Truth Before Dishonor

I would rather be right than popular

Posts Tagged ‘tax the rich’

Taxes and the Pyrite State

Posted by Dana Pico on 2013/01/13

From

Jerry Brown: California Will Have Surpluses

That’s what he says:

After years of red ink, Gov. Jerry Brown said on Thursday that California’s $96.7-billion general fund is now poised to end next year with a surplus, thanks to years of deep budget cuts and billions in new taxes approved by voters last year.

“We achieved the position we’re in because of tough cuts … and then the people voted for taxes,” he said. “We broke the logjam by going to the people.”

Schools will be the big winner in the governor’s new spending plan, receiving $56.2 billion in state funds, an increase by $2.7 billion over the last year. That funding is set to jump to more than $66 billion by 2016.

The budget also dedicated an additional $350 million to the state’s public insurance program, Medi-Cal, to help implement President Obama’s healthcare law.

Brown’s budget predicts only the second budget surplus in the last decade, with an $851-million surplus projected at the end of the 2013-14 fiscal year — if all his proposals are approved by lawmakers.

Jerry Brown says we will have surpluses. I say we will not.

We’ll see who is right.

The boldfaced parts were by Patterico commenter Taney O’Haley, who said that it sounded like wishful thinking to her.

Donald Douglas referenced an article from Investor’s Business Daily which pointed out that the overwhelming majority the voters gave to the Democrats puts the restrictions under Proposition 13 at risk, and that there are already at least two proposals in the legislature to weaken it:

Already, state Sen. Mark Leno wants to put a measure on the ballot to lower the two-thirds vote threshold for school district parcel taxes to 55%. State Sen. Lois Wolk introduced a bill that would ask voters to drop the vote threshold to 55% for library parcel taxes and bond measures.

In the Assembly, Tom Ammiano plans to reintroduce a bill seeking to revise the definition of an ownership change that triggers a new business property assessment. Voters’ OK isn’t needed. Even if the bill stalls, as it has in the past, business owners fear that its goal — squeezing more tax money from commercial property — will surface in other proposals, some with better odds.

The tax increases approved by the voters in November were temporary increases, adding a 0.25% increase to the state sales tax, and creating three new brackets for the most productive Californians, lasting for seven years. For a single Californian earning $500,000 or more, the new 12.3% marginal rate, combined with the new federal top rate of 39.6%, means that 51.9% of his earnings over the thresholds will be seized just in income taxes alone. If his earning power is portable — and for many of California’s top producers, it won’t be — moving to a state like Texas or Florida, which have no state income taxes, is a completely rational economic decision.

How many will? We can’t know yet, but we’ll see in two more years, when Governor Brown’s projection of a balanced state budget is either realized, or it is not.
_________________________________
Cross posted on THE FIRST STREET JOURNAL.

Posted in economics, Tax | Tagged: , , , , | Comments Off

Taxes Cannot Erase Deficit

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2011/08/06

The government cannot tax away the deficit spending. It’s an impossibility.

From RushLimbaugh.com (note the express written permission at the bottom):

There Aren’t Enough “Rich” to Tax

August 05, 2011

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: We’re into statistics today and the unemployment statistics are just fascinating in the way that we’re being spun. It’s as bad as the way we were spun on this debt deal, and the more you look at this debt deal, what a disaster that is.

I’m gonna explain why as the program unfolds. This is from the UK Daily Mail. You’re not gonna see this in the American media. Speaking of the American media, remember all of those years, the Bush years, the media apparatchiks on TV were trying to talk down the economy and trying to talk down the market. They did everything they could to talk down the economy. Why, it was almost as though they wanted Bush to fail. Shazam, it was almost as though they wanted Bush to fail. You remember.

For four years running at 4.7% unemployment, at 5% unemployment, at 5.6% unemployment, they were proclaiming we were either on the verge of a recession or were in one. They were out trying to find the worst sob stories. Now they’re doing everything they can to talk it up. Do they really think we’re such fools that we don’t see this? When unemployment started spiraling upward, what did we get from ‘em? We got stories on how wonderful that is. Families are finding one another again, friends have social time, the stress and strain of working is no longer a part of anybody’s day. It really is a new perspective on life. All the wonderful aspects of not having a job, all the great things you could do if you didn’t have any work you had to do. “Funemployment,” they called it. And now they’re doing everything they can, they’re just incapable of telling us the truth, totally incapable.

The question here is who will tank first? Right now it looks like we’re in a race to see whether the country or Obama will tank first. It looks like it’s running neck and neck here. And the trick here is to make Obama tank first. Now, this UK Daily Mail story that you will not see in the US media. “Soak the rich, eh? They do not have the money. A report from the Internal Revenue Service found that the rich –” and the rich are defined this way: 8,274 people with incomes of $10 million per year or more. What do you think those 8,274 people earned combined in 2009? Snerdley, take a wild guess. All of you out there, take a wild guess in your mind. I’m not asking you to call and I’m gonna tell you what the number is here in just a second. But just think about this, 8,274 people with incomes of $10 million per year or more.

Now, you got Buffett in there and Gates at their $40 to 50 billion, but that’s their net worth. What do they earn? It’s a different number. But you take all of those people, just give me a number, what do you think, 8,274 people with incomes of $10 million per year or more, what was the combined total income earned of all those 8,274 people in 2009? One trillion, $250 billion. That’s what you say, Brian? Snerdley says a trillion. The answer is $240 billion. Brian, you were $10 billion off. That’s it. That’s right. That’s it. The 8,274 people with incomes of $10 million per year or more earned a total of $240 billion in 2009.

“Even of you confiscated every dime they earned, you would barely have enough money to cover government spending for 24 days.” In fact, this $240 billion, I mean that’s pretty close to the actual real number of budget cuts in the debt deal when you strip everything away. Now, about 25% of that money already goes to the federal government for federal income. So actually that $240 billion would run the government for 18 days.

“Another 227,000 people earned $1 million or more in 2009. Millionaires averaged taxes of 24.4% of their income — up from 23.1% in 2008.” Now, you might be asking, how did that happen? Well, the Bush tax cuts, folks. Obama’s tax increases hadn’t started, and Obama’s not immaculated yet. “They, too, did not earn enough money to come anywhere close to covering the annual deficits that are $1.5 trillion a year.” So 8,274 people who earn $10 million per year or more, earn a total of $240 billion in 2009. Another 227,000 people earned a million dollars or more in 2009. But it doesn’t come anywhere close to covering the deficit of $1.5 trillion.

“Barack Obama was the first president to sign a budget with a $1 trillion deficit into law.
In fact, all the taxpayers — including the ones who get a refund check bigger than the withholding taxes they paid — have the money.” The point of this is next time you hear Obama or a Democrat say we’ve got to raise taxes on the rich, it’s not about getting revenue to run the government because they don’t have the money. Now, I’ve been doing this show for 23 years, and I have been employing this data, whatever the accurate data was for the year I was disclosing it, it hasn’t changed in terms of percentages. Confiscate every dollar earned by people who make $10 million a year or more and you run the country for barely over two weeks. That has not changed since I first heard of this statistic 23, 25 years ago. It hasn’t changed. As it is, these people are already paying 70% of the total income tax burden! So there’s no economic growth hidden away here in a tax increase on these people.

How does taking money out of the private sector grow it? And that’s what tax increases do. How in the world does taking money out of the private sector cause it to grow? Mathematically impossible, folks. From Reuters: “Total adjusted gross income reported on tax returns, measured in 2009 dollars, was $7.626 trillion, down from $8.233 trillion in 2008 and $8.989 trillion in 2007. Total adjusted gross income was up only slightly from the $7.475 trillion reported in 2001, when there were 10 million fewer taxpayers.”

Individual tax collections equaled 15.4% of all income. “Doubling federal income taxes for everyone would still leave us $400 billion or so shy of balancing the budget.” That’s the bottom line. Doubling federal income taxes for everybody would raise $1.1 trillion, $400 billion shy of the deficit. I know these numbers are hard to follow, but all this is gonna be on RushLimbaugh.com later today, and I suggest you go there, print it out, or e-mail it, make electronic copies, PDF, whatever you want, and spread this around. This needs to be seen by many people. It’s not going to be in the US media.

END TRANSCRIPT

If the Federal Government doubled everyone’s taxes, that would only be enough to cover roughly three quarters of the Obama/Democrat Deficit Spending. We would still have a 400-billion-dollar-a-year deficit, a historically high figure. And that’s considering a static economic environment. That’s not taking into account the heavy inflation, unemployment, business closings, personal bankruptcies, etc, etc that such a massive tax hike would cause. This is Cloward-Piven stuff, folks. Cloward-Piven.

Even in a static environment where doubling income tax rates would double income tax revenue, the Federal Government would have to actually cut 400 billion dollars from its annual budget. In Washington, DC and in the Democrats’, lamestream media’s, Ruling Class Republicans’ language of “reducing the increase in expenditures equals a cut” where a 400 billion dollar “cut” over 10 years is draconian, “kill your momma and your kiddies” extremism, how is the Fed ever expected to make an actual 400 billion dollar real cut for a single year?

And we need real, actual cuts of at least 1,200 billion dollars a year, and not just reductions in the rate of growth. 2012 is critical, folks. Getting rid of Obama and 6 Democrat Senators is not enough to save this country. We need to throw the Democrats and the RCRs out, and replace them with true Constitutional Conservative men and women. And we need to hold their feet to the fire.

No more “Centrist” Republicans. Our nation cannot afford them. All the “Centrist” Republicans will do is pilot the Ship of State to the scene of the crash a bit more slowly. And the TEA Party is here for a time such as this — that’s why Democrats, lamestream media, RCRs fear and hate and malign the TEA Party.

Posted in Conservative, Constitution, economics, Elections, Liberal, media, Obama, Over-regulation, Palin, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, politically correct, Politically Incorrect, politics, society, Tax, TEA Party, truth | Tagged: , , , , , | Comments Off

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 213 other followers

%d bloggers like this: