Taxing the Rich More Is About Pain or Control, Not Revenue

So this week we learn that Obama “is launching a new p.r. campaign to rally popular support behind his push to raise tax rates on the rich.” This statement is hard to take seriously, because Obama has been trying to rally popular support behind his plan since 2007. Perhaps we can say that Obama is about to launch a “surge” in his campaign to get more income from the rich.

What is the motive for taxing “the rich” more? Obviously, taxing the rich more has nothing to do with reducing the deficit, let alone the debt. Simple math tells you that there is no way that would really make a meaningful difference.

Taxing the rich “more” has a populist appeal and a monopolist appeal.

Populist appeal: Many get pleasure from the belief that they can cause those who they perceive as “better off” to suffer more than they otherwise would.

No one likes to be deprived of their stuff. It hurts them. And that is reason enough for the idea of taking more stuff from the wealthy is going to appeal to massive number of voters. They want “those people” to hurt.

Of course, the end of the “Bush tax cuts” won’t be enough to satisfy that hatred and envy. Republicans need to directly address this issue to the American people. “Taxing them isn’t going to help and just wanting to hurt them isn’t right.” They can point out that the Administration could and should prosecute the real criminals among the “one percent”—such as Jon Corzine and his looting of customers at MF Global.

Monopolist appeal: The ultra rich will get short- and perhaps long-term economic opportunities from hampering small businesses and entrepreneurs.

As much as I hate Warren Buffett’s continual pleas to tax the rich more, I have to admit he did show a slightly better influence when he “said he supports Obama’s proposal to end the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, but he’d prefer setting the point where taxes increase at $500,000 income, instead of the $250,000 the White House proposed. Buffett, as one who makes money from picking the right investments, probably has more interest in seeing new businesses take off and grow. But for most of the super wealthy, preventing competition and remaining forever on top without fearing the guy who drops out of college, doesn’t seek employment, and creates a new innovation. Raising taxes on such people, the person whose income is derived from a small business, is a way to reduce the number of such people. The damage will be amplified by the previous tax increase known as Obamacare that especially hits the same group making $250,000 a year. Again, Micosoft and many other “mega” companies will be much more likely to sustain the costs and also to find business opportunities as smaller firms fail under the burden.

It might be helpful for Republicans to point out that, for Warren Buffett to even call for increased taxes for the half-millionaires is worse than someone like me calling for tax increases on all those who make $15,000 a year. Buffett is attacking the wealth of those who are far more poor than he is.

Conclusion

I don’t know how much any of this is significant for the economy in comparison to the major collapse that is coming. But for the sake of basic ethics and basic principles of civilization, I will always resist hating and harming people for what they have. And I will never give my consent to a powerful government-corporation combine that wants to hurt anyone who might upset their place at the top.

That’s why the Obama tax hike must be resisted.


  • Doodlebug

    I am still waiting to hear what real, meaningful spending cuts are on the table. Has anyone heard? It just seems like I must have missed something.

    • antiliberalcryptonite

      There are none.

      • ladyceo

        Obama's "tax the rich" is just a feel good slogan for his kool-aid drinking sheeple! I guess they think they're going to get some of that "tax the rich" money! Wonder how big the crowds are going to be at these "tax the rich" rallies???? You can be sure the lame stream media will pump it up!

        • FigmentOfYourImagination

          Personally I can't wait to sign up, my free phone was pretty good but I can't wait to see what I can steal from people next.

    • chetohimler

      @2e5d1c5fac615fa7895cd2458df46155:disqus ...just heard today that Obama want's to go to the bargaining table and discuss the "Cliff" effect on the deficet, however....he does not want to hear anyone talk about "cutting spending". My question is...then what the heck are they going to come to agreement with? Geez, this guy is looking more and more like a dictator.

      • Ann Rand

        Just give him a little more time.

        • gingercake5

          ...waiting for the little mustache?

        • Ann Rand

          Seems like it.. Or maybe the Brown Shirts... Or Blue Hats.

        • Doodlebug

          Yah, the latest I heard tonight was that he wants Boehner to give him the okay to raise taxes on the rich and they will bargain on spending cuts next year when they have more time. That is exactly what Reagan and H.W. Bush did and they never did get any spending cuts. If Boehner trusts that, he needs to definitely be replaced. Bargaining is one thing but with this deal there is no bargaining involved it is obummers way or the highway.

        • GetOutOfTheBubble

          Which is what all of you buffoons are going to keep saying until the day he's out of office. Then finally we'll have quiet about this when you can no longer keep pretending "it's gonna happen any time now."

        • Ann Rand

          Enjoy !!

  • samtman

    I just wonder why in every decade since WWl I, taxing the rich at a higher rate than what they are taxed now has produced a more employmnent, more millionaires, and more income for the the wealthy. Check it out its factual.

    • http://www.lewrockwell.com/ Tuci78

      "...taxing the rich at a higher rate than what they are taxed now has produced a more employmnent, more millionaires, and more income for the the wealthy. Check it out its factual."

      Also "factual" when the top-tier tax rate on personal "income" was 91% (prior to the Kennedy Administration measures taken to abate that condition) was federal spending at far lower levels, and overall government tax "take" was far lower as a percentage of national GDP.

      So if you leftie-luzers want to make the case for gouging "the rich" at confiscatory rates of rip-off, how are you about cutting the federal government back to the same general levels of inflation-adjusted revenue and expenditure as prevailed in the 1950s, too?

      I'd happily go with that if only to hear you howling as if you were having your own personal scrotum crushed between a couple of bricks.
      -

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/2BZHO5ROO7QRRX6CJJJEBUBQPY Tim

    People forget that this is part of the revenge. Take assets from White working class and Transfer it to Black, uneducated, inner city wastes. After all they stole it from them, get it? This is what the voter turnout was about. No free people should be subjected to those in Government willing to take from just enough to buy votes from just a few more. They brainwashed the x & y generations in the school system and you idiots allowed it. They have females screaming for $10 worth of free birth control, when Friday comes, they spend that much on one martini!

    • YoureRacist

      You're racist. (As long as we're using pathetically shallow arguments, I figured I'd throw one out).

      • duckyack

        Being right does not make one a racist. You, on the other hand, are transparent. Either make a claim of substance or go back to your group of manipulated obamacites, and keep on lapping it up! That tired old political accusation is beneath all reasonable individuals, and I suspect it is of you, as well. Why make the accusation of racism? Where is your proof?

        • GetOutOfTheBubble

          The same kind of proof Tim has for his revenge theory - anecdotal. You're onto the fact that the racism argument is bullshit, but you're somehow unaware that his argument is bullshit.

        • duckyack

          Who says his argument is BS? You? Prove it. And by the way, you folks are so easily manipulated into taking the bait. It never ceases to make me laugh. Every time a comment touches your sensitivities, you ALWAYS respond with what you would deem a clever insult.

        • GetOutOfTheBubble

          I don't have to prove it wrong, he has to prove it right. And he can't, because it's based on anecdotes and prejudice. Good luck proving your opinions are fact in your next post, I'm sure it'll be enthralling.

        • duckyack

          See what I mean? If you are going to make the challenge, then it is up to you to prove it. Otherwise, why open your mouth? Or rather than make a claim you cannot back up, why not ask the author to prove what he said? You people always miss the obvious. Now, I'm done playing with you. I'm going to bed.

        • GetOutOfTheBubble

          He made the original claim, so the burden of proof is on him.

          The point of opening my mouth was to reveal his argument as the shallow pathetic argument it is. That you missed the irony of using the racism argument is unfortunately something I can't fix for you.

  • http://www.survivingurbancrisis.com/ Silas Longshot

    They can tax every American at 99% and it won't change a thing with the spending habits of politicians buying votes to be reelected.

  • duckyack

    Obama creates the fiscal problem. Then he wants to fix the problem by raising taxes/cost of living on the wealthy. More precisely everyone making $250,000 and more per year. Labeling those with any amount of income under 1M a year is stretching the definition of wealth! We all know that taxing the upper crust drops a load onto the middle class--whatever that is now--and we end up paying for their losses that come from tax increases. (Has anyone noticed that Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Michelle and Barack Obama always use the term "they" when talking about raising taxes on the wealthy? Aren't those four liars members of the wealthy class, too? How is it they do not include themselves? They never say, "We must pay our fair share." Why not?) Why doesn't the media point this out????????????

    • GetOutOfTheBubble

      "Obama creates the fiscal problem." Wrong.

      • duckyack

        Stick to the issue, you wing nut!

        • GetOutOfTheBubble

          I care about facts even if you don't.

        • duckyack

          All of you people use the same words, in the same sentences. You couldn't care less about the facts, and you wouldn't know the facts if they bite you in your you-know-what. You are good at name-calling, denying, and demonizing your opponents, but you have no talent for comprehending reality or searching for it. Obama is the one who spent too much money during his first term. That doesn't mean he didn't inherit a problem. However, I should not have to say that Bush was a horrible President, too, just so you'll feel better! You all need to stop excusing Obama's appalling behaviors because the previous guy made awful decisions! Didn't your mother ever tell you that just because your friends jump off a bridge it doesn't mean you should jump after them? None of you parrots know how to think, make decisions, and you shouldn't be allowed to cross the street without someone to help you. In other words, find a way to support your beliefs realistically and with reason instead of the elementary, childish, and sniveling retorts you always provide when claiming the other guy did what, first!

        • GetOutOfTheBubble

          I'm good at name-calling and yet you're the one who called me a wingnut.

          Learn to think outside of stereotypes.

        • duckyack

          You have just proved my point! You have nothing substantial to say about the real issues. You are so caught up in a battle of wits, you can't even focus on the subject. I give up!

        • GetOutOfTheBubble

          Yeah, you were very on topic with all of those random accusations.

  • fatman45

    "Republicans need to directly address this issue to the American people."

    I've got a better idea: Why not tell them the real truth? That rich people do not pay the top tax rate; they use deductions to lower their tax bill until it reaches the Alternative Minimum Tax rate. Which is less than half what the top rate is. Even Warren Buffet's secretary (who is rich, by the way - makes like $750K/yr.) doesn't pay the top tax rate. The AMT was proposed by President Reagan, at a time when the top tax rate was closer to 70%, yet rich people could and did pay ZERO, so that they would at least pay something. It was passed at the same time as the Reagan tax cuts, which lowered the top rate to below where it is today, and set off the largest economic boom in our nation's history. They should also tell the American people that the real reason for a high top tax rate is to keep those of us here on the underside of it down here where we belong, by creating an impossible high barrier to get over. Because until you reach a certain point, you can't claim enough deductions to get down to the AMT rate. So the only way over this barrier is to win the lottery, or something with similarly long odds (acting or pro sports career, etc.).

    • duckyack

      Perhaps you can tell me why Pelosi, Reid, and the Obamas always refer to the wealthy as "them" and "they?" I sure that those people make well over $250K a year. And, by the way, whose idea was it to claim that those making anything under $1M annually is wealthy? A half million yearly is not what I'd call wealth!

  • Shutter

    Raising taxes on those making over $250K will only fund the government for 8 1/2 DAYS per year at the current levels. This also doesn't include how much revenue will be lost because of increased unemployment or reduced employee wages because of cuts in hours worked due to the raises. Raising taxes on the rich will only trickle down to hurt those making less. The "taxing the rich" and "paying their fair share" rhetoric is to cause further class warfare not to generate revenues. The goal is to further divide the country and is straight out of the socialist handbook to take over a capitalist based government. It is about a few people (who are the protected rich) wanting to have it all at the expense of the sheeple. It is about those that really don't pay their fair share (those that actually pay nothing) made to feel that those that pay more than their fair share (those that pay over 20% of their income) are getting away with something. The truth is quite the opposite.

  • Walt

    To ahead and target the rich. It won't do you any good; they are the business owners in this country. They will simply fire some more employees to make up the difference and let Uncle Sam give that money to them, or they will simply fire everybody and move their business to Mexico or China and let Uncle Sam take care of all of the newly unemployed. Remember: The purpose of business is to make money, not jobs. The rich will do whatever they have to in order to stay rich even at your expense. Look at Hostess - closing the company, putting 18,500 employees out of work and taking the proceedes from the sale and giving all the executives of the company huge bonuses.

    • duckyack

      And don't think obama didn't realize that! He wants to be able to say "I didn't raise taxes on the middle and kept my promise." I think I despise him more for the fact that his soul was bought and paid for more than I do his (their) policies!

  • gingercake5

    I want a flat tax. Every income level pays the same percentage. It is the only fair way. Say 8% for all. Someone making $20,000 would pay $1,600. But someone making $5,000,000 would pay $400,000. Isn't that "bad" enough?

  • undunder

    Spending cuts? Are you serious? Stinking democrats don't want no stinking budget cuts. Their peeps might get mad and bloody them at the polls next time. Not that voters who mindless vote for the same policies and same politicians that have keep them poor and in line for a century are smart enough to know what a spending cut is. I'm beginning to believe that only citizens who pay income taxes should get a vote. It is too tempting for those who pay no taxes to be more than OK to have those who do pay income taxes to pay more. That mob mentality and not fair to the taxpayers who are bearing the brunt of the tax burden. Where is the incentive to better one's lot in life if outcomes are legislated.

    Pres. Reagan tried to compromise with the dumbtards, but they took their tax hike and libs never ever came though with their agreed upon spending cuts. Can't trust a liberal.

  • LumberJill

    Let's go over the fiscal cliff. Raise the tax on the rich and let them move their companies overseas. Call Christmas trees holiday trees. Open our borders and give everyone entitlements and free college to boot. The country will suffer but Obama and the liberals can take that credit.

    • duckyack

      Here, here! You make me smile, and I'm right there with you.

  • Bryson Cookie

    FIVE NEW OBAMACARE TAXES COMING JANUARY 1. 11/28/12 Although some of the "fiscal cliff" taxes can be avoided through a deal made in Congress, new ObamaCare taxes are guaranteed to kick in on January 1, amounting to $268 billion tax hike. From Americans for Tax Reform: The Obamacare Medical Device Tax – a $20 billion tax increase: … READ MORE: http://bwcentral.org/2012/11/five-new-obamacare-taxes-coming-january-1/