Recall, for example, that Dr. Helen Smith put out the call to Americans who are cutting their own work output and productivity to avoid the Obama administration's conviscatory tax regime, "Going John Galt? Tell Dr. Helen About It ..."
Michelle Malkin and Glenn Reynolds have been hammering the issue as well.
But get a load of some of the responses to all of this among our nihilist antagonists. Starting off with a bang is Henry Farrell's, "Wingnuts of the World Unite!", which features "The ‘Go Galt, Go!’ Manifesto":
We proudly salute “Dr. Helen,” Glenn Reynolds, and Michelle Malkin, for identifying the only possible response to Barack Obama’s victory – ‘going Galt.’ By withdrawing their creative and intellectual achievements from the economy and stopping tipping waitstaff, the schmibertarian right can surely bring the parasites and Democrats to their knees. We look forward to these three thought leaders striking the obvious first blow, by refusing to blog for the ungrateful masses and withdrawing to a secret compound until the world capitulates to their demands! Only a universal wingnut blogging strike can bring the moochers to their senses. John Galt lives!Keep in mind that Henry's an esteemed political scientist at George Washington University, and a Facebook friend to Juan Cole!
Now let's check the left's response to TigerHawk, and his video, "Who Are These "Rich' People?" over at the YouTube thread:
From "Commieatheist":Now here's a response at Daily Kos:Jesus Christ, stop whining, you insufferable asshole. Your top marginal tax rate is being raised 3%. Big fucking deal. Grow a pair of balls and stop crying about how much harder you work than anyone else. Lots of people in this country work hard, but very few make as much money as you do. That's life! I am sick of rich fucks like you complaining about how hard you have it...From "Rock6191":Wow. "A face for radio" was my first impression. Then I listened to the words, and I wondered what inspires someone like this guy to open up himself to this sort of ridicule. All Obama is doing is raising the tax on that portion of someone's income that's above $250K. So, if you make $260K, the $10K above 250K is taxed at 38% instead of 33%. That means your tax only goes up 500 bucks. I wonder if this guy participated in some of those teabagging parties last week...
Go live your Randian fantasies, go create that wonderful utopia in which only the most wealthy are permitted entry, and you are not burdened with the outrageous insult of having to contribute back a proportionate share of your income in order to help maintain the very fabric of the nation around you. I can see now that the thought that you might have to pay the same share of your income in taxes that your housekeeper does has drained your already pale blanched, and the thought of having to pay as much in taxes as your wretched mothers and fathers did, a few decades before you, is nothing less than an armed assault on your beachheads.And of course, this isn't all about class war, or so they say.
What fool would suggest we possibly return to the same tax polices that existed under that shameless wealth-stealer and Stalinist, Ronald Reagan? And what insane person would dare seek to treat achievers identically to the lower classes, the people with grubby hands and only one house?
Glenn Beck's looking more like a prophet all the time...
13 comments:
You guys are too funny. Your only way of perceiving reality is to imagine that you're driving us crazy, which you seem to believe is proof that you must be doing something right. Dude, we're laughing our butts off at this Galt nonsense. It's HILARIOUS. That's why we're all encouraging you guys to do it. You even cited Farrell's profession as if his post was somehow an embarrassment, rather than being a nice bit of mockery at your expense. I've never heard of the guy, but I did get a few chuckles from what you quoted of him. Why you imagined it helped your side to highlight the people who are mocking you is beyond me.
And we all know you guys aren't going to do it any more than the loons on the left who said they were leaving the country if Bush got elected or re-elected. It's just hyperbole by folks who can't accept reality when it doesn't go the way they imagine it needs to go. So they vent and fume because the impossible happened and then end up praying that nobody remembered what dopes they made of themselves by overreacting. But don't worry, we'll remember.
And I don't know if you've seen this yet, but Daniel Gross has a good piece explaining how much money you guys would be tossing away if you actually went through with this "getting below the threshold" nonsense.
http://www.slate.com/id/2213029/
As he shows, a dentist making $320k who goes below $250k to avoid taxes would lose $70k while only saving a mere $2100. That's just dumb.
Oh, and what did any of this have to do with class warfare? That guy at the end was attacking YOU GUYS, not the rich. He was attacking the people who are ranting endlessly over having to pay a little bit extra in taxes. But there was no attack of any rich people who aren't threatening to "go Galt."
And if anything, it was an attack on the class warfare you guys engage in when denouncing the "lazy" people who they rant about having to support. I mean, Donald, many of your very own commenters engage in this exact class warfare, by insisting that they don't want to pay taxes if it's going to go to poor people. THAT'S CLASS WARFARE! That you remain so blind to this does not speak well of your reasoning skills.
But then again, you never have explained what you mean by "class warfare," as I guess you think it's too self-explanatory to be explained.
"That's life! I am sick of rich fucks like you complaining about how hard you have it."
This brainless goober must work for the Postal Service, as it is clear he is clueless about the basic economics of small businesses that directly affects the bulk of working Americans today.
$250K/yr is far from rich for most small business owners, many of whom are struggling just to make payroll in the face of sharply declining revenues.
I know more than one small business owner in my area (including one in my own family) that is either planning on cutting their payrolls still further, or possibly shutting their doors should Obama's hideous tax plan get anywhere near becoming law.
-Dave
Dave - Your argument made exactly zero sense. Dude, we're talking about PROFITS. So $250k to a small business owner is identical to the $250k that anyone else would make. And if they're struggling due to the economy, then they're NOT making $250k in profit. I mean, if they can't make payroll, they're not making a profit. And just so you realize, if they only make $20k in profits and have kids, they could get the same earned income credit that everyone else gets. Small business owners aren't different from the rest of us. Income is income.
And as another reminder, this only affects the portion OVER $250k. So someone making $250k won't be affected by the higher rate. And as I pointed out, even someone making $320k will only pay $2100 extra. And according to my estimates, they'd need to make $900k to make their tax bill so high they'd want to fire a $30k employee. And if they're making $900k in profits, then they can clearly afford the employee.
This is so weird. You guys have completely lost sight of reality and are living in an invented universe. Again, if a business owner is struggling, then they're probably getting a tax cut.
"That's life! I am sick of rich fucks like you complaining about how hard you have it."
Actually, Hussein, that's one of the quotes that sticks out in my mind as well, so kudos to Dave for picking up on it, since you just slide right over the idiocies of your nihilist allies.
It's class, man. You're in your own reality, as I've shown repeatedly!
"Dude, we're talking about PROFITS."
No, Obama's plan does not say they are going after people who make "profits" of $250K/yr or more, but incomes at or above that amount (or whatever the amount is at the moment.)
64% of people in that income range are small business owners. They file their personal and business taxes TOGETHER (Google Subchapter S corporations.)
In my state, 97.9% of the people who are employed work for small businesses. In Florida, it is 99%.
Businesses do not exist to hire people out of the kindness of their hearts-they hire people who are going to help the business make money.
They are already having to pay confiscatory taxes on their employees as it is. If the government hits them right in the wallet, then they are going to start looking for ways to cut costs. Payroll reduction will be one of the things most of them will look at.
Besides that, I think many of the producers in this country are getting pretty well fed up with carrying the load for the non-producers.
They are also getting pretty tired of idiot politicians who couldn't run a lemonade stand at the point of a gun, with written directions complete with pictures, telling them how "greedy" and "eeeeeevil" they are.
A backlash is a brewing, you can be sure of that, and it isn't going to be pretty when it boils over.
The reason I got blown out of my chosen field back in June of '07 was because some idiot politicians, three of whose names are Bawney Fwank, Chris Dodd and Maxine Waters, decided they new how to run the mortgage industry better than the people in it.
Yeah, that worked out real well, didn't it?
I also noticed today that Bawney Fwank is calling for the criminal prosecution of those responsible for the hideous economic downturn that is now reverberating all over the planet, and may yet tip us into a world-wide depression.
When does he expect to be turning himself in to the authorities?
-Dave
Dave - In this discussion, profits=income. And a small business owner making $250k in profits is no different than an employee earning $250k in income. I already said that. If you're thinking of total revenue, you're entirely mistaken as that has nothing to do with it. Only net profit is entered on a personal tax return, whether they're sole proprietors, partnerships, or s corps.
The argument you're making is nonsense and the people who are feeding you this are either stupid or lying. You can continue to get schooled by a nihilist liberal like me, or you can discover the truth. The only small businessmen being affected by this are the ones making well over $250k in profit, while struggling businessmen will see a tax cut. And a businessman that loses money can get a refund for prior year taxes paid.
You can disagree with Obama's plan all you want, but what I'm telling you is absolutely indisputable. Struggling businesses will NOT see a tax increase from this plan, and they're likely to get assistance. And btw, many struggling business owners are the so-called lazy people you guys complain about getting a freeride. I've had clients who earned over a million in gross revenue annually, who bust their butts off, and end up getting the earned income credit that many conservatives hate.
I'm telling you, struggling businesses pay little or no income tax, and might receive back more than they paid. That's how the system works. And these are many of the people you guys are attacking.
"The argument you're making is nonsense and the people who are feeding you this are either stupid or lying."
Dr. Hussein:
"Increasing the top tax rates on earnings to 39.6% and on capital gains and dividends to 20% will reduce incentives for our most productive citizens and small businesses to work, save and invest - with effective rates higher still because of restrictions on itemized deductions and raising the Social Security cap. As every economics student learns, high marginal rates distort economic decisions, the damage from which rises with the square of the rates (doubling the rates quadruples the harm). The president claims he is only hitting 2% of the population, but many more will at some point be in these brackets."
That's from Michael J. Boskin, and he's neither stupid nor lying (but you are).
Nice try, Donald. But I wasn't saying that people were "stupid or lying" in regards to whether the new rate was a good idea. I was referring to people who wrongly suggest that struggling small businesses will have to pay the higher rate. They definitely won't. And if they're at the point that they can't afford payroll, they're likely to get money back from the government; the same money that you people say goes to the "undeserving." And that's all I was saying in that particular comment.
Beyond that, I have no idea who Michael J. Boskin is and fail to understand why you think his assertion would mean anything to me. He could be the smartest liberal in the world and I'd still disagree with him, because I think he's wrong. While I agree with him when he says that high marginal rates are likely to stifle the economy, the question is: What is a high rate? After WWII, the top rate was 94%. I think that was stupid. Before JFK reduced the top rate, it was 91% and you guys continually praise him for lowering it to 70%. I think both rates are absurdly high. And you guys praise Reagan for lowering it to 50%, which I also think is too high.
And since WWII, there have only been fifteen years that had lower top rates than what Obama is proposing; and nine of those years were due to Bush's tax cuts. And the top rate was the same as Obama's throughout the boom years of the 90's. And that was due to Clinton's tax increase, which you guys said would stifle the economy; just as Boskins is saying now about our similar tax hike. And it looks like history is against him on that one. If a 39.6% top rate reduced incentives to produce, we certainly didn't see that during the 90's. And that strongly undermines Boskins' point.
So yes, I too learned in economics that high marginal rates can hurt the economy. But there is absolutely no consensus of how high that rate is. From 1932 to 1980, we never had a top rate under 70% and it didn't drop below 50% until 1987. My history shows that we had many good economic periods during that time. And we've certainly had bad recessions with lower tax rates.
You can take that for what it's worth, or you can read more assertions by people like Boskins. I personally recommend looking directly at data rather than accepting the word of other people, but I suppose you don't have much data that would support your position. And while none of this is conclusive, one thing is still undeniably true: Struggling business owners won't pay the higher tax rate and anyone who says they will is either stupid or lying.
Here are those tax rates, if you'd like to take a look for yourself.
Dr. Biobrain,
My brother is currently carrying the mortgages on two $million + homes. His monthly payments on those two mortgages total nearly $7000.
His wife owns her own business, which currently has 32 employees. Much of their household income is generated by her business, which has fallen off considerably over the last year.
BTW-That is but one of the things the lefties aren't taking into account, and that is the decline in revenues most businesses. small or otherwise, are currently experiencing.
Every business decision she makes affects not only those 32 employees, but their families as well. That means that her decisions ultimately affect the lives of well over 100 people.
We are now in the midst of a major economic melt-down. She is already getting killed tax-wise. If this tax increase somehow gets passed, she is going to take a huge tax hit, and she knows it.
She is not going to just sit around and wait to get hosed, she is going to take the necessary steps NOW to minimize her exposure, and eliminate it altogether if possible.
So are most other small business owners.
LOL-I suggested she identify the Obama voters among her employees, and can them first. :-)
Raising taxes on the largest job-creating segment in this country is stupid even in a good economic climate, but to do it in an economy such as we have now is nothing short of insane.
Unless, of course, your ultimate goal is to destroy what little is left of free enterprise in this country, which really isn't much.
LOL-As for "tax cuts," Obama said he was going to give those to 95% of the people in this country.
He lied.
His "tax cuts" to date have proven to be nothing more than welfare payments to people who don't pay taxes in the first place.
Some tax cuts.
-Dave
Dave - What you're saying makes no sense. If they're struggling, then they won't pay the higher rate. And if they're paying the higher rate, then they most certainly can afford it. How many times will you ignore this basic fact?
Besides, according to my math, their mortgage payments are less than $84,000 annually. Yet if they made $250k in income, they'd still have $166k left over after paying their mortgages; and still wouldn't have paid any extra tax. Please correct my math if I'm wrong, but I'm kind of a numbers guy, so I don't think I screwed that up. So what am I missing here? I don't know about you, but I could DEFINITELY get by with $166,000 annually. Most Americans do. And if their tax bill goes up, then they must have more than that left over after mortgage payments.
Look, either your sister has big profits and can afford to pay the tax, or she doesn't have big profits and won't have higher taxes. It's that simple. And if you say her business is struggling, then it sounds like she might even get a tax cut. And if business is doing well and they made a $300k profit, she'd only pay an extra $1500. Are they going to fire employees to save $1500? I doubt it.
Seriously, you need to put the anecdotes aside and look at the actual numbers. Facts can be your friend. And in this case, they all say you're wrong. I'm telling you, the people feeding you your information are either stupid or lying. Don't believe me. Look at the numbers yourself. The numbers don't lie.
And one last thing: Everyone pays taxes. Everyone. Even illegal immigrants pay taxes. They're impossible to avoid.
"Everyone. Even illegal immigrants pay taxes."
No, many of them don't. I have been in the engineering, land-surveying and construction business since I was 13.
Many of those illegals, even today, are paid under the table by the contractors that employ them.
Of course, if they would just pass the FairTax, then yes, the illegals would be paying taxes.
__________________________
My point was, my brother and his wife purchased that other house (which is on a lake) five years ago as an investment. The idea was that it would help fund the college educations of my niece and nephew, the oldest of which will be college bound in 6 years.
Now, thanks to Bawney Fwank & Co., the home is worth less than than it was when purchased. What is worse, there are no buyers for homes such as that right now.
My SiL's business income is what pays for a large percentage of the mortgage payments.
If she reduces her annual income in order to escape the tax increase (and she will have to reduce it by a lot) they will have even more difficulty covering their mortgages.
Why should she, or anyone else, be punished for being successful?
-Dave
Dave - Yes, illegal immigrants pay taxes. They probably don't pay income taxes or FICA because we don't allow them to. But they do pay property tax, sales tax, gas tax, sin tax, and all kinds of other taxes that we permit them to pay. And I'm sure they'd be happy to pay income tax and FICA if we'd allow them to. But we don't, so they have to take the money under the table. Everyone pays taxes. And working Americans also pay FICA, which goes to the same place that income tax goes.
And Dave, your argument still makes no sense. I thought she was struggling due to the economy. But it now sounds like she has a hugely profitable business. And it sounds like she CAN afford to pay the mortgages, but just doesn't want to because she wants to avoid a tiny tax increase. I'm telling you, if she made $320k in profits, then she'd only be taxed an extra $2100; that'd be 0.66% of her income. That's punishment? And even if she reduced her profits to $250k, she'd still be left with more than enough money to pay her mortgages.
If you guys would put numbers to what you're saying, you'd realize how mistaken you are. Your argument that she's too poor to afford the extra tax, while too rich to avoid it is nonsense. That's the point of income taxes: It only taxes people on amounts we know they recently received. And if she received the large profits you say she did, then she can certainly afford the tiny tax hike. Making her pay 0.66% of her income isn't going to break her.
And one last point that should always be remembered: Technically speaking, Obama ISN'T raising taxes. He's merely allowing Bush's temporary tax cuts to expire for some Americans, while making the others permanent. This isn't some huge tax grab by Obama. This is him enforcing the tax policy that Republicans gave us. If they didn't want them to expire, they shouldn't have made them temporary. Of course, we all knew that the tax cuts were intended to be made permanent and that you guys would insist that it's an unfair tax hike if we allowed them to expire; but this is the way your guys wrote the law.
And that was done for political purposes because it made Bush's tax cuts appear smaller than they really were, by pretending they'd go away after a few years. Well, it looks like Obama and the Democrats are making that happen after all.
Post a Comment