Free Markets, Free People

And now the “rich” will pay…

I hate to say “I told you so”, but it isn’t just the rich who will be paying increased taxes. And what should be clear to anyone with the I Q of a turnip, is that this will cost people their jobs.

The compromise called for taxes to rise to 39.6% from 35% on personal income above $400,000. In a 2011 study, the Treasury Department found that raising taxes on incomes over $500,000 would affect roughly 750,000 small businesses organized as S-Corps, partnerships and other small entities.

Of course, you remember the Democrats claiming that this wouldn’t affect small businesses. Well, that was a flat out lie. But then we live in an era of lies which, if there political apparently, we’re willing to overlook. While most of us are. I just had to be one of those who isn’t.   Not that Democrats are the only political liars, but they seem to be the most prolific and the most blatant. Especially when it comes to budget, deficit, and financial matters. They are the quintessential “snake oil” salesman.

And they have sold us are huge bottle of snake oil.

Couple these tax increases with the Obamacare taxes that kicked in on the 1st, and you have two reasons for 750,000 small businesses not to hire. And you can bet none of them will go over 50 employees, and some may even reduce staff to get under that number.

These are your “rich”. They happen to be the “rich” would generate jobs, or what have, if they hadn’t been hit by two new taxes this year.

Your government at work.


Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

32 Responses to And now the “rich” will pay…

  • TNR lets the cat out of the bag:  they’ll be back for more.

    The reason they’re not is because the fiscal long-game mostly favors liberals. To see this, let’s fast forward a decade or two and imagine a similar negotiation. I suspect that, if anything, Medicare and Social Security will be even more popular than they are today given the aging of the population, making them even harder to cut. It’s possible that raising taxes on the affluent will be less popular—some 60 percent supported Obama’s desire to do that in last month’s exit polls—but I doubt it. Historically, Americans have been sympathetic to the idea. And while it’s true that, as conservatives point out, you can’t fund the entire welfare state by raising taxes on the wealthy, it’s not the only source of revenue that’s likely to exist. If nothing else, I’d guess a future Democratic president could raise taxes on income well below $250,000—probably down to $100,000—without incurring major blowback.
    I only disagree with the time frame.  It won’t be a decade or two.  It’ll be a year or two.  The increased revenue from the budget deal won’t cover even 1 year of deficit spending at the current rate.  Insatiable government greed is the progressive way.  They will be back looking for more plunder.

    • I’m sure they’ve already sent the recon drones over the 401K fortress to check out the available plunder.

      • That would be suicide. Everyone has 401K. Its not “the man behind that tree.”
        The dems were successful in selling taxes on rich people. That is a tiny section of the population.

        • That would be suicide. Everyone has 401K

          >>>> People w/o jobs don’t.

        • And in line with Shark’s statement – people with 401k’s are automatically RICH because the definition of ‘rich’ is very very flexible when you’re taking from the evil greedy haves to give to the poor downtrodden Obama voting have-nots.
          Besides, they didn’t EARN those 401k’s by themselves, it was just luck.

        • They won’t “take it” take it.  They’ll just administer it like they have social security.  They’ll drain the existing capital for short term spending (maybe 5 to 8 years before they empty it) and leave subsequent years on the hook for making the payouts with taxes.
          Basically when they crash the system, it would be unfair for people who have saved, to still have money.  When its going down, its going down for everyone.  Its only fair.

    • Good luck with that. Low information voters now think that the deal has been done and everything’s safe and Obama’s won.
      If he keeps coming back for MORE MONEY, then I think it will not play as well as it did this time.

    • Well it doesn’t take long for the 1% to become the 3%, then the 5%, 10%, … all the way to 49%.
      But once we’re at 49%, well just about everyone falls into one 49% category or another depending on how you want to look at it.

    Note that OwlGore was in a lather to get the deal done before the New Year…
    to avoid paying “his fair share”.

    • Tut tut my man, THOSE laws are not for the likes of him, surely you know this. He’s the right rich, which is the rich who aren’t on the right.
      We must learn our places old chap!  Love Marx, Honor Barack and give the wrong rich a sturdy whack!

  • They didn’t sell us any snake oil. The people know exactly what they voted for back in Nov.
    Let it burn.

    The real RICH won’t pay.
    The kulaks in the upper-middle…the small businesses…will pay.  They are NOT portable, generally.  They ARE despised by fascist Obama, who greatly prefers BIG, TRACTABLE businesses, like GE.  Small, entrepreneurial businesses are much too hard to control properly.

    • And dammit, they didn’t send in the proper tithes to help win the election!.  The messiah was almost beat in fundraising by that blasted Mormon and small conservatives Business was partially to blame!  The day of reckoning has arrived.

    • …and even then, 400k a year can buy you some good advice.

      Seriously, I get that these are small businessmen, but isn’t 400k AFTER expenses, like hiring people?
      I think the tax rate will have an effect, and will be negative, but more like the regular drip drip drip we have from DC in general.

      • It is a marginal rate that deincentivizes making more. So, why expand, why hire, why increase anything if more of what you earn feeds government profligacy at that margin?

        • Not necessarily.  If the hire results in your taxable income being reduced below the $400k threshold there is certainly an intersection of costs to hire and saving to taxes (graphically speaking) that would result in less taxes:  The whole marginal cost versus marginal revenue issue.

  • Expansion of business does not depend on the tax rate as much as the demand for a business’s product.  If demand for a business’s product increases, it will increase the business’s output—and consequent employment—regardless of the tax rate, and long as such expansion is profitable.

    • Mmmm…..

    • Consider:
      Do you understand the concept of “at the margin?” This means, for example, seeing an additional customer, or working an additional day, or making an additional surgery. So, a surgeon cuts back one surgery a year or an architect takes one less project…big deal right? Well, America has 300 million people, so these things add up.  This is what dynamic taxing is about, and what you need to consider. If you need to make it simpler, consider ice cream cones: there is a price where you buy and eat two (demand!) and then if we add a tax to that price, suddenly for many people, they only want one cone. (Lowered demand!) Trying to convince yourself that taxes don’t affect demand is insane. Also, you need to consider that rich people buy more things than poor people, especially businesses. So, while you are imagining a guy with 400k income and thinking he is doing great, keep in mind the company selling printing presses or backhoes, or yachts is losing sales. Those sales also count towards demand, and in fact represent the high quality, high paying sort of demand rather than Chicken McNuggets and flat screen TV’s from China.

    • Making a product more expensive to make, does not increase its demand.  In fact its almost always ‘contraindicated’ (excluding wine or perfume) to increased demand.

    • Didja get a paycheck today Taddy?   Was it different?

  • “, and long as such expansion is profitable”
    So, you DO understand the idea they have to make a profit.   Now, DO you understand that they can be taxed and regulated out of business?
    And DO you understand the government can encourage them via various stupid methods to fire all their full time employees and employ contractors or part time employees to ensure they continue to be profitable?
    Are you sure you care about profit?  I mean, is that REALLY why businesses are in business?   Certain members of the government and unions (I may be repeating myself) seem to think companies are in business to provide jobs.   Of course you do, you’ve said as much in the past.
    Perhaps you think the government might, um, MANDATE demand like they are about to do with Health Insurance?  Oh, wait OF COURSE YOU DO.  So it’s all covered then.  We can just be forced to buy broccoli and tofu and solar power panels and GM cars, and profit really isn’t necessary after all.

    • With ObamaCare, you take care of that pesky “demand” thingy.  You just mandate demand.
      And that profit thingy…  You can mandate THAT, too…
      See…?  Nola problama….

      • Mmmm mmmm mmmm Bad Precedent Obama…..
        Is it REALLY only the beginning of his next term?  are you SURE?

        • I was trying to suppress MORON!!!!

          • I know, but it reminded me of one of the first hymns written for our lord and savior Barack Obama (head bow, up twinkles).
            And Tad, well, he’s an unsuppressable moron I think.

          • A valiant effort.
            Our little Rags is growing up!

  • You know, between the blasted Brits, and Drudge, there’s just too much information flowing out there!   Something MUST be done!

    • Obviously. As Col. Nathan Jessep said in ‘A Few Good Men’, we can’t handle the truth. Common-sense information regulation is a no-brainer.