Green Room

The President’s nifty new tax proposal just stinks — politically and mathematically

posted at 9:11 am on July 9, 2012 by

Today, according to Fox News, the President will make a speech that includes a proposal to raise taxes on those making more than $250,000 per year. Fox says Obama will make the pitch on the grounds of “tax fairness.”

While the effect of this tax warfare strategy for the President during the rest of his re-election campaign is unknown, it does put him in a bit of a tight spot with Congress. As the Wall Street Journal noted this morning, a number of Senate Democrats have gone on the record either opposing the President’s position or being very hesitant to fully back such a proposal. Without their support, such a proposal will not pass the Senate. In fact, I would go so far as to say their opposition could very well embolden Republicans in Congress to call the President’s bluff and offer their own formal counterproposal.

Additionally, the math is not on the side of the President. Using numbers from the liberal Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, which says extending policies for those making over $250,000 would cost the government $829 billion over ten years, the President’s proposal would negate about 1.88% of spending over the next decade. And that assumes we spend what the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) baseline estimate says we will – $44 trillion. If we don’t enact the significant spending cuts CBO includes in its baseline budgeting, I suspect spending would be much higher, somewhere in the $47 trillion to $50 trillion range. Which makes the President’s proposal related to fairness when it comes to deficit reduction even more laughable.

Finally, to quote a John Hawkins tweet,

The people who aren’t paying any income tax at all right now are using gov’t services. Is 0 in income tax their “fair share” of the taxes?

While almost all Americans do pay some sort of federal taxes – from taxes on cigarettes to payroll taxes – John’s point is an excellent one: the 50% or so of taxpayers who don’t pay non-payroll income taxes benefit from federally-funded roads, education services, immigration control, the military and other federal services. Who, then, pays for these services? According to the Tax Foundation in an October 2011 report, “The top 5 percent earned 31.7 percent of the nation’s adjusted gross income, but paid approximately 58.7 percent of federal individual income taxes.” In short, most taxes for non-retirement social spending – the same social spending liberals are so keen on expanding – are being paid by those people liberals also say don’t pay enough in taxes – the top five percent, whose income was a relatively modest $154,643,000 in 2009, according to the Tax Foundation.

 

This fight over the Bush tax cuts has been taking place for over a decade, and will continue as we head towards the “fiscal cliff” on January 1, 2013. Unfortunately, this debate ignores what the country really needs in the tax code: a complete revamp that includes elimination of most loopholes, lower rates for all, and a transition to either a low, single-rate income tax system or a national sales tax with no income taxes. While the Journal seems optimistic that extension of the Bush tax policies would leave room for major tax reform, I think the President’s nifty new proposal basically undercuts the entire debate, substituting economically fair and growth-encouraging tax reform for class warfare that encourages no growth and barely makes a dimple in the debt the country is about to accumulate.

 

 

 

Recently in the Green Room:

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

New Obama, same as the 2010 version. Yawn.

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on July 9, 2012 at 9:26 AM

Epic fail

cmsinaz on July 9, 2012 at 9:28 AM

Using numbers from the liberal Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, which says extending policies for those making over $250,000 would cost the government $829 billion over ten years, the President’s proposal would negate about 1.88% of spending over the next decade. And that assumes we spend what the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) baseline estimate says we will – $44 trillion.

*sigh* Conservatives are never going to win the argument unless we can take back the terminology. Extending current tax rates will cost the government $829 billion over ten years? An absolutely asinine statement. But one which reflects the dominant view in Washington that it is all rightfully their money and what they let us keep is a government expense.

What costs $829 billion over 10 years is spending $829 billion more than the government takes in. The solution is not to raise taxes, but to cut spending.

However, as long as the Democrats successfully frame the debate in terms of a tax cut being a cost, we lose.

Shump on July 9, 2012 at 10:08 AM

Shump, I considered not using this language for the reason you describe, but I chose to use it in the mindset of prevention of receipt by the government.

Obviously, yes, you are right that government does not own legally-earned money.

Dustin Siggins on July 9, 2012 at 10:24 AM

Unfortunently, its us suckers in the middle who are going to be bit with massive new taxes, IE Obamacare unless there is a change at the top.

John has an excellent point, one that many don’t even know, the 47-50% who do not pay income taxes. To make matters worse many of that grop actually get money from those who pay taxes. Making work pay and the earned income credits that many in that group receive are via those of us who are paying income tax. Quite a wealth re-distrubition process it itself.

Would not mind paying taxes quite so much if income taxing were more fair and balanced. In reality about 85% of the people in the S should be paying income taxes. President BO is always spouting off about people paying their fair share, why doesn’t that apply to just about everyone versus only about 50%?

Rockman44 on July 9, 2012 at 1:34 PM

A fair tax would be one where you do it gradually but each brake is the same for everyone. Example, 0-20K is 0%, 20.1K – 30 is say 5% and 30.1 – 40K 10% and 40.1-50K is 15%.

So a person making 50K would be exempt for the first 20K, pay 5% for the next 10K and 10% on the next 10K and so forth. This is an example but you can make the breaks whatever. that way a person making 1 penny over the line isnt raped by the IRS.

Does that make sense?

Claimsratt on July 9, 2012 at 9:26 PM

More importantly is it “FAIR”?

Claimsratt on July 9, 2012 at 9:27 PM