Warren Buffett, the billionaire investor, famously volunteered that he and his fellow billionaires should pay a higher percentage of their income to the government. Right on cue, the radical Marxist currently occupying the White House embraced Buffett’s class warfare and self-immolating guilt and announced a “jobs” bill that calls for higher taxes on billionaires.
Oh — wait a minute: Obama replaced the “B” in billionaire with an “M” for millionaires…
Or is it on all those making more than $200,000? Yesterday we had a columnist named Bruce Bartlett featured in the FT praising Obama’s embrace of the so-called Buffett rule. In it he cites the following nonsense:
The September 20 Gallup poll found 2-to-1 support for higher taxes on those making more than $200,000 a year to pay for his proposed jobs bill. <source>
I can only imagine the pollster trolling for vulnerable people when asking this question.
The real travesty going on here is this migration from lust for car-jacking billionaires to shaking down families earning more than $200,000; this is the Liberal mind in all its ugliness. It is the essence of the fascist centralization of power by a government determined to rid the country of its wealthy in favor of the “non-wealthy”, and pretty soon “wealthy” will be defined by fascists as those with any job at all. If you are a Liberal and that sounds good to you, you might find great joy for yourself in Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela. He has been ruthlessly pursuing similar policies and the “rich” are very much on the run — a Liberal blood sport!!
Bartlett humiliates himself further with lines like the following:
The Republican party position argues that low tax rates are essential for economic growth. But growth was much more robust in the 1980s and 1990s, when both their average and marginal rates were higher. <source>
This kind of economic writing is the sloppiest kind of drivel and is a kind of intellectual abuse of its readers. Not only is it wrong, it seeks to make analogies in the wrong ways and in all the wrong places. Ronald Reagan famously cut the high marginal rates of taxation dramatically, leading to one of the greatest economic expansions in history. But the beauty of it was, the mega-wealthy ended up contributing more, not less, of the total taxes collected:
…in 1981 the top 1 percent paid 17.6 percent of all personal income taxes, but by 1988 their share had jumped to 27.5 percent, a 10 percentage point increase. <source>
Note how Bartlett erroneously compares the marginal tax rates under Reagan to the top rates now: the truth is, marginal rates at the end of Reagan’s second term were LESS than they have been since (since Bush 41’s abominable betrayal on Read My Lips, followed by Clinton’s tax increases).
But back to Reagan: the relevant point is that he hugely cut the top marginal rate and tax revenues actually climbed by leaps and bounds.
Once the economy received an unambiguous tax cut in January 1983, income tax revenues climbed dramatically, increasing by more than 54 percent by 1989... <source>
Class warfare of the kind Buffett and Obama (and Bartlett) are pursuing is not only built on specious arguments, it is also un-American. The USA was founded on freedom and opportunity, not on resentment of those who have done well and have more than others. And equating families earning $200,000 per year with billionaires is absolutely asinine.
Read Full Post »