- Vote 'NO!' to Government Regulation of Privacy at The Economist
- FCC Stalls on Internet Regulation; Asks for More Comments
- Why was the Volcker Commission Constrained by Obama’s Tax Pledge, but not the Simpson-Bowles?
- Daily Media Spotlight September 2, 2010
- Harry Reid Looks to Resurrect RES During Lame-Duck
- Calculating the Cost of Government (CFA Site »)
Thursday, September 2, 2010
- Daily Media Spotlight September 1, 2010
-
Obama Tax Commission Report:
Baby Step Toward IRS Tax Preparation - Dina Titus Launches False Attack Ad on Joe Heck and the Taxpayer Protection Pledge
- Indiana LaunchesTransparency Website (CFA Site »)
- Rally for Jobs Kicks Off Today in Texas
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
- Daily Media Spotlight August 31, 2010
- Let us All Join in on the NOT so “Green Cause”
- California Bag Ban Bill Up for Vote Today
- Norquist to Gov. Pat Quinn: Pick a Flawed Income Tax Hike and Stick With It
- Phil Moffett Signs Taxpayer Protection Pledge in Kentucky Gubernatorial Race
- New Mexico Sets Trends in Transparency Websites (CFA Site »)
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
- Robert Gibbs’s Fuzzy Tax Hike Math
- Daily Media Spotlight August 30, 2010
Monday, August 30, 2010
- 2011 Could Be Ugly for Nevada Taxpayers
- Lame Duck Governor Ed Rendell Not Going Gently Into That Good Night – New Call for Higher Taxes
- Happy Cost of Government Day, California
- Bay Staters Spent 239 Days Paying for Government Burdens in 2010 (CFA Site »)
- Washington Welcomes Cost of Government Day (CFA Site »)
Friday, August 27, 2010
- Spill Commission Should Lift Moratorium Which Has Cost Gulf Residents 12,000 Jobs and $2.1 Billion
- Daily Media Spotlight August 26, 2010
- Why is Dan Onorato Knowingly Misleading Pennsylvania Voters?
- Unions plan on spending big this election cycle
- Utah Tobacco Sellers Feeling the Impact of Tax Hikes
Thursday, August 26, 2010
- Daily Media Spotlight August 25, 2010
- WI Democrats Launch “Blatantly False” Attack on Sean Duffy
- Unions plan on spending big this election cycle (AWF Site »)
- Philly's New Blog Tax May Foreshadow Other eTaxes
- BNA: For 14 States, Existing Tax Code Leaves Room for Etax (Stop eTaxes Site »)
- Philly's $300 Blogger Tax (Stop eTaxes Site »)
- Cost of Government Day Arrives in the Commonwealth
- Pennsylvania Finally Celebrates Cost of Government Day
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
- California Budget Proposal Advocates eTax (Stop eTaxes Site »)
- Daily Media Spotlight August 24, 2010
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
- Daily Media Spotlight August 23, 2010
- Government Workers' Pensions are Underfunded by $3 Trillion
Monday, August 23, 2010
- Fourteen Ways to Reduce Government Spending
- FCC Report on Broadband Performance: A Scare Tactic
- Sen. Al Franken Doesn’t Understand Wireless Networks...or the First Amendment
Friday, August 20, 2010
- Daily Media Spotlight August 19, 2010
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Obama vs. Fact:
Taxes and the Latest Press Conference
From Ryan Ellis on Wednesday, March 25, 2009 12:23 PM
A Tax Cut for 95 Percent of Working Families?
OBAMA: “…this plan will provide a tax cut to 95 percent of all working families that will appear in people’s paychecks by April 1.”
FACT: Obama is referring to the “Making Work Pay” refundable tax credit, which will begin to show up in the form of less withholding from paychecks on April 1. This part of his statement is true. However, it’s impossible to cut taxes for “95 percent of working families.” According to IRS data, one-third of all income tax filers don’t have an income tax liability. About 15 percent of all working families don’t even have a FICA tax liability, and these numbers are before taking into effect all the new refundable tax credits of the Obama budget. For these “working families,” all Obama’s budget will do is cut them a welfare check.
Is the Tax Code Skewed Toward the Rich?
OBAMA: “…for the top 5 percent, they’re the ones who typically saw huge gains in their income…let’s not renew the Bush tax cuts…let’s go back to the rates that existed…during the Clinton era”
FACT: Obama gives the impression here that the tax code has gotten friendlier to the rich since the Clinton years. A simple check of the data, though, shows that the rich are paying a higher percentage of federal income taxes than ever before.
In order to be in Obama’s “top 5 percent,” a family must earn at least $150,000—from all income sources combined. Putting aside that this is well under the $250,000 that Obama says he will be raising taxes on, this is hardly a figure that most Americans would consider “rich.”
It might surprise many to learn that this “top 5 percent” is paying a higher and higher percentage of all income taxes. Back in 2000, the last year of the Clinton Administration, these households were paying 56 percent of all income taxes. In 2005, the latest year for which the IRS has data, they were paying nearly 60 percent of all income taxes. So after tax rates on small businesses and investors were dropped, the tax code became more progressive, not less. There’s no “problem” to fix.
What about the “richest of the rich,” the top 1 percent? These families make at least $365,000 per year. In 2000, they paid 37 percent of all income taxes. That number today is nearly 40 percent. So even the richest households are paying a higher amount of all income taxes then they were before the tax cuts of the Bush era.
Demonizing Investors and Entrepreneurs
OBAMA: “…the rest of us can’t afford to demonize every investor or entrepreneur who seeks to make a profit. That drive is what has always fueled our prosperity…”
FACT: This is 100% true, so what is it doing in a myth/fact? The problem is, the Obama budget doesn’t square with the Obama rhetoric. His budget calls for massive tax increases on investors. The capital gains and dividends tax rate will rise from 15 percent to 20 percent. The death tax will go from dead to 45 percent overnight. The top tax rate on small businesses will rise from 37.9 percent to 42.5 percent, and that’s before his promised Social Security tax hike.
If that’s not using the tax code to demonize investors and entrepreneurs, what is?
Is the Deficit the Issue, or Is It Spending?
OBAMA: “(Questioner) Do you worry that your daughters…will be inheriting an even bigger fiscal mess if the spending goes out of control?” “(Obama) Of course I do, which is why we’re doing everything we can to reduce that deficit.”
FACT: Obama is focusing on the wrong target. The questioner asked, correctly, if he was okay passing along a spending budget as big as Obama is proposing to his daughters. Obama ignored the fact that his budget grows the size of government to levels not seen since World War II. Instead, he focuses on deficits, which is an uninteresting number you get by subtracting one interesting number (spending) from another (taxes). A balanced budget won’t help Obama’s daughters if they are forced to pay taxes to support a government 50% bigger than the one their father inherited.
Permalink | Email | Print | Tags: TAXES, POLITICS, CONGRESS, SPENDING, OBAMA, BUDGET














Add a Comment