People Who Create Jobs Are About To Get Screwed
People who create jobs – a.k.a. “Rich People” – are about to get a healthy dose of Barack Obama’s boot on their necks as the new President looks for ways to fulfill an impending political promise to cut America’s (new) national deficit in half.
How’s he going to do it?
Well, if you make $250,000 or more a year, your tax rate will jump from 35% to 40% starting in 2011.
Obama is also planning to raise the tax on capital gains from 15% to 20% and to begin taxing the earnings of hedge fund managers as income rather than capital gains – which basically means they’ll be paying twice as much.
Sure, people will argue that Obama is merely allowing an assortment of tax cuts implemented by former Presidents Bush and Clinton to expire, but that’s semantics.
These are tax hikes, pure and simple. And while it’s easy to hate on rich folk, the truth is they create most of the jobs in this country.
Oh – and even after he’s finished choking off the private sector’s ability to create jobs in this country, all Obama will have done is gotten us back to a point where we are “only” growing our deficit by half a trillion dollars a year.
Nice …
Comments
By Monkeydarts on February 23rd, 2009 at 9:27 am
The market saw this coming last summer. That’s why all of the substantial gains from Oct 2002 through summer 2008 have now disappeared. The market has shed almost 50% of its value since “O” secured the Dem nom and his opponent was a sure loser. Markets discount the future and predicted this perfectly. The funniest part is that he got huge donations from hedge operators and his “Thank You” note reads like a bank robbers “stick-up” demand. Some people are slow learners about what Marxists actually intend for them.
By Rob on February 23rd, 2009 at 10:18 am
Obviously, you don’t understand how taxation works.
Businesses only pay tax on their profit and *not* their revenue.
This means that if they employ someone, the payroll costs reduce the company’s tax burden and do not increase it.
In fact, companies will be better off employing people with these tax changes since it not only reduces their taxes but it improves their business by adding labor or skill.
Sure, thismeans that these rich people’s income will go down, but not at the expense of not being able to hire staff!
By fitsnews on February 23rd, 2009 at 10:24 am
Rob-
So creating less profit means a firm can hire more employees?
Amazing!
You should be on “The One’s” economic team .
-FITS
By Tim on February 23rd, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Obama made it plain during the campaign that he was going to do this in order to provide tax cuts for the middle class and lower income workers, and a solid majority of voters apparently approved of it since they elected him. He’s delivered on the tax cuts part of the equation – and by the way the stimulus vote means all but three Republican members of Congress voted against the biggest tax cut in American history.
By fitsnews on February 23rd, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Tim-
25% tax cut (for some), 75% biggest government expansion in American history.
-FITS
By paul c graham on February 23rd, 2009 at 1:16 pm
I think it is high time that we start obeying the law of the land: http://tinyurl.com/obeythelaw
By roofus on February 23rd, 2009 at 1:27 pm
As a small business owner who has worked hard all my life, Obama’s blantant Marxist policies offer me two options: 1-work less and hence incur a smaller tax burden 2- move to a country with a less oppressive tax code. I don’t intend to move, so I’ll just work less and become less productive.
Obama’s desire to punish achievement and responsibility while rewarding sloth will have some long-ranging consequences for this nation. I anticipate a “brain drain” of many talented Americans to emigrate from this nation in record numbers taking innovation and much knowledge with them. This will affect every aspect of our lives and economy, especially in the technology and health care sectors.
By Pat Hendrix on February 23rd, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Have I heard this prediction before? Taxs on rich people will cause the world to crumble, the markets to return to 1929 levels, for golf courses to close?
For your enjoyment, here were your counterparts in 1993. I expect fitsnew breathless comments on impending doom and socialism (defined as a belief in progressive tax rates), will eclipse these quotes by a wide margin:
On the 1993 deficit reduction package:
Rep. Robert Michel (R-IL), Los Angeles Times, 5/28/93:
They will remember who let loose this deadly virus into our economic bloodstream.
Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-GA), GOP Press Conference, House TV Gallery, 8/5/93:
I believe this will lead to a recession next year. This is the Democrat machine’s recession, and each one of them will be held personally accountable.
Rep. John Kasich (R-OH), 8/5/93:
Do you know what? This is your package. We will come back here next year and try to help you when this puts the economy in the gutter…
Rep. John Kasich (R-OH), CNN, 7/28/93:
This plan will not work. If it was to work, then I’d have to become a Democrat…
Rep. Robert Dornan (R-CA), 8/5/93:
The problem with our economy is that there is too little employment and too little growth. This plan will do nothing to improve that condition and will actually make it worse.
Rep. Christopher Cox (R-CA), 5/27/93:
This is really the Dr. Kevorkian plan for our economy.
Rep. Thomas Ewing (R-IL), 8/5/93:
…This bill is a disaster waiting to happen.
Rep. Jim Ramstad (R-MN), 3/17/93:
…will stifle economic growth, destroy jobs, reduce revenues, and increase the deficit.
Rep. Phil Crane (R-IL), 3/18/93:
…a recipe for economic and fiscal disaster.
On jobs:
Rep. John Kasich (R-OH), CNN, 7/28/93:
…We have a stagnant economy and there is nothing down the road that makes it look like we’re going to have the kind of economic growth that puts people to work.
Rep. Dick Armey (R-TX), CNN, 8/2/93:
The impact on job creation is going to be devastating, and the American young people in particular will suffer a fairly substantial deferment of their lives because there simply won’t be jobs for the next two to three years to go around to our young graduates across the country.
Rep. John Kasich (R-OH), 5/27/93:
…your economic program is a job killer.
On interest rates:
Rep. Dick Armey (R-TX), 8/5/93:
The economy will sputter along. Dreams will be put off and all this for the hollow promise of deficit reduction and magical theories of lower interest rates. Like so many of the President’s past promises, deficit reduction will be another cruel hoax.
Rep. Wally Herger (R-CA), 8/4/93:
The simple fact is that the Clinton plan will not lower interest rates. It will not lower inflation. It will not create jobs. And it will no lower the deficit. The Clinton tax plan will spur inflation, lose jobs, increase the deficit, and hurt our economic growth.
On inflation:
Rep. Deborah Pryce (R-OH), 5/27/93:
The votes we will take today will not be soon forgotten by the American voter. [They] will lead to more taxes, higher inflation, and slower economic growth.
On the deficit:
Rep. John Kasich (R-OH), GOP News Conference, Senate Gallery, 8/3/93:
Come next year… we’re going to find out whether we have higher deficits, we’re going to find out whether we have a slower economy, we’re going to find out what’s going to happen to interest rates, and it’s our bet that this is a job killer.
Rep. Dick Armey (R-TX), CNN, 8/2/93:
Clearly this is a job killer in the short run. The revenues forecast for this budget will not materialize; the costs of this budget will be greater than what is forecast. The deficit will be worse, and it is not a good omen for the American economy.
Rep. Jim Bunning (R-KY), 8/5/93:
It will not cut the deficit. It will not create jobs. And it will not cut spending.
Rep. Dick Armey, CNN, 2/18/93:
I will tell you, this program will not give you deficit reduction. It will be a disaster for the performance of the economy.
Rep. Clifford Stearns (R-FL), 3/17/93:
…It will be the kind of impact that this country can’t absorb. It will slow economic growth, contribute to the massive federal deficit….
Rep. Joel Hefley (R-CO), 8/4/93:
…It will raise your taxes, increase the deficit, and kill over one million jobs.
The 1965 Medicare and 1935 Social Security fearmongering is below the fold.
By roofus on February 23rd, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Earth to Hendrix. Earth to Hendrix. Do you hear me? Over…
This is 2009, not 1993. Bill Clinton was a moderate. Bill Clinton was a pragmatist. Bill Clinton spoke the language of unity and confidence. Obama is a radical Marxist. Obama does not unify. He is a unyielding partisan. He has never “crossed the aisle” on any major votes, not even Supreme Court nominees.
Exhuming 16-year-old strident quotes by a gaggle of superannuated white dudes on a fundamentally different economic bill does not discredit or invalidate my concerns. Bill Clinton’s plan rolled back welfare. Obama’s plan expands it entirely. Bill Clinton is a moderate democrat; Obama a radical. Obama preaches hope to get elected. Once elected, he preaches doom in order to push his Marxist political philosophy. Even Bill is afraid of Obama and recently encouraged him to “talk up ” the economy. But Obama is a Marxist so I expect he will keep “talking down” the economy until he gets his radical Marxist agenda rubber-stamped by his Congress.
By Mab on February 23rd, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Great stuff there, Wordy Hendrix–but Judge N’s inspiration needs a 2nd shout.
http://tinyurl.com/obeythelaw
REVOLUTE!!!
By Pat Hendrix on February 23rd, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Roofus,
Please seek help. The Clinton 1993 Zero Budget Deficit package, as demonstrated by the insane quotes above, was a far more controversial, again see above quotes, and attacked with reckless abandon by the nearly same members of Congress. Their opinions then, like yours now, are unsubstantiated by fact or reason.
Nevermind, talking to a person that calls typical prime pumping as “Radical Marxism” is a waste of time. You’re too paranoid and poorly educated to reach.
By roofus on February 23rd, 2009 at 4:09 pm
“Too paranoid and poorly educated to reach”… Yep, the democrats can’t handle dissent. Just stigmatize anyone who disagrees…
Believe me, Pat, as a small business owner, I would joyfully embrace Clinton’s 1993 economic package over Obama’s.
By RedBank Bar on February 23rd, 2009 at 4:27 pm
Pat Hendrix: I’m ashamed of you. Thinking that logic, facts, and history would be appropriate with these wingnuts! Anyone who quotes a Faux News hackjob of a former judge is suspect.
You simply can’t educate anyone who uses the word Marxist in the same sentence with Obama unless it’s Groucho they’re talking about.
By roofus on February 23rd, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Pat and RedBank,
Have you read the 1,000 page Obama Welfare Stimulus plan? I suspect you haven’t. Don’t fret, neither did your Democrat comarades prior to voting for it. Call me a simpleton, but it strikes me anti- intellectual that democrats like zombies would vote for a bill without reading it.
When I studied in Berkeley in the nineties, the liberal mantra was “Question authority!” Now that O’s in charge, the new liberal mantra is “Don’t ever think of questioning authority, you idiot…”
By Red Bank Bar on February 23rd, 2009 at 11:37 pm
Roofus, you really are channelling Herbert Hoover aren’t you?
Some people can’t be educated and apparently you are one of thousands here in Petigru-land. Anti-intellectual? That’s so laughable from the party that picked the ultimate air-head, Sarah Pallin.
Comrades? How 60ish of you. Question authority? Apparently you’ve picked up a copy of Ramparts from a time capsule.
None of your ilk’s nonsense came true after 1993 and none will happen now. Go back in your spider hole, Root-boy, you lost and it’s time for y’all to sit in the corner and take your medicine.
By roofus on February 24th, 2009 at 12:38 am
Personally, I don’t know who is the biggest air-head, Sarah Palin or Joe “Gaffetastic- I am smarter than thou” Biden. About one month ago, I recall our fearless V.P. proclaim in his pompous baritone that our country needs “three letters, J-O-B-S!” Members of the audience were rolling their eyes at the obvious gaffe. Then again, he’s had several brain aneurysms so he’s pretty fortunate to ambulate without assistance. I will submit that Mrs. Palin is definitely lacking on foreign policy though her executive experience eclipses that of Obama.
Once again, I would much prefer Clinton’s 1993 plan to Obama’s. In fact, in 1993 I did not oppose Clinton’s plan. Clinton was a moderate and presided from the middle. Obama presides from the radical left and does not represent traditional democratic party main-stream views. Clinton was a uniter, not a divider. Obama is implacably partisan and surrounds himself with like-minded individuals.
Incidentally, Red Bank and Hendricks, do you own your own business? If you don’t, I suggest you start one and then let’s see if your perspective changes.
Since Obama’s election, note how fast the markets are dropping despite his unprecented “stimulus bill.” Obviously, his remedies are failing to date.
By Pat Hendrix on February 24th, 2009 at 9:29 am
Roofus,
I would be more inclined to take you seriously if anything you said was substantiated by facts. The Marxist hysteria, however, is so over the top and silly I find it laughable.
And having worked in politics, let me assure you, the Republicans don’t read legislation either. Sad but true. Even worse, they didn’t even write their own legislation. They had it crafted by business, sometimes in the lobby of the Senate, and voted for it without reading a word. That, sir, is a fact. And to second what Red said, suck it up and take your medicine. The Republicans had the wheel, drove the country into a ditch.
By roofus on February 24th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
“Having worked in politics…”
That says it all, Mr.Hendrix.
Now I appreciate your perspective which is entirely different from mine. As a small business owner(who has never worked in politics) with two small children and another on the way, please tell me why our democrat-controlled Congress saw the pressing need to borrow from Chinese and Middle Eastern banks to spend thirty million dollars on a mouse in San Francisco?
It’s my children and grandchildren who will be paying for such irresponsible and reprehensible spending. Let’s not forget that the Dems have had Congress since 2006 and please try to resist the Democratic urge to blame Bush for all of our problems.
By Pat Hendrix on February 24th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Roofus,
First, I work as a consultant and have “worked for myself” for years. Big deal. It doesn’t make uniquely qualified to comment on macro-economics.
Second, if you’re still talking about the marsh mouse canard that is a total fiction, picked up and run with those too lazy to read, then you need to read more and write less. Here, I’ll even provide a link.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/feb/13/mike-pence/no-money-stimulus-san-francisco-mice/
Third, the United States currently holds 11 trillion in debt. 10 trillion was run up during Republican Administrations. The largest share was run up from 2001-2006 by the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress; some budgets not receiving a single democratic vote. Add to that, they also passed a new and terribly wasteful entitlement program (estimated cost 9 trillion) that serves no purpose other than to ensure the profits of pharmaceutical companies. Again, I’ll provide you a link:
http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm
Fourth, the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress inherited a 230 billion surplus and turned it into a trillion dollar deficit, an accomplishment unrivaled in history.
Given the above facts, why should I take you or the Republican Party seriously when you talk about “generational theft”? Besides, the real danger isn’t a one-time stimulus bill, it’s entitlement spending, which the president has said he will address. Fix that, fix the deficit.
By roofus on February 24th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Mr. Hendrix,
Thanks for the links. I’ll read them. I agree that Bush spent money like a druken sailor and I opposed his deficit-soaring binges. However, waging warfare is very expensive and sometimes much more cost- effective in the long run than surrender. Is it true that just after WWII the US deficit was proportionally higher than our present as a proportion of the GDP?
Additionally, I have personally witnessed video on at least two occasions of Mr. Obama proclaiming his desire to start a “National Security Force” with the same constitutional rights and the same budget as our current national defence. Since you appear to be in the know, what is Obama’s grand vision for this force? Where will he find the money for this “Security Force” and what will it’s function entail? How inadequate is our current national defence force that Obama requires we create another?
By Pat Hendrix on February 24th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Was there a point we were going to surrender? Presumably to the democratically elected government of Iraq? Or was when Hussein was in power? I’m guessing his fleet of six 1950s destroyers was going to cross the Atlantic and attack Washington DC? Sheesh.
In any event, spending on the wars was not even close to the largest contributor to the national debt.
The National Security Force business is a fabracation of Worldnetdaily. It’s on par with Clinton murdering highway troopers, Vincent Foster and smuggling drugs. It’s nonsense.
By RedBank Bar on February 24th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Root-boy thinks Faux News is real! Just like the rest of the dumb-f*ck wingers here, they can’t be educated. They like their rumors from Hannity and Limbaugh, facts be damned.
By roofus on February 24th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
Red Bank,
Take some xanax, man. Reasonable people can disagree without prafanity-laced tirades.
By Bert on February 24th, 2009 at 10:03 pm
Hey Patti,
Your scripted liberal answers remind me of the Jehovah’s Witnesses in my neighborhood.
Increasing the size of government, imposing suffocatingly high taxes on “the rich,” and rewarding unwise/reckless/criminal economic decisions–these policies have all been tried before and failed.
The article below should be required reading for all aging hippies like yourself:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123353276749137485.html
By Red Bank Bar on February 24th, 2009 at 10:26 pm
Root-boy, spreading made-up sh*t doesn’t fit my definition of reasonable.
Whether it’s “Marxism”, “marsh mouses”, or “National Security Forces”, your posts are full of nothing but lies and fabrications.
You, sir, are a dumb-arse for spreading such nonsense and distributing fabrications. You have no defense yet continue to yammer. Please note I gave you the benefit of the doubt that your posts are based on ignorance rather than duplicity. I’ll assume you were just plain stupid and not evil in making up nonsense out of whole cloth.
Now is the time for y’all to just go away. You and your ilk put us here so just sit down and shut up.
By Pat Hendrix on February 25th, 2009 at 9:27 am
The WSJ? Excuse me while I snicker. The WSJ is a mouth piece for the Republican Party.
Putting that aside, there’s a reason the American public favors the legalization of ganga over the Republican Party. You ran the country into the ditch. Now you have the audacity to talk about economics? “Fuzzy math! Fuzzy math!”
You guys are a laugh a minute.