistribution scam. I consider that to be the cost of living in a rational and civilized society.

sob0728 on February 22, 2012 at 3:16 PM

coldwarrior on February 22, 2012 at 2:56 PM

The general interpretation (Federalist papers) of that is “by geography,” not “by individual.”

It’s almost like you didn’t read the Federalist papers and you just bring them up to try to sound smart?

sob0728 on February 22, 2012 at 3:21 PM

To get at your point. Revenue went down from 1982 to 1983 (one of Reagan’s tax cuts was in 1981). It also went down from 2000 to 2001 (first Bush tax cuts) to 2002 to 2003 (second Bush tax cuts). It wasn’t at 2000 levels again until 2005. It did not go down in any year during the Clinton administration (and oh my gosh(!), he even raised taxes once). It went down again from 2008 to 2009, I could say that some of that was from the total economic meltdown in 2008, but if you want to say Obama caused it, fine, you can have that one and the last two years. I would say the bursting of asset bubbles has changed the tax revenues more than the tax rates over the last 10 years.

sob0728 on February 22, 2012 at 11:16 AM

???

I was addressing the exact quote that I quoted in my first comment. Someone on the thread said liberals don’t understand how to be fiscally responsible. I directly addressed that point. Clinton was fiscally responsible. It may have been off-topic, but I wasn’t the one who took the thread in that direction. Do you have reading comprehension issues?

sob0728 on February 22, 2012 at 11:39 AM

Selective memory is so convenient. Aside from the fact that each period was during a recession.

1) What else happened during 82/83?
Grenada, Falklands, Israel invades Lebanon, Hama massacre, Beirut bombing, Brezhnev/Andropov, Mexico Peso collaspes and a string of other geo-political upheavals, cold snaps, KAL 007, SDI, hurricanes, string of nuclear reactor failures around the world, building up our fleet, modernizing our war machines.

But the recession was short lived and we began collecting record revenues.

Also bear in mind that the balance of power in Congress and how much Reagan was able toaccomplish in spite of a majority in the House led by Tip O’Neill and abetted by more than a handful of liberal republicans.
1981-82
Senate: 53(R) – 46(D) – 1(I)
House: 191(R) – 244(D)

1983-84
Senate: 55(R) – 45(D)
House: 163(R) – 272(D)

2) Clinton benefitted from tax policies set in motion by Reagan and got a boost from the dot com boom. It was hardly all his doing when the balance of power resided with the republicans and forced him to triangulate so he could claim credit for diminishing deficits, welfare reform etc.
1993-95
Began
Senate: 57(D) – 43(R)
House: 258(D) – 176(R) – 1(I)
Ended
Senate: 53(D) – 47(R)
House: 256(D) – 177(R) – 1(I)

1995-97
Began
Senate: 53(R) – 47(D)
House: 230(R) – 204(D) – 1(I)
Ended
Senate: 53(R) – 47(D)
House: 234(R) – 198(D) – 1(I)

1997-99
Began
Senate: 55(R) – 45(D)
House: 228(R) – 206(D) – 1(I)
Ended
Senate: 55(R) – 45(D)
House: 227(R) – 207(D) – 1(I)

1999-01
Began
Senate: 55(R) – 45(D)
House: 223(R) – 211(D) – 1(I)
Ended
Senate: 54(R) – 46(D)
House: 222(R) – 210(D) – 1(I)

As for 2000/2001, you conveniently forget the economic blow by the collaspe of the dot com boom, Enron and 9/11.

As for the events leading up to 2008, the majority of republicans were just as corrupt, cronyist and big spenders as the donks. The conservatives had pretty much been marginalized by Bill Frist, Delay, and the rest of the GOP leadership.

Do try again.

AH_C on February 22, 2012 at 3:40 PM

One of the great truths about Socialists (liberals) is that they always try the same things to “force” their Utopia. The Soviet Union built a wall to prevent people from fleeing with their personal and material assets, even to the point of guard posts and mine fields. BHO did this same thing early in his term by going after wealthy people in Switzerland, trying to find offshore assets that were supposedly “untaxed”. We got a lesson in BHO going to the Swiss banks and forcing them to reveal private accounts. Remember? To his surprise, he found perfectly legal and taxed money saved and invested according to American and international law. This was not good, as one of the major focuses of his term was to get the rich to “pay”.

After a huge fiasco, the whole thing was quietly dropped, when the run up to this was touted by liberals as to be nothing less financial Nuremberg trials.

The “Financial Reform” bill is another attempt to build a financial wall around the USA to hold in the assets of the successful, EVEN THOUGH WE KNOW THAT THIS WHOLE APPROACH IS A FARCE.

Walls to hold people in, Gulags for the uncooperative and finally liquidation for the unrepentant.

Why does it always look the same?

Bulletchaser on February 22, 2012 at 3:44 PM

What they hate is for anyone to have higher status than they do. Class warfare is their way of rationalizing pulling down anyone who has outdone them.

And any job involving getting your hands dirty is for plebs, not for the Patricians

LarryD on February 22, 2012 at 2:44 PM

heh. Like crabs in a bucket.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XWg3PN26Ag&feature=related

Then there’s a demo of it in action at Oboobi’s own home church, yet the poster is a delusional BLTer as well
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DGbiyM7F5Y&feature=related

AH_C on February 22, 2012 at 4:00 PM

The general interpretation (Federalist papers) of that is “by geography,” not “by individual.”

It’s almost like you didn’t read the Federalist papers and you just bring them up to try to sound smart?

sob0728 on February 22, 2012 at 3:21 PM

Liar.

There was no income tax under governments before Taft.In 1909 at the urging of President William Howard Taft the Republican controlled Congress passed the 16th Amendment to the Constitution bringing the progressive income tax and the Marxist re-distribution of wealth to America.

The progressive income tax was pure vote buying. The vast mass of voters would not have to pay the tax. The Republican written 16th Amendment made the targets of the tax the upper middle classes and the rich. Class warfare. Take the wealth of the producing class and re-distribute it to those who the politicians feel are worthy to get it. All to buy the votes of those who were not taxed. Countries now have gone to flat taxes are doing well and the focus of the government is not how to RAISE or tinker with taxes and tax policy, but how to get the Country to do better as a whole.

Bulletchaser on February 22, 2012 at 4:04 PM

How many people Remember “The Luxury Tax”?

You know, the tax that wasn’t stopped by the words, “Read My Lips.”That tax, the one Romney Advisor John Sinunu brokered with George Mitchell.

Anyway, that tax was supposed to address Defecit Reduction as well.

Do you remember US tax policy before 2002? Rates were higher on top income earners and the deficit was practically non-existent. In fact, economic growth and job creation was far stronger under Clinton, when US tax revenue actually exceeded 20% of GDP over several years.

Yes, it would be terrible to return to those days. Terrible.

bayam on February 22, 2012 at 4:04 PM

Via Drudge: Heritage Foundation reports now 49.5% of American do not pay any Federal income tax. How about some fairness there?

galtani on February 22, 2012 at 4:09 PM

sob0728 on February 22, 2012 at 11:16 AM

Tax Facts
Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

pastselldate on February 22, 2012 at 4:16 PM

/crr6

NoFanofLibs on February 22, 2012 at 9:51 AM

Probably time we retired that name. She has not posted in months. I think she must have flunked out of law school and is too embarrassed to post from her parents basement.

NotCoach on February 22, 2012 at 9:56 AM

Naah. Never a lawyer, never in law school. Something related maybe, like a legal secretary or court recorder. Just a carefully crafted internet identity that came crashing down from all the flaws that were pointed out over the months.

slickwillie2001 on February 22, 2012 at 4:19 PM

Do you remember US tax policy before 2002? Rates were higher on top income earners and the deficit was practically non-existent. In fact, economic growth and job creation was far stronger under Clinton, when US tax revenue actually exceeded 20% of GDP over several years.

Yes, it would be terrible to return to those days. Terrible.

bayam on February 22, 2012 at 4:04 PM

That’s the kind of economic insight that could get you a column at the New York Times.

Hey Krugman – watch out.

CorporatePiggy on February 22, 2012 at 4:20 PM

Clinton raised taxes and it worked. It did not have a detrimental effect on the economy.
sob0728 on February 22, 2012 at 1:34 PM

Times were a lot better before the Internet Bubble Burst. You do remember that, don’t you?? And you do remember what happened after the Internet Bubble Burst. Many of those booming companies moved their operations overseas or closed up shop.

Two totally different economic times. Today, there are less jobs available and more people that need them (the underemployed).

pastselldate on February 22, 2012 at 4:25 PM

Obama knows exactly what he is doing. His job one is our ruination. If there are any satans out there it’s Obama. If not Satan, then he is at least a lower level thug demon in the demon hierarchy. A hitdemon, perhaps??

Sherman1864 on February 22, 2012 at 4:41 PM

bayam on February 22, 2012 at 4:04 PM

I imagine you would love to return to the days when the Progressive Soviet Union was in it’s prime – a worker’s paradise and all.

Alas, it was not to be since it was all based on a sham.

But now El Presidente Downgrade is trying to recreate that isn’t he?

Juts imagine, we could be like North Korea or Cuba or..

Chip on February 22, 2012 at 4:56 PM

Clearly you want to avoid talking about the ‘other ‘ issue there – so are you under the impression that scams like wealth redistribution can work?

Chip on February 22, 2012 at 3:00 PM

sob0728 on February 22, 2012 at 3:16 PM

In other words, you don’t want to answer the question, do you?

You’d rather deflect and dodge since it shows the failure of Marxism.

Why shouldn’t people at lower income levels contribute?

Isn’t that all part of Shared Sacrifice?

Chip on February 22, 2012 at 5:00 PM

In other words, you don’t want to answer the question, do you?

You’d rather deflect and dodge since it shows the failure of Marxism.

Why shouldn’t people at lower income levels contribute?

Isn’t that all part of Shared Sacrifice?

Chip on February 22, 2012 at 5:00 PM

Could I be any clearer? I just told you I don’t think poor people should pay as much or any in income tax. Yes, I think a progressive income tax can work. Not only do I think it can work, it has worked.

sob0728 on February 22, 2012 at 5:40 PM

Times were a lot better before the Internet Bubble Burst. You do remember that, don’t you?? And you do remember what happened after the Internet Bubble Burst

You don’t seem to understand that the internet bubble never affected a significant part of GDP. It was a minor financial event.

bayam on February 22, 2012 at 6:32 PM

Surtax on wealthy in UK results in lower revenue

It turns out that Britons in the top tax bracket aren’t as liberal or as stupid as the government thinks they are. This will come as something of a surprise.

Jaibones on February 22, 2012 at 6:36 PM

Clinton raised taxes and it worked. It did not have a detrimental effect on the economy.

sob0728 on February 22, 2012 at 1:34 PM

1. Clinton tax policy temporarily raised revenue, and
2. It put a roaring economy into recession before he left office.

These are the known facts from which you choose to make a grand assertion that these things are “not detrimental”. Interesting.

Jaibones on February 22, 2012 at 6:39 PM

1. Clinton tax policy temporarily raised revenue, and
2. It put a roaring economy into recession before he left office.

These are the known facts from which you choose to make a grand assertion that these things are “not detrimental”. Interesting.

Jaibones on February 22, 2012 at 6:39 PM

Guess who else left office with the economy in a recession? Bush and your savior Reagan. So then cuts don’t work either, huh?

sob0728 on February 22, 2012 at 6:57 PM

I was going to jump in on this one…

But it’s just gotten to the point of crazy.

Have fun y’all.

Asurea on February 23, 2012 at 3:28 AM

The Left benefits from the misdirection inherent in energy being spent even discussing the point as an economics issue. It is far below that. Revenues gained from tax-punishing productive job creators are not the point to them, but they’re glad it’s masked as such. They’re ideas are sold far cheaper than that. The only goal is to get easy votes for their side. Plain and simple. And from what I’ve seen in real life, there are plenty enough fat-cat haters out there to make it well worth their while. It’s been working, and working well, since FDR. The shock that the Right expresses when a Valerie Jarrett or similar-type creature says that unemployment compensation or food stamps stimulate the economy plays right into it. Laughable, yes. But what do they have to lose by saying it? Nothing. And what do they gain? They get positions of power, cheaply. Suggestion: Don’t frustrate yourself by attempting to get through to these people with logical or economic arguments. They have accomplished what they set out to do. Buy votes with cost-free words. The cost of undermining the economy is not their cost. Throwing people out of work only serves to increase their target market. They are incentivized to suppress the economy. It’s a fat-cat hate spiral.

In a way it’s a human rights abuse issue. The Left exploits the feeble-minded for their votes — especially the feeble-minded who present as smart.

Remedy: Bypass their owned-and-operated MSM amplifiers. Pick one or more people in your real life and work on him or her. I’m making some progress with mine. (Hint: The trigger issues are the best. My project guy is all over health care. So at least twice a week I tell him by 2014 he and his family will be lining up at the post office for treatment. Our company just dropped part of the health plan. Next year they’ll drop the whole thing. This he can see with his own eyes.) If you sway one person from the dark side then you’ve doubled the people who might vote with some common sense and in their own best interest. And just like with smoking-quitters, the converted can be the most enthusiastic.

curved space on February 23, 2012 at 9:01 AM

Comment pages: 1 2