Because it's such eye-opening information that you're not likely to hear about anywhere else, I'm going to re-write and re-post most of that information here.
Now, while some might argue that Obama is all talk and no substance (and, frankly, I'd be one of those people), if you had time to actually dig into his policies you would find that he wants to raise the income tax rate on 'the rich' from 35% to 39%. While that initial increase -- just 4% -- may not seem like a lot at first glance, keep in mind that it that doesn't include any state, property, or capital gains taxes they might also be paying.
In addition to that, he also wants to remove the cap on Social Security taxes. That will raise, in some instances, the amount of money that the federal government confiscates from 'the rich' to more than 50%.
When you factor in state income taxes, those 'fat cat CEOs' are now going to be told to fork over nearly 60% of their income in taxes in some areas of the country. And, that's before we get into things like property taxes and capital gains taxes.
( And then, when 'the rich' people die, we tax their estates -- built with money that they'd already paid taxes on -- too. )
Now, while some of you might've bought into the class warfare arguments might be all 'Yeah! Stick it to the rich!' when hearing that, let me give you some basic economic (and probably shocking) facts.
- Fact: As it stands, right now, the top 1%of wage-earners earn 19% of total income, but pay 36% of the total income tax collected.
- Fact: The top 10% of wage-earners pays a total of 68% of the total tax burden.
- Fact: The lowest 50% of wage-earners in this country earn 13% of the money made, but only pay 3% of the income tax burden.
Wrong.
According to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, 'the rich' are paying more now than they would have before the Bush tax cuts.But, Bush's tax cuts have had a larger benefit to the overall economy that just that. You see, Bush's tax cuts have convinced more and more 'rich' people to keep their money here. So the government is collecting more of their money than they would have without the tax cuts.
In addition, because they are keeping their money here, they're also keeping more of their investments here and more people outside of the United States are also investing here. Because of that, we're also collecting more on Capital Gains taxes that we could've ever forecast.In fact, according the Department of the Treasure, we've exceeded the government forecasts for the collection of Capital Gains from 2003-2007 by a combined $207 Billion dollars.
And, while it angered many on the left when Bush did it, Bush hasn't been the only one who realized that reducing Capital Gains taxes was good for the economy. In fact, Clinton did it in 1997 and that reduction -- from 28% to 20% -- resulted in a doubling of the taxable capital gains over the next 3 years. Bush's Captial Gains tax reduction -- from 20% to 15% -- resulted in another 154% increase.
While it seems paradoxical to those who don't get 'Reaganomics', the proof is there: Cutting the tax resulted in huge increases in the amount of tax collected.
As Stephen Moore, senior economics writer for the Wall Street Journal wrote:
"The Laffer Curve helped launch Reaganomics here at home and ignited a frenzy of tax cutting around the globe that continues to this day. It’s also one of the simplest concepts in economics: lowering the tax rate on production, work, investment, and risk-taking will spur more of these activities and will often produce more tax revenue rather than less. Since the Reagan tax cuts, the United States has created some 40 million new jobs — more than all of Europe and Japan combined."John F. Kennedy, saying that 'a rising tide lifts all boats', cut taxes to spur the economy. Ronald Reagan understood the basic principle that giving 'the rich' more of their money back allowed them to put more of that money back into the economy. Bill Clinton got that. George W. Bush did, too.
But, for whatever reason, Obama doesn't seem to get this 'simple' economic truth.
Think about it for yourself for just a minute.
Now, ask yourself: Who do employs you?
( I'll give you a hint: He ain't poor. )
If the 'fat cat CEOs' suddenly have less money to spend employing people here because they're having to give more of it directly to the government -- while at the same time it becomes increasingly cheaper to do business in places like, say, Mexico or China or Australia or the Phillipines or India -- do you really think that those 'fat cat CEOs' are going to keep their money (and, with it, your job) here?
They won't. They're in business to make money. Period.
Many companies are already setting up shop in other countries because labor is cheaper. If we start taking more of their cash, while taking away any possible incentive that they might have to keep jobs here, they're going to pack up and move away entirely.
It's that simple.
