Published: Tuesday, Dec. 11 2012 12:00 a.m. MST
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.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments