The headline alone from The Hill, says it all.Obama calls for compromise, won't budge on tax cuts
Anyone else see the irony of the headline? Obama wants compromise but he won't budge, so what he wants is what America just overwhelmingly told him they do not want.
Americans do not want Congress to plow ahead with Obama's agenda, full speed ahead with no brakes and no checks and balances and no compromise. That is why they gave Republicans control of the House of Representatives with the biggest turnover of seats from blue to red in 72 years.
Obama wants an extension of tax cuts for the middle class but to allow the tax cuts on the upper class to expire.
In a time of economic turmoil the suggestion of raising any taxes is stupidity itself.
John Stossel at Real Clear Politics explains what happens when that happens by using actual examples:
Maryland
Maryland created a special tax on rich people that was supposed to bring in $106 million. Instead, the state lost $257 million.
How you ask?
Some of Maryland's rich left the state. "They're out of here. These people aren't stupid," Ehrlich says.
Another example:
New York billionaire Tom Golisano isn't stupid, either. With $3,000 and one employee, he started a business that processes paychecks for companies. He created 13,000 jobs.
Then New York state hiked the income tax on millionaires.
"It was the straw that broke the camel's back," he says. "Not that I like to throw the number around, but my personal income tax last year would've been $13,800 a day. Would you like to write a check for $13,800 a day to a state government, as opposed to moving to another state where there's no state income tax or very low state income tax?
He established residence in Florida, which has no personal income tax.
Donald Trump, by far, has the most compelling argument:
Donald Trump, who knows something about making money, says of course the rich will leave when hit with higher taxes. "I know these people," he told me. "They're international people. Whether they live here or live in a place like Switzerland doesn't really matter to them."
You haven't left, I told him.
"I haven't left yet. ... Look, the rich people are going to leave. And other people are going to leave. You're going to end up with lots of people that don't produce. And then that's the spiral. That's the end."
The idea of punishing the rich simply because of their ability to make money, is asinine. Paying the same percentage as the rest of America still brings in more money because they make more money.
Raising the percentages because they earn more is nothing short of armed robbery and if their only defense is to stop producing or take their money and leave, then America loses the jobs of those they employ and/or the original taxes in totality.
[Update] A few Google searches produce more confirmation of Trump's words.
February 2010: "N.J. loses $70B in wealth during five years as residents depart"
More than $70 billion in wealth left New Jersey between 2004 and 2008 as affluent residents moved elsewhere, according to a report released Wednesday that marks a swift reversal of fortune for a state once considered the nation’s wealthiest.
More:
“The wealth is not being replaced,” said John Havens, who directed the study. “It’s above and beyond the general trend that is affecting the rest of the northeast.”
This was not always the case. The study – the first on interstate wealth migration in the country — noted the state actually saw an influx of $98 billion in the five years preceding 2004. The exodus of wealth, then, local experts and economists concluded, was a reaction to a series of changes in the state’s tax structure — including increases in the income, sales, property and “millionaire” taxes.
“This study makes it crystal clear that New Jersey’s tax policies are resulting in a significant decline in the state’s wealth,” said Dennis Bone, chairman of the New Jersey Chamber of Commerce and president of Verizon New Jersey.
More concerning is that some not only are prepared to move from one American state to another that is more tax friendly, others are prepared to leave the country altogether taking their money with them.
Example: Glen Esnard, a Newport Beach executive for real estate services firm Grubb & Ellis.
My family isn't wealthy. I have no funded retirement plan save Social Security, if it is there when I need it. I have no guarantee of permanent health care. I am paying off school loans for our three children. A meaningful number of my friends have lost their jobs, and all who are still employed, including my family, have taken significant pay reductions. . . . This is a classless recession, at least in my experience. It is hitting everyone.
Yet those of us who make $250,000 or more are vilified and held accountable for solving our government's penchant for spending more than it takes in so that politicians can buy votes. We already pay more in taxes than 98% of the population, particularly the nearly 50% of eligible voters who pay no federal income tax. The president wants us to pay more, and he frames it in a way that casts us as not yet carrying our fair share of the burden.
Apparently our president thinks that living in America is so wonderful that we will never leave, despite being directly attacked and held responsible for the political class's inability to constrain its desire to buy votes with our money. He should think again.
The writer of that article followed up:
I emailed Esnard to ask if he seriously expected high-income-earners to think of leaving the country because their tax rate would rise to 39.6% from 35% (their dividend and capital gains tax rates also would jump), and/or because of Obama's "vilification" campaign, as Esnard put it.
He responded: "Although I am not an expert, I think it is a real issue. No different than people leaving states for more hospitable locations." He also said he has received a "surprising number of resonant e-mails and voicemails."
The examples go on and on.
.
