Bill Clinton: We’ll need middle-class tax hikes to balance the budget
“This is just me now, I’m not speaking for the White House — I think you could tax me at a 100 percent and you wouldn’t balance the budget,” said Clinton, who has earned tens of millions of dollars since leaving office. “We are all going to have to contribute to this, and if middle class people’s wages were going up again, and we had some growth to the economy, I don’t think they would object to going back to tax rates [from] when I was president” – before the Bush tax cuts.
The former president’s remarks about his own tax rate seemed to be a reference to Obama’s “Buffett Rule,” named after billionaire Warren Buffett, which proposes higher taxes for the wealthiest Americans. Clinton asserted that when he was at the White House, “very few people” thought they were being overtaxed.
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: « Previous 1 2
I keep saying this to people who fear the higher taxes coming here in ND if Measure 2: Abolishing property taxes, passes.
ND may be in the pink here, economically, but our govt has been growing WAY TOO MUCH (under GOP leadership, I might add, too).
I’m sorry, but we do not need govt grants from the state paying for people to learn about tobacco awareness, or to buy notepads & pens & backpacks saying no to drugs to distribute etc.
This is wasting taxpayer $$ in a time when we need to FIX OUR ROADS & update other infrastructure.
ND is getting more Federal $$ than it’s collecting.
We need to stand on our own feet, stop taxing the $hit out of our citizens bcs they own property, & start spending $$ more wisely.
I’m voting YES on Measure 2.
I want heads to explode. The State legislature will them have to WORK at funding the counties.
Badger40 on May 16, 2012 at 8:12 AM
Oooops. Bubba accidentally told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Continuing to finance the Dem’s socialist big government nanny state at current levels will require huge tax increases on middle class incomes because in the aggregate that’s where the vast bulk of the income is.
The Dems know this but cannot and will not say it because they know they’ll get massacred at the polls if they do, and be exposed as the socialists they are.
farsighted on May 16, 2012 at 8:17 AM
The surprise is that anybody out there was stupid enough to think this was not the case. Also, while cutting spending would help, and is needed, things are now too far along for that to fix the problem. If the government instantly cut all non-essential spending there would still be too much debt and deficit to avoid the tax hikes that we all knew were inevitable.
MikeA on May 16, 2012 at 8:26 AM
If Romney wins and the GOP takes the senate here is what people should expect:
a. most exemptions will be eliminated
b. cuts to the federal agencies will be done but by itself that won’t be enough to close the gap significantly unless the Defense budget is reduced to nothing.
c. Entitlement reform will happen quickly – e.g. ss eligibility age tied to expected lifespan
If a person makes below 50K a year and has a family they pay little to no federal tax. If the expectation is to restore fiscal sanity they will need to pony up some skin in the game to do so. That will be done by eliminating exemptions while keeping the “bush tax cuts”.
Since the loopholes will be closed the GOP can claim it didn’t raise taxes.
Everyone will cry because everyone had to give up a little in order to save our country from becoming another Greece.
Dems will take the house back in 2014 as a result but history will credit Pres Romney and the 113th for much needed drastic changes that put results ahead of politics.
Bradky on May 16, 2012 at 8:42 AM
Dear Mr. Clinton,
No. The government needs to be cut to to the bone, the same way I must cut back as an individual when my income drops for whatever reason. Thanks to people like you, our government is now performing many activities it should not and supporting many people it should not.
Like Solyndra. Tell you what. You get Obama’s pals to give back the money they stole and use that. Ok?
dogsoldier on May 16, 2012 at 9:09 AM
Ahhhh, the EPA approach…..I like it!
antipc on May 16, 2012 at 9:18 AM
Hmmmm…..so this is how Clinton responds to Romney’s “things were better under Clinton then they are now” remark. Well played, Clinton (if anyone is not picking up on this, it’s Clinton’s own way of sayign that Romney would raise taxes on teh middle class).
DethMetalCookieMonst on May 16, 2012 at 9:37 AM
Obama already said this that everyones taxes will go up in 2013.
Obama: I Want To Raise Taxes After I’m Reelected
Where do I sign up for Obama? I just can’t wait to have my taxes hiked in 2013/
Dr Evil on May 16, 2012 at 9:55 AM
No, not really. Tax increases are counterproductive. They end up decreasing revenue, not increasing it, over the long term.
But I take issue with your description of what government needs to do to address the problem. It’s not just that they need to eliminate all “non-essential” spending. It’s that they need to eliminate all unconstitutional spending, regardless of what pain that causes to the nation. That means Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Department of Education, the EPA, all of it needs to go away. Yes, completely. Not “reformed”. Not made more “market based”. Not just run by Republicans. Eliminated.
That’s how you fix the problem. Following the constitution.
Shump on May 16, 2012 at 9:59 AM
Where has Bill Clinton been, that he doesn’t know we are all in for a huge tax hike come 2013? What could be better for an anemic economy, but to let the government bleed it dry for government spending? Government revenue to spend on MORE Green Bundler’s boondoggles. While American’s energy cost will necessarily have to spike.
Dr Evil on May 16, 2012 at 10:00 AM
It is hard to know what/who Bill Clinton means when he refers to the middle class.
To me, the middle class is the same people who now pay the taxes (not part of the 50% who make under 50K and don’t pay any federal taxes) but a lot of time the liberals are referring to “average people of no specific earning power” when they point at a middle class.
I think one reason some of the people are going without paying their fair share of taxes is that they get a lot of benefits which are not taxed, but for which other people pay taxes on the money they use for those purposes.
For instance. Say you got $400 in free food aid assistance. My family needs to earn $800 to buy $400 worth of food. So it would be a good idea, then to level the playing field to add $800 to the income of the recipients for each $400 of EBT they get. Some will not recieve enough to pay taxes, still, but others who are better off will see a tax bill, and I say, rightly so.
If you get free housing, the cost of that housing, plus the taxed value of that cash needs to be taken into consideration. The Treasury is deprived of taxing $1200 when they give away a months rent of $800. The Treasury is deprived by not taxing people’s benefits at the cost of the money it takes to buy those things.
Not just the benefits, but how much money do you and I have to earn to pay the rent.
So, vouchers for rent deprive the economy, the Treasury. And they are a dishonest measure of a persons income for income tax purposes. These benefits have to start appearing on the tax return, even if it is not a collective agreement to tax them, so that the recipients keep track of them, and they can be disclosed as income when people apply for scholarships, freebies etc.
Why? because the (fictional) single guy making $51K doesn’t get all those things tax free. And pays most of his income taxes (has few deductions). Earn another dollar, pay 10, 15 and 25% marginally. Or lose all your free things, because you make a tiny bit more, add a spouse.
According to the charts, I would say that middle class starts at $70K with the 28% tax bracket. That means the untaxed class and the middle class right now have the same spendable cash. And the lower class gets the freebies to allow them to participate right along side the middle class. If you tax the middle class more…do the math.
What we need is to tax the lower classes so that they contribute, instead of getting that check back from the IRS.
We need to tax them at the rate of their supplemental freebies.
They need to learn how to provide a tax record of their getting and spending, right now they shirk it off, and apply for things like Pell Grants on the basis that they receive a school lunch. Well, in some towns, everyone gets a school lunch, what then?
So, Bill Clinton, if you are referring to the “average person” that needs to pay more, I would suggest that we see what the average person gets per year in kind, like for barter, from the government.
Fleuries on May 16, 2012 at 10:00 AM
According to Democrats anyone that makes over 250,000.00 is wealthy- like small business employers. Obama isn’t interested in helping out the middle class, because Marxist hate the bourgeoisie. The middle class are not the envy class, and they stand in the way of the Marxist utopia. This is why there is overt hatred for the TEA Party. The TEA party is the middle class. Who has suffered under Obama’s rule? Not the wealthy they are doing fine, and not the poor. The government is advertising Food Stamps to get people to apply for them. Who has suffered the most since the financial crisis – the middle class. Bill Clinton thinks they are going to have to pony up their fair share (social justice & wealth redistribution, it’s not just for the 1% anymore) you know shared sacrifice SNARK. Who does Bill Clinton think is buying his schtick?
Dr Evil on May 16, 2012 at 10:23 AM
WAIT…Democrats have a BUDGET???
landlines on May 16, 2012 at 10:38 AM
Excellent post. Here are some numbers to go with it: Head of Household of 4 on Minimum Wage Has More Disposable Income Than Family Making $60,000 a Year
slickwillie2001 on May 16, 2012 at 10:43 AM
May 16, 2012
Maryland Defines Rich as $100K Earners
FBN’s Stuart Varney sounds off on the state’s decision to increase taxes on those who earn more than $100,000.
Dr Evil on May 16, 2012 at 10:45 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2