Come On Roger.We have no desire to know all of those little
details.Here is all we need to know.- Taxes will be
raised to unconscionable levels in order to run the govt for 10 days.- All rich people are job creators. Raise their taxes AT ALL and they will no
longer hire the rest of us.- Give rich people more money and it will
filter down to everyone else.- Raising taxes on rich people is
"redistribution of wealth" and will go to those unwilling to work
Blind-partisan Utahns, which are numerous, will ignore your facts and legitimate
figures. They like Mitt's Mystery Math and won't stop believing they
were in the minority of voters.
For Republicans who have sold their soul to Grover Norquist, it's not about
the numbers, it's all about the principle and the promise. But thank you,
Roger, for shining the light of reason on this topic. It exposes how irrational
they are in fighting this battle. Any "job creator" worth his or her
entrepreneurial salt can absorb the slight increase in tax burden without
missing a beat, without having to shut down or scale back operations in any
significant way, and without having to give up his or her extravagant lifestyle.
Mr. Terry,Your clear bias toward reality and facts will makes your
Thanks Roger for this clearly stated explanation of the proposed tax rate
increase. There are those who want us to believe that the president is
proposing tax increases on ALL income for those making over $250,000 per year.
But as you so clearly state is only on the income in excess of $250,000.
Otherwise, everyone pays the same tax, even after the tax increase, on the first
$250,000 of income. Still there are those who think a tax increase of any kind
is wrong and unfair. But it is only with a combination of some tax increase
(getting us closer to the tax rates of the 90's when we experienced the
greatest financial success in our history) and the careful and responsible
decrease in spending that we can begin to solve our debt problem. I think it is
worth repeating that the CBO estimated in the late 90's that if we
continued the course we were on then, with less government and higher taxes, we
would have paid off our national debt by 2010. But instead, we cut taxes and
increased spending including two unfunded wars. That's no way to run a
business or a country.
As i keep trying to tell Mike Richards, 100K isn't rich. Not even close.
Obama's "plan" is no plan at all. It doesn't solve ANY
problems. It is a power grab by the President to have an open-ended "credit
card". For those whose memories are so short that they can't remember
what he did the first time:- He had to have stimulus money and he
had to have it immediately. No time to think. No time to debate.-
He had to "save" GM and Chrysler immediately. No time to see who was
receiving the money. No time to debate whether government had the right to
seize a private company.- He had to have Obamacare passed
immediately. No time to read the bill. No time to debate the bill. It had to
be passed right then.He's trying to do it again. The CBO tells
us that taxing the "rich guy" will bring is $60 billion a year - if the
"rich guy" decides to be the government patsy and continues to work just
as hard and just as many hours. That's only 1/25th of the money needed.
Face it. He's going to raise taxes on YOU, but, he's
going to do it piecemeal. Study history - his history.
But but but...According to a letter writer yesterday... (ANY) tax
increase on the rich is class warfare and they should sue the federal government
for being picked on!
"This past election, Norquist's group, Americans for Tax Reform, spent
nearly $16 million to support his favored candidates; that's according to
the Center for Responsive Politics. Where did that money come from, and what did
it buy? Back in the 1990's, it was the tobacco industry backing
Norquist's fight against cigarette taxes; now it's pharmaceutical
companies, among others. Not long ago, this same Grover Norquist was using his
organization to launder money for the notorious lobbyist Jack Abramoff. How
about that for tax reform!So, not only does the Norquist Pledge
symbolize a "political system short on legitimacy," as Christopher
Caldwell (a senior editor at The Weekly standard) wrote. It isn't even
about principle or ideology. Conservatism, my foot. It's all about the
money."(Bill Moyers, Capitol Crimes)
Small business is a lie, just like the lie about small farmers the term is used
to make us have sympathy for a non-existent disadvantaged group of businessmen.
There are no disadvantaged businessmen. If a businessman feels he
is disadvantaged all he has to do is move to a different business or even take a
job like the rest of us. All personal income is the same, and as
the best measure of American benefits, should be taxed the same no mater how,
where or when it is obtained.The distinction between a businessman
and a worker is that the businessman obtains his income from the labor of
others. Success for a businessman is buying at low wages/cost and selling the
product at a higher price. The only businessman who might deserve
any sympathy is the one man business where the owner is also the worker.
To Mike R..of course he will raises taxes on all of us "at some time".
At some time the payroll deduction tax rate has to go back to where it was and
the Bush tax cuts have to expire for everyone.."at some time".
You're not saying anything the President hasn't said himself. Just want to get it out in the open so when the economy fully recovers
as a result of the Presidents brilliant handling..and "some time"
arrives you don't run around saying I told you so..because the President
has all ready told us so.
A good letter.But those who oppose any increases are not interested
in facts.Procura told us exactly that the other day when he wrote in
a post here: "My opinions are not based on facts." That's not an
exact quote, but I'm sure you'll all get the idea.
In the 200 words allotted, I didn't have space to mention that this little
hypothetical situation is very simplified and, therefore, overestimates the
taxes a small businessperson would pay. I assumed minimal credits and
deductions. For example, I assumed a mortgage of $300,000 at 3 percent for 15
years, which yielded a mortgage interest deduction of $8,800. A family with this
sort of income could afford a much larger house and mortgage. I also
assumed that this family of four paid only 4 percent of their income to charity,
which would result in higher taxable income than if they had donated a higher
percentage. I assumed they were too busy to take advantage of all the tax
credits and loopholes available to people of means. So, if anything, my numbers
are grossly overstated in terms of the taxes this family would pay.
I hope your numbers are true Roger and if true will be less scary than much of
what has been circulated for people in the range of income you are talking
about. Your numbers are, however, different from what President Obama keeps
drumming which is that anyone making over $200,000 ($250,000 filing jointly)
will pay more taxes (and often the tax code is written so people in higher
incomes lose exemptions and other deductions). How do I know what to believe?
Please tell me what source gave you your numbers so they can be verified.
I'm genuinely interested and hoping you are accurate.
"He had to have Obamacare passed immediately. No time to read the bill. No
time to debate the bill. It had to be passed right then."Huh?Obamacare wasn't new. In the 90s it was created in part by the
Heritage Foundation and sponsored by Orrin Hatch. This comment that
Obamacare was just created out of thin air and passed is extremely incorrect.However, because the wacky right has become overly crazy and their #1
goal was to make Obama a one-term President they turned against their own reform
and declared it Socialism. My how far the right has fallen!
I still have seen no answer on this simple question.We constantly
hear how Reagan created millions of jobs and created a booming economy by
lowering tax rates. The predominant top tax rate under Reagan was 50%. He
briefly cut it to 28% but that rate kicked in at around $30,000 in today's
dollars.Today's top tax rate is 35% beginning at an income of
around $380,000. The proposal is to raise it to 39.6 ( the rate under Clinton
who also had a very good economy)So, here is the million dollar
questionHow could Reagan's 50% top tax rate be so good for jobs
and the economy, but a 40% tax rate is a job killer. Can anyone
explain the the logic?
Great letter Roger Terry!Thank You for using facts, and data [the
truth]to stifle the Chicken Little scare tactics used on FaoxNews and Talk
Radio.You assumptions even left out ridiculous "tax
deductions" even small companies take advantage of like that the rest of us
can't like - No sales tax, Business lunches, dinners,
vacations, Assest Depreciations,Property Lease, Motor Vehicle
mileage at what?...42 cents per mile?, NONE of that and 1,000 items more
are never shown as earnings because they are all deductible.I know
for a fact, most business owners also do things like form Family Trusts, LLCs,
and hide ALL their personal assests like house, personal vehicles, RVs, ect. so
those never show up on that $250K IRS radar either.So the REAL
number after everything else is said and done is the "Adjusted Income"
of over $250K, after all deductions - the 100% pure Profit - cash in the pocket,
after everything else.G.E. made $Billions and STILL never paid a
nickel in taxes.The common household doesn't enjoy such tax
privledges.Mitt Romney - business guru - couldn't name ONE
loophole he'd close as President.......and that's what's
wrong with the GOP.Name ONE.
Outstanding letter. My gosh, it's great to see some common sense (and
math!) on this issue.
President Bush should have reversed the tax cuts, the second he declared the war
in Iraq. American patriots will pay more taxes for a war in defense of national
That's all good and well, Roger, but there is so much more to the tax
increases than just personal income tax. You're comments, while probably
true and fairly accurate, do not take into account things such as cancellation
of many deductions, impact on states, medicare, medicaid and many other programs
that are tied into the tax code. Some articles I've read indicate that the
affect on states is in the billions of dollars. So, even though the federal
income tax is not that large, if the states have to make up that lost revenue,
then taxes in other areas increase significantly. The overall tax burden will
become more difficult to bear. Now, if I may, the Book of Mormon
makes a few references to taxes. One-fifth (20%) was outrageous and 50% was
imposed on people being held captive. I suppose that now, or soon,
the "rich", and anyone else willing to work, will literally become
working slaves to those who don't or won't work who expect a free,
albeit poverty-level, distribution from the government.
Stuff - your comments are both illogical and irrelevant. First, the only way
states will "have to make up that lost revenue" is if the federal
government can't fund the programs that states rely on, like Medicaid. The
federal government loses revenue when they cut taxes, not increase them. And
for those of you still trying to peddle the follies of trickle down economics
(cut taxes on the rich and it will somehow evolve into even more tax revenue for
the federal government) just stop it right now. There is no evidence to support
that concept.Secondly, I have to question your reference to taxes
imposed by King Noah. We live in a republic/democracy and we are not ruled by a
king. And the lifestyle described in the Book of Mosiah/Book of Mormon seems to
be more of a reference to the lifestyles of the massively wealthy than middle
class Americans. And finally, not everyone in the world, not even in the Provo
world, accepts the teachings of the Book of Mormon. Maybe some will have
trouble accepting the concepts presented there.
stuffProvo, UTNow, if I may, the Book of Mormon makes a few
references to taxes. One-fifth (20%) was outrageous and 50% was imposed on
people being held captive.10:55 a.m. Dec. 11, 2012============== Let's at least compare apples to apples.Show me in the Book of Mormon were taxes were ever used to pay for extensive roads, bridges, power, sewer, water, garbage, hydro electric and
nuclear power, snow removal, Colleges and Univesities, Fire Departments, Public
education K-12, Cancer research, Search and Rescue, Radar, Radio and Computer
communications, ect., ect. ect.In additon -- Those Book of
Mormon taxes were never used to fund the needs of the Sick, Needy, or elderly
like ours do.That was all taken care of by immediate family or
charities.Taxes ALL went to the KING, who "might" pay for an
Army.BTW - Captain Moroni wrote his Congressmen about the lack of
funds to support the War THEY wanted. As I recall he actually threathened to
turn his armies against his own Government if they didn't DO somehting
about it pronto. As Veteran myself, I can't help but see the similarity
with today's Republicans.
Stuff.... I appreciate your comments.... but taxation in book of Mormon times I
am sure has little similarity to today. If you were a subsistence
farmer/rancher back then, 20 or 50 percent of you "income" is far
different that the same numbers applied agains a companies profits, or someones
personal income. It is cool to explore those relationships, and how the tax
burden might have been different or the same back then, but drawing a 1 to 1
comparison likely isn't accurate, as I assume you realize.Mike,
Mike, MIke..... and why don't you mention other facts like this from 17
minutes ago..."The U.S. Treasury's sale of its remaining
stake in American International Group Inc (AIG.N) will fetch $7.6 billion,
bringing the government a total profit of $22.7 billion from its bailout of the
insurer in the financial crisis four years ago"Lets repeat...
total profit from the AIG bailout was $22.7 billion. The government can be a
hassle to deal with, but on occasion they do a few things right. Letting AIG
fail would have cost the US tax payer billions
Do those who blindly accept Obama's promises close their minds off to
facts, or are they incapable of thinking for themselves?The CBO told
us that Obama needs 25 times more revenue than taxing the "rich guy"
will provide, yet look at how many posters walk lock-step with Obama when he
tells us that taxing the rich is the answer.The CBO has NOT
guaranteed that revenue will rise at all if the rich are taxed, because they
know that they cannot force the "rich guy" to work if he's going to
go home with less money WHILE everybody else attacks him for being foolish
enough to work harder than they are willing to work. Yet Obama's followers
think that the "rich guy" is some kind of moron who will continue to
work regardless of how much they take from him.If YOU were rich
enough to not have to work and your boss told you that you would work more hours
for less money, what would you do? Just what do you think the "rich
guy" is going to do?Obama has no solution. Think for yourself
for a change.
So the letter writer didn't explain how a tax increase helps the economy.
Does it create any jobs? Go ask the people at Drake's Bay Oyster Company in
California how much this administration cares about jobs.
red state prideCottonwood Heights, UT12:40 p.m. Dec. 11, 2012Must have heard only sound bites from the Blaze or Rush Limbaugh.Let's see the facts: 1. Drakes Bay Oyster Company
doesn't OWN the sight - it has always been Leased, for the last 100 years.
The Lease simply run out, and Salazar did not renew it.2. Why? one
might ask...[was it some secret Obama adminstration diabolical evil plan to take
over and Socialize Aemerica?] No, it was simply because U.S. Congress declared
that area protected wilderness area back in 1976, and it has been part of the
National Parks Department since 1962.Let's at least investigate
ALL of the facts, instead of building a strawman arguement based on AM radio
"sound bits" taken out of context to score petty political points, shall
@ LDS Liberal- actually I read an article about it. I haven't heard any
talk radio hosts discuss it. If you had read the article you'd know that
Federal Agencies used faulty studies that were repeatedly shown to be incorrect
to try to show that the oyster farm was degrading the environment. I understand
that it was a lease and the lease could expire but if Ken Salazar wasn't in
the back pocket of the Sierra Club and this Administration actually cared about
jobs and the thirty people who are going to be losing their jobs and the family
that is going to lose millions of dollars then they may have different
priorities. BTW- when someone doesn't have income you can't tax their
Roger,Thank you for your "...probably true and fairly
accurate..." comments, however...I can't let go
of all the boogey men rush, grover, karl, mitch, john, george, newt, et al. tell
and write to us about everyday.Perfect.
Stuff:Yes, fixing the tax code is multifaceted. But this letter was
only about the actual effects of reinstating the pre-Bush tax rates on the top
two brackets. The effect on individual taxpayers is negligible, while overall it
will provide a great deal of revenue.And Mike, nobody, even Obama,
said raising the rates on the rich will pay for the whole debt we've
accumulated. But it is a partial solution. Many partial solutions will be needed
to create a whole solution. Ignoring the revenue that can be raised by allowing
the Bush tax cuts to expire on the wealthiest income brackets is unwise. So get
off your high horse and offer some viable options rather than just bellyaching.
@Mike RichardsThe CBO says that taxes on the rich bring in 80 billion a
year over 10 years. With a deficit of roughly 1.2 trillion a year that would
mean it's 1/15th of what we need to balance the budget. I'm not sure
where you got 1/25th but... either way it's not even close to 1/2.
Here's the thing though, most Democrats know that it can't close the
deficit by itself. We want other stuff too, personally I want to slash military
spending by a third. I want the bush tax cuts for everybody repealed. I want a
public option (that reduces healthcare costs 15 billion a year according to the
new york times). I want the cap on income subject to payroll taxes increased to
keep social security solvent for a few more decades. I don't just want tax
cuts repealed on the rich. Just the things I've listed would reduce the
deficit by about 75%.
@Mike:The CBO has NOT guaranteed that revenue will rise at all if
the rich are taxed, because they know that they cannot force the "rich
guy" to work if he's going to go home with less money WHILE everybody
else attacks him for being foolish enough to work harder than they are willing
to work. Yet Obama's followers think that the "rich guy" is some
kind of moron who will continue to work regardless of how much they take from
him.:Your statement makes absolutely no sense. Lets say you are a
professional making and AGI of 300k a year. Under the propose new rates your
taxes on income above 250 k would go up a grand total of $1,500. Are you
seriously telling me a "rich" person is going to stop working because
their take home on the AGI went up $1,500? Lets be clear hear, this
simplistic view that a very marginal tax change is going to drive huge amounts
of behavuor just isn't based on fact. The vast majority of US wealthy live
in states with high taxes - an example - Romney himself choosing California.
The rhetoric doesn't match up.
The double standard that the right has set....I love it how raising
taxes on the rich shouldn't be done because it won't come close to
paying off our debt...Yet...Getting rid of Big Bird was
seen as such a priority that Mitt Romney had to speak about it in his debate
with President Obama. Apparently to the right, shutting down funding
to PBS was going to solve our debt problem.Hilarious!
If the Obama tax increase of the wealthy is so tiny why bother?
@airnaut:"Mitt Romney - business guru - couldn't name ONE
loophole he'd close as President.......and that's what's
wrong with the GOP."Mitt coulda named several loopholes but,
doing so would give the opposition ammunition for use in the campaign. For
example James Carville (a staunch Democrat party leader) has already shown us
what woulda happened... He suggests one of the Mitt loopholes would be the
mortgage interest deduction. So, James starts harping that eliminating that
'loophole' would damage the real estate business.The truth
is, Romney would have put a cap on the total of all itemized deduction on the
IRS 1040 for the wealthy. Ordinary folks would still get their full itemized
deductions.Does that help?
@Kent C. DeForrest:" The effect on individual taxpayers is negligible,
while overall it will provide a great deal of revenue."If you
add up alotta negligibles what do you get? Something that's practically
negligible."And Mike, nobody, even Obama, said raising the rates
on the rich will pay for the whole debt we've accumulated. But it is a
partial solution."Obama does not plan to use the taxes from the
wealthy to pay down the debt. He plans, and has planed all along, to use the
money to (1) expand government, and (2) fund family vacations to Europe, etc.,
for him, his wife and children."So get off your high horse and
offer some viable options rather than just bellyaching."Here's an idea... fire all his czars that he hired in his first term. He
has a cabinet, why does he think he needs 20 to 25 czars setting around the
White House. And here's another idea... stop sending your wife and kids on
Mike, you keep harping on this over and over again, but there isn't a
single Democrat in Congress (or in the White House, for that matter) who thinks
that raising taxes on your "rich guy" is the only means of erasing the
deficit. However, it has to be part of the solution, and anyone who thinks
otherwise is fooling themselves.Also, as mentioned before, even
after the Bush tax cuts expire, taxes will still be significantly lower than
they were under Reagan. Based on your logic, I guess he hated the wealthy even
more than Obama supposedly does...
A day goes by and still no one has attempted to tell me why Reagans 50% tax rate
was Great for the country, but Obama's 40% is a job and an economy
killer.The silence is very telling.What say you Red, MM,
"If the Obama tax increase of the wealthy is so tiny why bother?"If raising billions in new revenue via letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire
is so little why were you such a proponent of cutting the millions spent on Big
Bird? Why did you waste time bringing this up in an important debate and wasting
hours upon hours debating this on your Fair and Balanced media?Why
does the GOP insist on wasting our time?Are you folks really willing
to go off the fiscal cliff to fight for your tax cuts for the wealthy? I doubt
it. But we shall surely see. Either way, taxes are (thankfully) going up and
massive cuts to defense (thankfully) will take place due to the fiscal cliff
bomb. GOP, your time is up! You've had years to propose
solutions. The clock is nearing an end! And your party, is about to be destroyed
in 2014 if you push us off this cliff. Already we're seeing the GOP split.
Those who value their pledge to Nordquist are set at odds with those who are
(thankfully) returning to their pledge to the Constitution.The ball
is in your court.
Despite any tax you put on the rich, or small business owners, or whoever,the poor and the middle class are still NOT any richer.
@maverick - the point about PBS funding is that Big Bird can fly on his own two
wings. If he were real he'd have more money than Michael Jordan but his
money is PBS's money. But somehow, with 500 plus channels available on
cable the US Taxpayer/ Ben Bernanke is still supposed to support PBS. PBS has
already "revenued" Sesame Street to the tune of millions upon millions
but PBS is still being subsidized. Why? Can we have a little cost/benefit
analysis here? I believe (rough numbers) 70% of the wealth in this country is
controlled by people 65 or older but this age group's
"entitlements" are untouchable according to Lynn Woolsey and the rest of
the Democrat party. Of course defunding PBS or Planned Parenthood
isn't going to solve our budget crisis- but if you can't have a simple
cost vs benefit analysis and trim some small things then how do you handle the
big ticket items that will ultimately consume us? And btw I have no problem with
a big cut in the "Dept of Diversity" ...errrrrrr....Dept of
@The Real Maverick:"If raising billions in new revenue via letting the
Bush Tax Cuts expire is so little why were you such a proponent of cutting the
millions spent on Big Bird?"The point being made was, Big Bird
is rich enough to support itself so why blow taxpayer money on him/ger?"Why did you waste time bringing this up in an important debate and
wasting hours upon hours debating this on your Fair and Balanced media?"Liberals dragged the issue out ad infinitum. They were sore about one
of their sacred icons being dissed. "Are you folks really
willing to go off the fiscal cliff to fight for your tax cuts for the
wealthy?"The cliff is the president's to go off of. The
House is responsible for money laws according to the US Constitution. Obama
thinks he's god and makes the laws, not Congress."GOP, your
time is up! You've had years to propose solutions."A
solution has been proposed. What Dems want is for the GOP to cave, bow, and
scrape."The ball is in your court."The nut is in
the White House.
Until folks like Mitt Romney pay the same rate as I do in taxes, no one rich can
claim that they're "picked on." Sheessh! Make millions more than I
do (and I'm actually working) and he pays a much lower tax rate.
On and on we go with this distraction and misleading narrative about increasing
taxes. There is a good reason why the head fool (BHO) didn't raise income
taxes in his first term - he knew it was an economy killer. Now that he
doesn't need to get re-elected he seeks to install the next wave of
socialism creep upon us. The full impact of Obamacare taxes hasn't even hit
yet, and now this. So much for the lie about protecting the middle class. His
half-wit minions, who defend him with every breath, deserve what they get, to
bad the rest of us have to suffer also. They are so busy with this
distraction campaign, they cant even give an answer about spending cuts. They
admit that cuts are necessary, but they are so full of class envy, they cant
remove their focus from tax increases. Their only answer is to cut defense
spending. come on leftists, give us 2 precise, clear, areas of spending cuts.
Don't lie like your president has so many times before!
@HAHA...Ok, two. 1) Obama plan to cut 320 Billion
from medicare - google it - not too hard to find if you really care to.
Republicans ran against these cuts. 2) 2/3rds of government data
centers consolidated - closing about 650 data centers by fiscal year 2015 and
saving about $700 million in doing so. Your turn. Respectfully your,a half-wit minion
Why won't Republicans detail the cuts they want to make? Just saying
"We want $X in cuts" isn't enough. How can Dems agree to these
cuts if they are not specifically described? How can Dems agree to elimination
of deductions if they are not specified? Republicans don't want to give
specifics because they are afraid that what they want is unpopular. Spineless!
RE: Half wit minion I will kind of give you the cut medicare claim, I think
I have actually heard the anointed one propose that. However it is a very
convoluted mess, and only you would believe any number the CBO puts out. It is
also a mix of increases put into Obamacare. How much gets cut, is really anyones
guess. 700 million? are you serious? Why bother? ....and I thought the
70 billion class envy tax increase that the anointed one is proposing was fairly
meaningless! Second thought however, I do agree with your notion that we should
cut everywhere we can, and even little things add up. Even your government
welfare should be cut a little, along with all your other comrades welfare.
Every little bit makes a difference!