Tax-and-spend, etc.

July 21, 2008

Barack Obama (and, to be fair, Democrats in general) keeps saying that those George Bush tax cuts benefited mostly those evil rich folks. And if he gets in, he’s going to finance his host of new programs by increasing their share of the burden and decreasing everybody else’s. But look at the numbers:

The nearby chart shows that the top 1% of taxpayers, those who earn above $388,806, paid 40% of all income taxes in 2006, the highest share in at least 40 years. The top 10% in income, those earning more than $108,904, paid 71%. Barack Obama says he’s going to cut taxes for those at the bottom, but that’s also going to be a challenge because Americans with an income below the median paid a record low 2.9% of all income taxes, while the top 50% paid 97.1%. Perhaps he thinks half the country should pay all the taxes to support the other half.

[. . .]

The idea that this has been a giveaway to the rich is a figment of the left’s imagination. Taxes paid by millionaire households more than doubled to $274 billion in 2006 from $136 billion in 2003. No President has ever plied more money from the rich than George W. Bush did with his 2003 tax cuts.

And just so you don’t think I only care when Democrats get stupid about money, here (from National Reivew, of all places) is something about overspeding by Republicans in the last eight years — a $125 billion binge in domestic spending:

Under Ronald Reagan, non-defense discretionary spending grew at an annual rate of 2.6%, about the rate of inflation. Under George W. Bush, it has grown at an annual rate of 6.2%


5 Responses to “Tax-and-spend, etc.”

  1. Kevin Knuth Says:

    This is all over the web:

    “In 2006, Warren Buffett had $46 million of taxable income, while is secretary earned $60,000. Warren Buffett’s tax rate was 17.7% and his secretary’s was 30%. ”

    Explain the logic in that….the more you make, the lower your tax rate?

    The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

  2. Harl Delos Says:

    That’s one reason why we need to replace the income tax with an outgo tax.

    The fact that VAT would make us much more competitive in the global economy is a bigger one, though.

  3. Leo Morris Says:

    Well, I’d prefer they each paid a flat rate — I’m sure you agree, Kevin — that would raise about the same amount of money. Even if they took Warren’s up to 17.8 percent and brought hers down to that, the government would take in more money. But do the math. At those “unfair” rates, Warren paid the government about $8 million, and his secretary kicked in $18,000.

  4. tim zank Says:

    Kevin isn’t terribly interested in “fair”…he belongs to the camp that believes the rest of us (those with income) should pay the way for all the losers in the world.

  5. Kevin Knuth Says:

    Not at all Tim.

    I wonder why you think it is “fair” to look at DOLLARS paid and not PERCENTAGES?

    Leo, yes, a flat tax would be better.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: