Showing posts with label Taxes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Taxes. Show all posts

Saturday, November 3, 2012

Perspective

Six Enormous Stakes In Presidential Election.

Monday, October 15, 2012

For Someone Portrayed As Not Caring About The Poor . . .

He sure has a funny way of showing it - Taxes, charity cost Romney 57.9 percent of income.

Romney paid $10.8 million in taxes and charity last year.  If that's not his fair share, what is?

Sunday, September 23, 2012

Definitive Proof That Harry Reid Is A Lying Son of A $#@*&

Via Hot Air:  Mitt Romney’s campaign released his 2011 tax information this afternoon, as well as a notarized letter from PriceWaterhouseCoopers attesting to Romney’s tax rates from 1990-2009.

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

Under Obamanomics, the 47% — and everyone else — will be paying more taxes soon enough

 
Pethokoukis:
One of these two things has got to give: Either a) the projected future explosion in federal spending is reduced or b) a good chunk of the 47% of Americans who currently pay no income taxes will have to start (or perhaps pay a value-added tax).
Less spending or just about everybody — including the broad middle class — will pay more. Lots more . . . .

Why won’t President Obama — unlike Paul Ryan — release a long-term budget plan? Simple. If he did, it would show the only way to realistically pay for the Democratic spending agenda is to eventually raise taxes on pretty much everybody.

Image credit: The White House's Office of Management and Budget
And this chart represents an optimistic assessment.

Tuesday, August 14, 2012

Math

Erick Erickson:
If Barack Obama gets his way and raises taxes on everyone making $250,000.00 a year or more, the amount of money he brings in will not close his own budget deficit. Nevermind the national debt — he won’t close this year’s budget deficit.  
In fact, if we get the Democrats’ their wet dream of tax policy and take 100% of all annual income of everyone making $250,000.00 a year or more, we still won’t close Barack Obama’s budget deficit.
This is why Barack Obama will continue to simply demogague the Ryan plan, rather than present an actual plan of his own.  It is mathematically impossible for any real plan to match his own and, thus, the lie would be revealed.

Tuesday, July 31, 2012

Saturday, July 14, 2012

How Much Has Debt Increased Per Taxpayer Under Obama?

By more than $64,000.  To put that into perspective, "the median household income in the United States in 2009, according to the Census Bureau, was $49,777. That means the median household would have needed to work all of one year and then the first 106 days of another year and then give all of their earnings from that time period to the federal government just to pay off the $64,219.88 in new federal debt per taxpayer piled up since Obama’s inauguration."

Plus, contributing every dollar that Americans have earned so far this year still would not cover the cost of government spending.  Cost of Government Day is not until tomorrow.

Friday, June 8, 2012

Clinton v. Obama

Vodkapundit:
You can imagine [] that the West Wing must be reeling this week, after a series of irritating little shivs Clinton slid into their backs over the last few days.
It’s no secret that Clinton isn’t exactly a big fan of President Obama’s. Clinton might be the master of making other people mad, but he himself was red-faced pissed off after Team Obama accused him of racism during the 2008 primary fight. And for good reason, too. My personal take is, that was the moment the Race Card lost its trump. Playing it on Clinton, our “first black president”? Dumb move, Barack.
And now comes the payback.
Obama attacked Mitt Romney’s record at Bain. Clinton said his record there was “sterling.” Oh, Clinton said it ostensibly in the course of explaining why Romney shouldn’t become president — but the real message was heard loud and clear.
Obama wants us to believe that the economy is improving, that we’re on track, that we must move “forward.” So Clinton said we’re already back in a recession.
Obama wants the Bush tax rates for the wealthy to expire. Clinton wants to extend all the Bush rates for a year. He later “clarified” and explained he only wanted to keep the Bush tax rates for everyone but the wealthy — but the clarification never carries as much weight as the original statement. And Bill Clinton doesn’t make a whole lot of misstatements during an election fight.
I think Vodkapundit hit the nail on the head here.  Clinton has, justifiably, never forgiven Obama for playing the Race Card on him back in 2008.

Saturday, May 19, 2012

Day One

The Romney Campaign has released its first television ad . . .


It sounds like a good day to me.

Sunday, April 1, 2012

It's Official

The United States now has the highest corporate tax rate in the world.
Even Russia, at 20 percent, and China, at 25 percent, have lower rates than America does. The difference in tax rates means American companies are trying to compete with one hand tied behind their backs.
…High taxes also leave less money for businesses to expand, innovate and create jobs. The prospect of saving millions of dollars in taxes has caused some U.S. businesses to move overseas, taking their jobs with them.
In contrast, researchers at the Heritage Foundation have calculated that if Washington were to cut our corporate rate to 25 percent, the benefits to Americans would be dramatic. After-tax income for a typical family would rise by almost $2,500. The U.S. economy would create 581,000 jobs a year over the next decade.
 If the President were truly serious about jobs, lowering the corporate tax rate would be near the top of his agenda.  After all, it's about fairness.  Isn't it?

Thursday, March 22, 2012

The Buffett Rule

It is no secret that Obama has failed to put forth a credible solution to the nation's debt crisis.  One of the few solutions he has proposed is the so-called Buffett Rule.  Well, the numbers are in: the Buffett Rule would raise an additional $47 billion over the next 11years, compared to the $47,913 trillion the Congressional Budget Office now projects in federal spending during that time. 



Of course, the Buffett Rule was never really about raising revenue.  It was about scapegoating and villifying the wealthy. The reality is that the US already has the most progressive tax system in the world.  And even if you taxed 100% of the income of those millionaires and billionaires, it still wouldn't close the budget gaps.  Actually paying for Obama's spending would necessarily involve massive, crippling middle class tax hikes.  But he doesn't want to do that, at least not until after his re-election.