Why only repeal the Bush tax cuts?

President Obama:

“We are ready, this week, to give tax cuts to every American making $250,000 or less. For any income over this amount, the tax rates would go back to what they were under President Clinton. This isn’t to punish folks who are better off — it’s because we can’t afford the $700 billion price tag.”

Actually, “we” aren’t “ready” to “give” tax cuts. Well, okay: some of us are. President Obama isn’t, unless not raising taxes is now the same thing as cutting taxes.

Which it isn’t.

What Obama means is: give him credit for not raising your taxes, unless you make over $250,000 a year. If you make over $250,000 a year, what are you, greedy or something?

We can’t afford not to take more of your money, so we’re taking your rate back up to 39.6%.

By the way: how many of those White House aides who owe back taxes make that much, do you figure?

The average unpaid tax bill is $12,787 among the Senate’s delinquent taxpayers and $15,498 among those working in the House.

You gotta be making some coin to rack up those bills, don’t you?

Here’s my real question: if we can’t “afford” to leave the top marginal income tax rate at 35% – if it’s so imperative that we raise it to 39.6% – then why can we “afford” to leave it at 39.6%? How much is it “costing” us to leave it there?

How big is that price tag, to “prevent” income taxes from going back to 70%?

Why doesn’t somebody — Obama? Pelosi? Reid? Paul Krugman? — suggest raising the top marginal rate to…oh, I dunno, 45%? Or 50%, where it was during the middle of Reagan’s presidency? Or 70%, like it was during Carter?

(Posted by Lance “TrogloPundit” Burri, who would still like to make over $250,000 even if the top marginal rate does go up.)

Leave a Comment

Permalinks


Share this!

Enjoy reading? Share it with your friends!

Send this to a friend