Uh oh! How did this one slip out? On July 10, The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), reported that 3/10 of one percent of income taxes (0.3 percent) were paid by the bottom 20 percent of wage earners, while the top 20 percent of wage earners paid 67.9 percent of income taxes. The CBO report is based on 2007 through 2009 tax returns.
Will someone explain how that is “fair?” Did the top 20 percent of wage earners receive more protection from the military than the bottom 20 percent? Did the top 20 percent receive proportionately more services from the government than the bottom 20 percent? I would argue that the bottom 20 percent received more services than the top 20 percent. But I can’t prove that, so it will have to be an expression of my opinion. And y’all know what my opinion is worth: the same as y’all’s.
The CBO also observed that the wealthiest Americans paid almost 70 percent of taxes, but earned 50 percent of all income. And according to the CBO, which examined 2009 tax records, the top one percent of wage earners, whom fearless leader President Barack Hussein “kill list” Obama has targeted, paid 22.3 percent of taxes. That’s down 4.4 percent from 2007. Is three years a trend?
The CBO reported that between 2007 and 2009, for the bottom three quintiles (for you progressives/liberals, a quintile is 1/5th or 20 percent of a distribution), the share of taxes paid fell. For the fourth quintile (next to the top), taxes paid were substantially unchanged. For the top quintile, taxes paid rose. Big losers, according to the CBO, were those in the top quintile who saw their taxes increase.
Obama is calling for the wealthy to pay more money in order to lower the deficit. But the primary cause of deficits is federal spending. George W. Bush inherited a $3.4 trillion deficit in 2000. He doubled that amount to $6.8 trillion during his two terms, an increase of $3.4 trillion. Obama, in less than four years, has increased the debt to almost $16 trillion.
And this is the same Obama who extended the so-called Bush tax cuts at the same time that he says that tax cuts are causing the majority of economic troubles. Obama said, “So the money we’re spending on these tax cuts for the wealthy is a major driver of our deficit, a major contributor to our deficit, costing us a trillion dollars over the next decade.” A day after extending middle class tax cuts while raising taxes on the wealthy, Obama argued that the rich should pay higher taxes in order to fund his spending priorities and to cut the deficit.
Tax cuts also have not always been a contributor to deficits. A comprehensive tax reform was passed under Ronald Reagan in 1986. Revenues increased by $128 billion. Reagan’s tax structure had two percentages: 15 percent and 28 percent. Obama wants to raise those rates to 36 percent and almost 40 percent. Federal tax rates in 2008 and 2009 were 18 percent and 17.4 percent, the lowest in the last three decades. Lower tax rates suggest that lower tax rates yield deficits. But correlation doesn’t necessarily mean causation. And history has shown that lower tax rates do not necessarily cause deficits.
Obama was just too busy to go to the NAACP convention in Houston, TX, but he found time to go to George Clooney’s house, and he also found time to have dinner at Sarah Jessica Parker’s house. I guess he was just too busy to read the CBO report. Or what probably happened is that Obama’s speechwriter did not have time to transcribe the CBO report so Obama could read it on his Teleprompter. See, once everything is known, the answer is quite obvious.
But that’s just my opinion.Powered by Sidelines