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.” 

Sen. Ted Cruz: NOBODY should be afraid of Trump's Supreme Court justice pick

Stefani Reynolds/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) joined Glenn Beck on the radio program Wednesday to weigh in on President Donald Trump's potential Supreme Court nominees and talk about his timely new book, "One Vote Away: How a Single Supreme Court Seat Can Change History."

Sen. Cruz argued that, while Congressional Democrats are outraged over President Trump's chance at a third court appointment, no one on either side should be afraid of a Supreme Court justice being appointed if it's done according to the founding documents. That's why it's crucial that the GOP fills the vacant seat with a true constitutionalist.

Watch the video below to hear 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.

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) joined Glenn Beck on the radio program Wednesday to talk about why he believes President Donald Trump will nominate Judge Amy Coney Barrett to fill the Supreme Court vacancy created by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death.

Lee, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee that will consider and vote on the nominee, also weighed in on another Supreme Court contender: Judge Barbara Lagoa. Lee said he would not be comfortable confirming Lagoa without learning more about her history as it pertains to upholding the U.S. Constitution.

Watch the video below to hear 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.

This week on the Glenn Beck Podcast, Glenn spoke with Vox co-founder Matthew Yglesias about his new book, "One Billion Americans: The Case for Thinking Bigger."

Matthew and Glenn agree that, while conservatives and liberals may disagree on a lot, we're not as far apart as some make it seem. If we truly want America to continue doing great things, we must spend less time fighting amongst ourselves.

Watch a clip from the full interview with Matthew Yglesias below:


Find the full podcast on Glenn's YouTube channel or on Blaze Media's podcast network.

Want to listen to more Glenn Beck podcasts?

Subscribe to Glenn Beck's channel on YouTube for FREE access to more of his masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, or subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

'A convenient boogeyman for misinformation artists': Why is the New York Times defending George Soros?

Image source: Simon Dawson/Bloomberg via Getty Images

On the "Glenn Beck Radio Program" Tuesday, Glenn discussed the details of a recent New York Times article that claims left-wing billionaire financier George Soros "has become a convenient boogeyman for misinformation artists who have falsely claimed that he funds spontaneous Black Lives Matter protests as well as antifa, the decentralized and largely online, far-left activist network that opposes President Trump."

The Times article followed last week's bizarre Fox News segment in which former House Speaker Newt Gingrich appeared to be censored for criticizing Soros (read more here). The article also labeled Glenn a "conspiracy theorist" for his tweet supporting Gingrich.

Watch the video clip below for details:


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.