Democrat's Get-The-Rich-Quick Scheme

FUSION JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2010


 << Back to Fusion Index

Top Hat Photo Courtesy of ©iStockphoto.com/Oliver Childs

By Tyler Grimm


 

The $787 billion “stimulus” program may have created little to no jobs in the U.S., but Democrats have found a surefire way to provide a boon to the Swiss and Grand Cayman banking industry: A millionaire’s tax.

With the federal budget deficit this year exceeding a record $1.4 trillion, fleecing the rich is now being touted as the way to bankroll Obamanomics. The latest health care bill to be passed by the House of Representatives, for instance, contains a punitive surtax for individuals making more than $500,000 or couples making more than $1million a year.

The “wealthy” have long been an easy political target so, this is really no surprise. Besides, it’s not a bad deal, right? I mean, the rich have plenty of money, so why not make them cough up a little more?

The reality is that these schemes never produce their intended results. Instead of filling government coffers to benefit the public good, these punitive taxes always end up bringing in less revenue than expected. Why? Because the rich stash their money off-shore, move to more tax-friendly locales or simply decide to work and invest less because of the tax consequences.

Kail Padgitt, an economist at the non-partisan Tax Foundation says, “Millionaires’ taxes are not reliable revenue sources. These might provide revenue in the short run, but the long-run costs make it a terrible bargain.”

This is not just a federal phenomenon. This year, Hawaii became the fifth state to implement a so called “millionaires’ tax” (the other four: California, Maryland, New Jersey and New York). In each of these states, unintended consequences abound.

Last year, cash strapped Maryland implemented a millionaires’ tax with depressing results: Revenue from that tax bracket was down $100 million and one-third of the people in that bracket were no longer there.

New Jersey produced similar results. Because of the implementation of a half-millionaire tax in 2004, the number of families making over $500,000 grew by 16 percent less than the national average between 2003 and 2006.

In California and New York, it’s hard to tease out the effects of high-income taxes from other bad fiscal policy. Over the last decade, the two states have seen, on net, 1.4 million and 1.9 million people (respectively) move out.

In California, the state’s highly progressive tax structure drove both rich and poor away. According to the Public Policy Institute of California, in the top quintile, 1.16 per every 100 households left between 2004 and 2007. In the bottom quintile it was 1.73—surely due to many employers (likely in the top quintile) departing. And where did they go? Three of the top destination states were Nevada, Texas and Washington, none of which have an income tax.

In the case of New York, it is losing many of its wealthy investment bankers to tax-friendly Connecticut, just across the border. In the words of public policy expert George Gilder, “High tax rates do not redistribute income, they redistribute people.”

Even the Beatles—certainly no Reaganite conservatives—were tax refugees. Their song “Tax Man” was about England’s terrible tax burden. They were paying 95 percent of their income to the crown (“There’s one for you, nineteen for me”). So what did they do? They moved to the then low-tax United States, of course.

Now let’s suppose you don’t believe that these taxes will have adverse consequences and are a good idea on the grounds of economic justice. After all, during his campaign, Barack Obama said that he would look at raising taxes “for purposes of fairness.”

Well, chances are that you don’t make over $1 million a year—no hard feelings, only .3 percent of Americans do. However, “millionaires’ tax” has become a catch-all term, usually referring to any tax on income over $250,000. Over the summer, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi explained why her colleagues’ newly proposed tax would fly politically: “You hear ‘$500,000 a year,’ you think, ‘My God, that’s not me.’”

Pelosi and company see such measures as reasonable because they appeal to people’s sense of fairness or, possibly, envy: The rich earn so much more income so they should pay more in taxes. The problem with that logic is that they already do. The Internal Revenue Service’s most recent data shows that the top 1 percent paid 40 percent of all income taxes in 2007, more than the entire bottom 95 percent.

Last April, in conjunction with tax day, a Gallup poll asked, “Do you consider the amount of federal income tax you have to pay as too high, about right, or too low?” Forty-six percent of respondents answered, “about right”—the highest since 1956. This might be surprising until you learn that the poorest 40 percent of Americans now pay a negative income tax rate.

The people who make up these elusive top tax brackets are not all Paris Hiltons and Derek Jeters. It’s estimated that roughly half of America’s small-business income would be hit by Obama’s plan to raise the top two tax rates. This couldn’t come at a worse time. As Dr. Padgitt explains, “As the economy begins to recover, we need a tax system that attracts investment. Millionaires’ taxes provide the exact opposite.” 

Bill O'Reilly joined the "Glenn Beck Radio Program" on Friday for his weekly take on the 2020 presidential race.

O'Reilly emphasized what a dangerous candidate socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) really is, and how the media is working to mislead voters by depicting other Democratic candidates, such as former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, as "moderate."

"The Democratic Party has been hijacked -- and this is no breaking news -- by the progressive left. Which is now being enabled by the national media," said O'Reilly.

"Bernie Sanders is a dangerous man. In any sane time, media time, that would be clear to everybody. But it's not," he added. "It's like, 'Oh, there's uncle Bernie and he just wants to give stuff away. What a great guy.' [He's] not a great guy, all right? He's a totalitarian. He'll take your freedom, in every area, away. Every area. There isn't one area, that Bernie Sanders wouldn't intrude upon, in your personal freedom. Yet, that's not reported. You don't know it unless you pay attention. It's all a bunch of dishonest blather that has obliterated the so-called moderate Democrat. And there are millions of those people. They don't know what to do because they have no voice in the media."

Glenn pointed out that the media has been "trying to make Pete Buttigieg into a moderate" ever since his strong showing in the Iowa caucuses last week.

"So, Pete Buttigieg: Harvard grad. Rhodes Scholar. Brilliant man, he is brilliant. Great speaker. Almost as good as Beck and I. Not quite, but almost," O'Reilly said. "He's only 38, all right? So, the guy goes out and runs for president after being the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, for eight years, and almost destroying that city. The city is in chaos, yet he's re-elected with 80% of the vote the second time. That's what a good BS'er Pete Buttigieg is.

The two went on to break down Buttegieg's radical policy plans on immigration, abortion, gun control, and more.

Watch the video below to catch more of the conversation:

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream. Use code GLENN to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.

On the radio program Thursday, Glenn Beck and his chief researcher, Jason Buttrill, have uncovered new evidence that suggests the coronavirus death toll numbers coming from China are grossly inaccurate.

After vetting several deep-fake videos circulating on social media, Jason unearthed shocking whistleblower-videos released by citizens of the communist state that show entire warehouses filled with body bags, along with other atrocities.

Jason and Glenn break down the real numbers and discuss the possibilities of the outbreak coming to America. Watch the video below for more details:

Don't miss next Wednesday's TV special on the coronavirus in its new time slot at 9PM ET.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream. Use code GLENN to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.


Former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg has surged in the polls in the past month.

With former Vice President Joe Biden dropping below far-left presidential candidates such as the unapologetically socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.), and the almost equally extremist Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass), Democratic voters seeking a more moderate alternative are setting their sights on Mayor Pete.

But are Buttigieg's policies actually moderate? Not even close, Glenn Beck said Thursday on the radio program.

"[Pete Buttigieg] wants people to see him as a moderate. The mayor of a Midwest city in a red state ... and he's going for the middle, even though he is not a moderate candidate in any way," said Glenn.

Here are just a few example of where Buttigieg stands on the issues:

  • Supports late-term, partial-birth abortion
  • Eliminate the Electoral College
  • Buyback program for assault weapons
  • Raise the federal minimum wage to $15/hour
  • Expand Medicare
  • Decriminalize illegal immigration
  • Pay for infrastructure through changing taxes on corporations, the wealthy
  • Study reparations
  • Legalize marijuana
  • Increase existing taxes on upper-income Americans
  • Cancel some student debt
  • Don't use tariffs to pressure countries
Watch the video clip below for more information:

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Use code GLENN to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.

An official at the World Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations' health agency, has issued a warning, calling the coronavirus "the worst enemy you can imagine" and more of a threat than "any terrorist attack," during a media briefing on Tuesday.

Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO's director general, said that a vaccine for the coronavirus will likely take 18 months to develop. The virus has reportedly killed hundreds and infected tens of thousands of people, primarily in China.

"To be honest, a virus is more powerful in creating political, social and economic upheaval than any terrorist attack. It's the worst enemy you can imagine," added Ghebreyesus.

On the radio program Wednesday, Glenn Beck noted that the same agency in charge of developing this life-saving vaccine, has taken the time to officially change the disease's name to COVID-19, citing the concern of "stigmatizing" any specific geographical location, individual, or group of people.

Watch the video below to catch more of the conversation:

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Use code GLENN to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.