Examiner
The real cost of Obama’s $1.6 trillion tax hike
The Heritage Foundation has done a much more realistic analysis of Obama’s tax plan that takes into account how higher-income individuals, many of whom are small-business owners, would respond to Obama’s $1.6 trillion tax hike.
In short, many of them would invest less in their businesses and hire fewer new employees. By Heritage’s reckoning, the Obama tax plan would reduce annual output by $196 billion and annual employment 1.1 million.
Considering how weak economic growth is at the moment, Obama’s $1.6 trillion tax hike likely wouldn’t even bring in $1.6 trillion. After accounting for its economic effects, Heritage estimates Obama’s tax plan would collect only about $700 billion in new revenues, or 44 percent of what Obama hopes to take in.
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
They’re not doing it to raise tax revenue, they’re doing it to punish people they don’t like.
JeremiahJohnson on December 18, 2012 at 2:46 PM
This is a necessary evil. We need to invest in transforming the economy into the 21st century, that means people need ot be retrained into new kinds of work, education needs to be supported, and we also need to build a whole new infrastructure for the information economy. Of course there will be a temporary dip. That’s part of investment.
libfreeordie on December 18, 2012 at 3:05 PM
Why does Heritage think Obama cares about revenues?
p0s3r on December 18, 2012 at 3:08 PM
If you believe that, wow. Either way, that’s not how it was sold. You are all a bunch of fascist liars.
Zetterson on December 18, 2012 at 3:28 PM
And for the record, how “temporary” do you expect this dip to be? How long do you think its going to take for us to begin reaping the sweet benefits of this 21st Century economy?
Zetterson on December 18, 2012 at 3:29 PM
Did you get in all your DNC talking points? What the hell do you even mean, “transforming the economy”? Into what? One with chronically high unemployment and stagnant wages for those lucky enough to still have work? None of the money Obama’s p-ssed away over the last 4 years has gone into new infrastructure or retraining our work force. So why would any of the revenue obtained from the looming tax hikes(assuming we even get any new revenue given their negative economic impact) go toward that?
Doughboy on December 18, 2012 at 3:30 PM
Until I saw the nametag, I expected libfree’s comment to have a sarc tag after it.
backwoods conservative on December 18, 2012 at 3:35 PM
Me too! : D
JDF123 on December 18, 2012 at 3:40 PM
Seriously?
What does that even mean?..”transforming the economy into the 21st century”??
It is the 21st century and “information economy” is so 1998 dot com bubble.
What is it you’re actually referring to?
Paint me a picture of these future jobs and what they consist of. What is this massive load of “information” that will require millions and millions of people to be employed in? What is the nature of this information..what is the end product of this information compilation and transfer?
Mimzey on December 18, 2012 at 3:42 PM
Sounds great. Except jacking up welfare, food stamps and entitlements do not achieve any of this, and that’s exactly where all these deficits are going.
Why else do you think all this silly “investment” has bought us the worst recovery since the Great Depression?
Chuck Schick on December 18, 2012 at 3:46 PM
It’s a pathetic excuse for a talking point I’ve heard Obama reiterate over the last few years and media lapdogs like Juan Williams echo. I honestly don’t know what it means. If they’re referring to high tech jobs, they need to be more specific and say that. It’s true that there are a lot of employers out there who are unable to fill available positions due to a lack of qualified candidates. But what exactly is Obama doing to remedy that? All this money we’re spending is going toward entitlements, not job training programs.
If on the other hand, they’re actually referring to a top-down, government-run economy, then they can keep it. I want no part of that. It’s never worked in any country where it’s been tried.
Doughboy on December 18, 2012 at 3:47 PM
What Libfree means is that by investing in the “21st century” is by throwing tones of money into green energy.
watertown on December 18, 2012 at 4:04 PM
See: ‘Spain’.
trigon on December 18, 2012 at 4:25 PM
This is why you can’t argue with a liberal. They have their own separate reality that does not match up with what is actually happening and they seem unable to use logic and reasoning and apply it to their theories. And they’re always right-always. The msm backs them up on much of what they think.
hopeful on December 18, 2012 at 5:31 PM
I’m no economist, but it seems like common sense that
1. The pool of capital is only limited for the government which gets its revenue from taxation. For private enterprises, most businesses can grow and profit without limits, as long as it isn’t restricted by regulation.
2. When the government absorbs all the available capital through taxation of the consumers and enterprises that would otherwise spend it and invest it. Ergo, it hurts the economy.
3. All the rest, about supply/demand ratios and opportunity costs, etc. is just fine tuning for technocrats, but they often lose sight of the basic truths.
This is why I have so little respect for Obama and his advisers and supporters and for bureaucrats in general. They don’t seem to have any common sense.
flataffect on December 18, 2012 at 5:51 PM