Obama's economic thinking remains stuck in 2007. He assumes he can turn American into a social democratic state by taxing the top two percent, by closing loopholes on hedgefund managers, and the like.
Yet, the problem of the rich getting richer largely solved itself in a few days in early autumn of 2008. I suspect that hedge fund managers won't be a bottomless source of taxable income in 2009, and for a number of years to come.
So, Obama will eventually realize that he'll have to squeeze the upper middle class: families making from, say, $90,000 to $250,000. He'll have to raise income tax marginal rates on this broad expanse.
But a lot of Obama voters fall in this range. Moreover, in the Blue States, $90,000 to $250,000 isn't necessarily a huge amount of money. A family of four making $150,000 in Tulsa is probably living well, while one in Manhattan is not.
So, I predict that eventually, Obama will be tempted to try to adjust the tax code for the local cost of living: impose higher tax rates on the Oklahoma family making $150k than on the New York family making the same income.
Yet, the problem of the rich getting richer largely solved itself in a few days in early autumn of 2008. I suspect that hedge fund managers won't be a bottomless source of taxable income in 2009, and for a number of years to come.
So, Obama will eventually realize that he'll have to squeeze the upper middle class: families making from, say, $90,000 to $250,000. He'll have to raise income tax marginal rates on this broad expanse.
But a lot of Obama voters fall in this range. Moreover, in the Blue States, $90,000 to $250,000 isn't necessarily a huge amount of money. A family of four making $150,000 in Tulsa is probably living well, while one in Manhattan is not.
So, I predict that eventually, Obama will be tempted to try to adjust the tax code for the local cost of living: impose higher tax rates on the Oklahoma family making $150k than on the New York family making the same income.
My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer
Posts
51 comments:
Is it more than a coincidence that adjusting taxes for cost of living will also amount to adjusting taxes for party allegiance?
The fight over the federal deduction for state and local taxes has historically been a major battleground for this sort of thing, since the Blue states have higher taxes. That could be boosted to a partial tax credit, in a move that would both redistribute wealth towards blue states and provide a direct subsidy for higher taxes by the states and big cities.
Good God, you're probably right that the Obamazoids will try to tax Red states and Blue states differently. If that numbskull idea is ever implemented, then go long on canned goods and shotguns, because the breakup of America will be at hand.
Won't the expiration of the Bush tax cuts take care of that 'problem' for Obama?
Steve, I believe you're wrong about this. I was just reading today that the Obama voter profile creates a dumbbell shape when sorted by income--heavy at the extremes. In fact, according to what I read, McCain won in the middle ranges, under $250K but above, say, $50K. A glance at a Red State/Blue State map, while not the whole story, is suggestive of those results.
Or he can be even more honest about it and just dig up the voting records. If you voted for McCain, you'll pay a 30% tax, if you didn't vote, you'll pay 25%, and if you wanted for Obama, you'll pay 20%.
What was that special tax called that only infidels had to pay in the Ottoman Empire?
If he tried it though, look for him to lose a lot of the South and Upper Midwest that he won this past fall. It wasn't just SWPL urbanites that voted for Obama, and the bigger your tent, the more likely you'll piss some of your constituents off.
No.
May be a bit...but I suspect Obama/Pelosi/Reid will mostly be content to run a bigger-than-projected deficit "in view of the emergency".
Some amount of deficit was projected, anyway. And the projection was spun as so ridiculously high, the administration can easily come in under the "target". Hurray!...red ink as far as the eye can see.
Homelander
I think it's likely that Obama and Pelosi will find a way to raise the net tax rate on pretty much everyone making between $0 and $100 billion by adding nickel and dime consumption taxes on everything from gasoline to cigarettes. A commenter on Half Sigma's blog alerted me to a Yahoo news story suggesting that Congress might be planning to set aside several billion dollars in order to forcibly install 200 million GPS systems in all of America's automobiles so that the government can follow every American driver everywhere they go and then tax them for every mile they drive. This, of course, would disproportionately affect red state citizens because they live in more rural areas, AND it would also affect middle class white people who live in suburbs but commute to jobs in large cities. But Obama seems to a favor a system that would give people who drive expensive fuel-efficient hybrid cars a break by simply increasing the gas tax rather than taxing by the mile. This is the more likely solution as it was endorsed by Pelosi herself during Bush's first term.
Obama will be tempted to try to adjust the tax code for the local cost of living: impose higher tax rates on the Oklahoma family making $150k than on the New York family making the same income.
Yeah, that's what "fixing" AMT is all about. Right now in California (and, I presume, other large, high-tax states) some not-insignificant number of people are seeing their deductions for mortgage interest and state taxes getting phased out by AMT. By raising the AMT limits it should move more of the tax burden onto those pesky redstaters.
Here's my prediction. Obama projects GDP growth of more than 10 percent over 4 years to get the deficit down to $500 billion. I predict that GDP will be about the same in 2012 as in 2008, which is, in my opinion, a rosy scenario. That would leave almost a $2 trillion gap with Obama's assumptions, which translates crudely into a $400 billion revenue shortfall.
His 4 year debt will exceed Bush's 8 year debt.
two papers about this:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/107.html
http://www.nber.org/digest/nov08/w13995.html
It is clear that Obama cannot fund his programs by only taxing the rich. My prediction is that of Italian economist Amilcare Puviani 100 years ago: an explosion of hidden taxation.
Steves point is fascinating, but unlikely, since no country I know of has done this (people generally don't consider this "fair", and Obama would lose a lot of voters). A lot of countries however have high hidden taxes on the middle class. The value added tax that Krugman proposed today is the most likely one, followed by creeping up of the employer fees.
Right now, job number 1 for Obama is to replace the $700 billion/yr or so that until recently was going into consumer's pockets in the form of extracted home equity. Coincidentally, $700 billion is very close to the trade deficit, but the "free trade" mafia wont allow that elephant to be noticed.
Steve, I believe you're wrong about this. I was just reading today that the Obama voter profile creates a dumbbell shape when sorted by income--heavy at the extremes.
Which is why Obama will probably tax the heck out of the middle.
How was Steve wrong?
I doubt differential taxations would get 60 votes in the Senate.
I think you're on the right track, Steve, but I beg to suggest that Obama may try varying taxes by occupation rather than by location. Look for expanded special deductions and credits for teachers, employees of non-profit organizations (ACORN, anyone?), and so-forth. Teachers already get a (small, but perhaps icebreaking) special $250 deduction. The next step may be a special tax credit for community organizers!
Obama will go with a redistribution^2 program. He'll redistribute the wealth of the upper and middle classes to NAMs, while redistributing NAMs across white working and lower middle class neighborhoods.
If the upper and middle classes complain about increased taxes the media will call them "greedy capitalists" and if the working/lower middle classes complain about having their communities destroyed they'll be portrayed as racists who hate NAMs who happen to be insecure about their sexual inadequacies.
I'll bet it's unconstitutional to directly charge different states different taxes, but they could find a way to do it, like a credit for state taxes paid and a big increase in tax rates. That would soak the red staters.
CPA
Like the last anonymous said, varying federal tax rates by state and location would almost certainly be considered unconstitutional. Obama is already readjusting tax rates surreptitiously by boosting matching funds for programs that blue states tend to prefer, such as higher welfare and unemployment benefits. He'll create a bailout for states like California in perpetuity, until red states finally say "screw it" and take the money themselves.
Obama's trying to present his new socialist programs as a benefit first. He claims the costs can be covered by a few extra taxes on the rich. By the time the public realizes it won't nearly cover the cost they'll be so used to the benefits that higher middle class taxes will be presented as a fait accompli.
The crucial difference between America the Welfare State and Europe the Welfare State is that in Europe the welfare benefits go (or went) mostly to poor whites. In America the welfare gap between whites on the one hand and blacks and hispanics on the other will be so huge that Americans won't be able to miss it. That's when the racial voting gap returns with a vengeance.
Finally, with his new welfare programs Obama is trying to finish off the American family, the last real obstacle satnding in the way of our glorious socialist future (and American decline). Mass immigration of Hispanics plus mass welfare should just about do that, until America's economy collapses completely. Then all hell breaks loose.
Steve, differential taxing will not be done on a regional basis because it will be political suicide.
The same means can be achieved by ostensibly even-handed tax laws that actually have differential impact.
It's not hard to design a tax code that punishes a family in which the father earns $150,000 and mother is a homemaker, as against two unmarried people living together earning $75,000 each, which is far more common in Manhattan than Tulsa.
Let's see how committed to 'diversity' the swing voter is when he/she is increasingly expected to fund ACORN projects and open borders.
Obama's base constituency, black folks, don't gain much if Obama wants to play that game. Southern governors can slash state budgets in areas like social services in retaliation. Mark Sanford is already doing that and refusing federal stimulus money on top of cutting the budget. Of course the Obama administration is attempting to bypass the state of South Carolina and give money directly to majority black counties.
Steve
as someone who does business all over the USA, I have to say that over time the free market takes care of punishing those that raise taxes and the cost of doing business.
The voters of California have basically decided to transfer vast ammts of wealth to the parasites of society. This is a transfer from the productive to the un productive.
Steve, I am a businessman and I have to say that many of the people that post here on this blog are not race realists but racists. The people that post here like to talk about the low income NAM parasites, but don't like to talk about the waspy high income parasites. In my experience the WASPY high income parasites in California are just as big a problem. So you have waspy lobbyists in Sacramento making a million a year, waspy lawyers suing everyone and everything that moves in California. The point is that California has a vast parasite class that goes beyond the NAMs
Texas on the other hand offers perhaps the best climate for doing business in the US. Despite the very large number of NAMs in Texas the state has a political culture that keeps the parasites at bay. That means of course that welfare payments are very very low compared to California, but it also means that the waspy lobbyists have less power, the government at all levels just does less.
Not that texas is a libertarian nirvana like Hong Kong, but it is a spectacular place to do business. At the opposite end of the spectrum from California.
You can actually hire and fire whoever you want in Texas without getting sued all the time (as you do in California)
California can best be viewed as being run by a coalition of parasites - the coalition includes the NAM welfare recipients that the people on this board love to hate, but also middle income parasites like the prison guards who are mostly white, who extract from the public purse wages and benefits far above market, and super high income parasites like the lobbyists who are mostly white
who make tons of money
net result - an income tax that will probably exceed 12% in California soon and will probably stay at 0% in Texas
You tell me where you are going to start and run a large company in the future - California or Texas?
Steve I see you commenting about Tulsa -
Tulsa is one of those places that is not as heavily "red" as you might think. The state of Oklahoma as a whole is, famously, the most "red" state in the nation, but Tulsa as a city actually contains some "Stuff White People Like" type people. The billionaires in Tulsa are also the type of people that donate to some lefty political causes, and overall Tulsa is not quite as extremely "red" as you might think.
The cost of living is as low as you would expect, however, with the price of a beautiful big house on the Country Club, Country Club membership, private school for the kids, and groceries from the Tulsa Whole Foods (yes there is a Whole Foods in Tulsa) requiring the same income that it would cost to buy and live in a small crummy house in Venice, CA and send your kids to the dangerous public schools in Venice.
Any other i steve bloggers spend time in Tulsa?
Steve Sailer: A family of four making $150,000 in Tulsa is probably living well, while one in Manhattan is not.
This got me to thinking about Manhattan real estate prices, and rent control, and then I remembered this recent article about the pending collapse of the NBA:
Welcome to the No Benjamins Association
By Bill Simmons
Updated: February 27, 2009
sports.espn.go.com
..The revenue-sharing system dictates specific thresholds for the cap and tax, which is fine as long as revenue doesn't drop dramatically with teams already tied into unsavory player contracts through 2010, 2011 or, in Philly's case with Brand, 2075 (or maybe it just feels that way to Sixers fans).
Think of the arrangement like this: Let's say my deal with ESPN.com were tied directly to revenue pulled in by the Web site. Let's say ESPN paid me $5 million a year for each of the past four years, and I felt pretty good about staying there with that number. Let's say I hired 10 interns and locked them into deals for $100,000 apiece through 2012 (thinking I could easily make those payments because the total each year was only one-fifth of my salary). Then, let's say ESPN told me this coming December, "We got crushed by the economy and our revenue is way down, so your 2010 salary will be $950,000."
Well, what do I do? I already owe more money than I'm making just in 2010. Because I mistakenly projected what salary numbers I THOUGHT I COULD PAY and never anticipated my revenue would drop that dramatically, basically, I'm screwed. (Hold on, three exclamation points coming.) Welcome to the NBA's world!!! Teams are locked into swollen contracts that suddenly make no sense, whether it's non-franchise players making franchise money (Vince, T-Mac, Shaq, Brand, Baron, Jermaine O'Neal, Dalembert, Okafor, etc.) or overpaid role players making six to 600 times what they should be making (Marko Jaric, Nazr Mohammed, Larry Hughes, Radmanovic, Mo Peterson, etc.)...
So what you had in the NBA was the socialists [Stern & the union] entering into an anti-competitive agreement to cap salaries, but then making the mistaken [and no doubt tacit, subconscious] assumption [i.e. they probably never even realized that they were assuming it] which held that revenue would always increase [or at least never decline], and that somehow the salary cap protected the franchises from even the theoretical possibility of being unable to meet payrolls.
And it dawned on me that in a milieu of widespread price deflation, this sort of pre-existing socialist meddling in the marketplace could have all sorts of unanticipated consequences.
For instance, getting back to the question of Manhattan real estate: Again, the rent controls were instituted by the NYC socialists so that they could live in Manhattan at sub-market prices, but suppose there were to be massive price deflation in the NYC real estate market, and suddenly even rent-controlled pricing were to become unsustainable.
I.e. suppose a rent-controlled Manhattan loft apartment, at $2000 per month, suddenly is only worth, say $1500 per month, Or $1000 per month.
Then what happens?
You'd have renters in rent-controlled apartments who knew that they were protected against price inflation, but made the mistake of never considering the question of what would happen in the event of price deflation, and now they're "under water" on their rent-controlled living arrangements to the tune of $500 or $1000 per month.
It seems to me that this could be the sort of thing which would set off the NYC anarcho-nihilists into large-scale outbreaks of looting and arson and generalized mayhem.
But from the point of view of us peons out here in flyover country, it would be f-ing hilarious, and even an honest NYCer [if there were such a creature] would have to at least acknowledge the tragicomedy of it all.
PS: For the record, this is all just an intellectual exercise - a fantasy, really - I know exactly what the NYC socialists would do if anything like this were ever to transpire.
Anonymous: What was that special tax called that only infidels had to pay in the Ottoman Empire?
Jizya.
And it's not just the Ottoman Empire - it's been SOP [standard operating procedure] in Islam since the beginning.
Anonymous: I'll bet it's unconstitutional to directly charge different states different taxes...
Dude - you people crack me up.
Every single penny in Obama's Porkulus & budget & healthcare proposal & cetera & cetera & cetera is utterly and completely unconstitutional.
Nobody cares about the constitution anymore - I doubt that there are any politicians in 2009 Washington DC who have even READ the constitution.
Heck, even "Honest" Abe Lincoln didn't give a dadgum about the stupid constitution, and that was almost 150 years ago.
God in heaven, this site is coughing up some truly outstanding gallows humor for a cold, rainy Saturday morning.
Moses: His 4 year debt will exceed Bush's 8 year debt.
At the rate he's going, Obama's one MONTH debt will exceed Bush's 8 year debt.
Mark: In America the welfare gap between whites on the one hand and blacks and hispanics on the other will be so huge that Americans won't be able to miss it. That's when the racial voting gap returns with a vengeance.
travis: Obama's base constituency, black folks, don't gain much if Obama wants to play that game. Southern governors can slash state budgets in areas like social services in retaliation. Mark Sanford is already doing that and refusing federal stimulus money on top of cutting the budget. Of course the Obama administration is attempting to bypass the state of South Carolina and give money directly to majority black counties.
I was perusing the Corner before I came over to iSteve this morning [I like to save the best for last], and I saw this Jonah Goldberg post, from yesterday afternoon [are we allowed to say "Jonah Goldberg" at iSteve? or is that grounds for censorship?]:
I Don't Want To Pay For It
by Jonah Goldberg
Friday, February 27, 2009
Posted at 9:11 AM
corner.nationalreview.com
I Don't Want To Pay For It Cont'd
by Jonah Goldberg
Friday, February 27, 2009
Posted at 5:58 PM
corner.nationalreview.com
Oh, as for the email: You stupid F*** I always knew you conservatives loved money and hated your country. Oh, and don't think we can't tell you don't want your money spent on black people.
And in addition to thinking how remarkably honest the leftists can be when they get all sarcastic and projectionist and hissy, I was also thinking to myself: Gosh, wouldn't it be kinda neat if Jonah Goldberg had the gonads to go on record and say, "You're God-damned right I don't want any of my money spent on black people!"
kudzu bob Good God, you're probably right that the Obamazoids will try to tax Red states and Blue states differently. If that numbskull idea is ever implemented, then go long on canned goods and shotguns, because the breakup of America will be at hand.
KB, as I have been trying to tell people: This IS the breakup of America.
America is dead.
The USA couldn't have sustained the spending which a John McCain would have engaged in [we don't have the money to finance the retirements of the (largely childless) Caucasian Baby Boomers, much less the profligacy of the burgeoning armies of sub-literate third world peasants in this country], and the Zimbabwean fictions which Obama and Pelosi and Reid are pushing on us are simply surrealistic.
None of this will work - the house of cards will collapse, and collapse soon.
who hate NAMs who happen to be insecure about their sexual inadequacies.
I didn't know NAMs were insecure about their sexual inadequacies.
Could be, I guess.
Steve, I am a businessman and I have to say that many of the people that post here on this blog are not race realists but racists. The people that post here like to talk about the low income NAM parasites, but don't like to talk about the waspy high income parasites. In my experience the WASPY high income parasites in California are just as big a problem. So you have waspy lobbyists in Sacramento making a million a year, waspy lawyers suing everyone and everything that moves in California. The point is that California has a vast parasite class that goes beyond the NAMs
Do you even bother reading here much? You will see plenty of criticism of SWPLs on these pages.
the coalition includes the NAM welfare recipients that the people on this board love to hate, but also middle income parasites like the prison guards who are mostly white, who extract from the public purse wages and benefits far above market
Far enough above market to keep them out of the barrio? Because that's what matters. Public service unions (how's that for an oxymoron?) are parasites for sure, but one can understand their desire to stay out of the lousier neighborhoods. If they couldn't do so they, too, would flee CA.
Allow me to make my own predictions about the next 4 years under Dear Leader:
1) Unemployment will still be north of 8% come 2012.
2) The deficit will still be hovering around $1 trillion in 2012.
The faster Obama moves to get his socialist paradise, the more quickly things will fall apart. People today are used to short recessions. They'll blame Obama when it's still bad come 2012. Obama doesn't have the patience to boil the frog slowly.
Obama will effectively lose his governing majority in 2010. Republicans seem to be slowly getting their act together, with copious help from Obama.
Steve, I am a businessman and I have to say that many of the people that post here on this blog are not race realists but racists. The people that post here like to talk about the low income NAM parasites, but don't like to talk about the waspy high income parasites. In my experience the WASPY high income parasites in California are just as big a problem. So you have waspy lobbyists in Sacramento making a million a year, waspy lawyers suing everyone and everything that moves in California.
Tad! Biff! Muffy! Lawn parties in the Hamptons! Polo matches! Cravats!
(BTW, WASPs would never deign to set foot in such a vulgar place as California.)
For those expecting new taxes that will tax "red state" folks differently (and more heavily) than those in "blue" states, I don't think so.
At present (and for most of the past), red states are the major consumers of federal spending and blue states the major sources. My memory may be faulty (but not much) but I think I remember Alaska as being the only red-state net contributor, Texas as virtual break-even, and the rest of 'em as net consumers. The largest net tax contributors are NJ, NY, CT; many more are on the plus side.
What we might see as a tactic to accomplish much the same goal would be an elimination of some programs that are especially characteristic of the red states (agricultural subsidies, for instance or a round of closing of certain military bases, etc.)
"waspy high income parasites."
Certainly we have waspy high income parasites. We also have Jewish high income parasites.
We also have foreign parasites (foreign aid. Israel + Egypt get 1/3 of all foreign aid dollars.)
http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/politics/us-foreign-aid.htm
Byzantine Empire did a fabulous job of controlling its parasites and lasted something like 1000 years.
"but also middle income parasites like the prison guards who are mostly white, who extract from the public purse wages and benefits far above market"
Are you implying we ought not have prison guards? Or that the existence of prison guards INCREASES the criminality of NAMs?
Bah.
A free and open, non-vigilante society, run by the rule of law, requires public safety officers of high moral caliber, who are willing to endanger their own safety to ensure the safety of the rest of us.
If we don't pay our cops and prison guards sufficient income to live decently in CA, then the formerly well-paid, moral ones will leave for greener pastures. And the only people left to do the job will be people of low morals who are willing to supplement their low incomes as guards or cops with accepting bribes, graft and corruption.
No. We must pay our "sheepdogs" well, commensurate with their moral resistance to bribes and willingness to die, if necessary, to save the rest of us.
At present (and for most of the past), red states are the major consumers of federal spending and blue states the major sources
I'd wager that the advantages of red states re: federal spending fall under 4 categories:
1) military spending - a result of many military bases having been first established in the winter of 41/42, and therefore in warm climates where you could do so easily; and also having been built in the wide open spaces. Defense spending also benefits the entire country.
2) Land management. The feds own huge portions of the Western states - for example, something like 80% of Nevada (now a blue state). A lot of this land could spin off more revenue if it were allowed to.
3) Ag spending. As a conservative I'll gladly give most of that back.
4) Welfare. Remember that otherwise very red states (in the South) have larger than average blue-voting populations who receive tons of welfare. You can't just look at the state - you have to look at the individual.
5) On the income side, the fact that business taxes are probably accredited to a businesses headquarters (often NY or CA) while at least some of the workforce is in red states.
He won't do that. He'll just make sure that the blue states get the money.
1) Military spending -- Don't forget that the Blue States are a bit more unfriendly towards the military compared to the Red States. You go where you're wanted.
3) Ag spending -- I think we would do well to keep this program in mind as Obama tries to spool up a mortgage bailout plan. The Ag subsidies started as an effort to help struggling farmers, but soon the Big Time Operators swooped in and now it's easy money for them. Also, direct payments to farmers is not that much in this day and age, 20 billion or so.
5) Income side -- also keep in mind that many profits remitted to headquarters in the blue states were earned in the red states.
Anonymous:
Every one of the things you point out is true; those are the correct explanations for the phenomenon.
But it's a waste. I wasn't making an argument against red states or conservatives but merely showing that the suggestion that Obama was going to tax the two differently (see kudzu bob) was an impractical
one and that the desire to reward his supporters/punish opponents would need to be accomplished via other means.
The pertinent map and distribution data appeared within the past 6 months or so over at GNXP; I'm almost positive that, at around that time, I commented both there and here with explanatory points
nearly identical to your own.
1) military spending - a result of many military bases having been first established in the winter of 41/42, and therefore in warm climates where you could do so easily; and also having been built in the wide open spaces. Defense spending also benefits the entire country.
2) Land management. The feds own huge portions of the Western states - for example, something like 80% of Nevada (now a blue state). A lot of this land could spin off more revenue if it were allowed to.
3) Ag spending. As a conservative I'll gladly give most of that back.
4) Welfare. Remember that otherwise very red states (in the South) have larger than average blue-voting populations who receive tons of welfare. You can't just look at the state - you have to look at the individual.
Good points. I agree with #2 and #3 especially. Farm subsidies need to go the way of the dodo. It's outrageous that the federal government owns as much of the West as it does. The government should sell off at least half of it's holdings in the West. Owning 80% or 67% of a state outright is ridiculous.
He will over-reach eventually- all dictators do.
Gene Berman said...
The largest net tax contributors are NJ, NY, CT; many more are on the plus side.
These same Blue states believe in progressive taxation. Since they live in expensive areas their they must earn more in order to have the same standard of living. Since they believe that the rich (themselves) should pay more, they do. Their higher contribution to the federal treasury is a direct result of their progressivism.
The largest net tax contributors are NJ, NY, CT; many more are on the plus side.
Yeah, and is it any coincidence that those three states all happen to cover the New York City area? I'd wager 10-to-1 that in these studies of "net tax conributors" that taxes paid by businesses are credited to their HQ state. New York alone is headquarters to 94 Fortune 500 companies. Connecticut has 26 and New Jersey has 40. But does anyone really think that every employee (not to mention stockholder) of these 160 companies lives or works in those 3 states? My mother is retired from a Fortune 100 corporation that had its headquarters in Connecticut but maybe 2% of its employees there.
Moreover, I'd like to see that study of net tax contributors this year. Is New York gunna get charged with all the bailout money going to New York-based companies like Citigroup and AIG? Moreover, did New York get charged for the $50 billion it got for the 9/11 bailout? And, for that matter, shouldn't New York get charged for the $4 billion or so that goes to Israel every year?
Since they believe that the rich (themselves) should pay more, they do (Ronduck)
Paging Timothy Geithner.
OT - it bugs me to no end to see Obama's paternal family relations misrepresented.
Kezia Obama is NOT Barack's "stepmother" -- nor is Sarah Obama his "grandmother".
I know we don't have a word for "grandpa's third wife in his polygamous marriage" (what do the Mormons say?), but I wish the press would be more accurate about his father's family structure.
Some corroborating data?
From http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/your-money/28money.html?ref=your-money
"It turns out, however, that many of them were already subject to pretty high taxes because they were paying the alternative minimum tax. Even if the new tax increases go into effect, the amount of taxes they owe may not change much, according to Clint Stretch, the managing principal of tax policy at Deloitte L.L.C. in Washington. That’s because the amount they owe under the regular income tax system, while higher under Mr. Obama’s plan, may not push them out of A.M.T. territory, he said.
But higher-income people in states with lower income or property taxes are more likely to pay bigger sums under the president’s proposals, depending on their income and deductions."
In my experience the WASPY high income parasites in California are just as big a problem
No, they're far worse, for they have the IQ to do real harm. They're criticized all the time here as others have mentioned.
rightsaidfred said...
Since they believe that the rich (themselves) should pay more, they do (Ronduck)
Paging Timothy Geithner.
I see your point, but these blue states constantly harp that we need a progressive income tax, while bitching that they pay more than the red states. In former times I would guess that the residents of those states would have been more honest, that honesty seems to be disappearing. Now these same people advocate for higher taxes for others, while evading those taxes themselves.
So, I predict that eventually, Obama will be tempted to try to adjust the tax code for the local cost of living: impose higher tax rates on the Oklahoma family making $150k than on the New York family making the same income.
Well, it does make a certain amount of sense, doesn't it?
Then again, I live in NYC.
Well, it does make a certain amount of sense, doesn't it? Then again, I live in NYC.
Adjusting taxation for cost-of-living would amount to nothing more than a taxpayer subsidy for real estate owners in high cost locales. People don't have to live in high cost places, and businesses don't have to locate there.
DK, if you believe that you should support a flat tax.
Post a Comment