Obama and the Tax Tipping Point
Obama and the Tax Tipping Point: How Long Before Taxpayers Are Pushed Too Far?, by Adam Lerrick:
What happens when the voter in the exact middle of the earnings spectrum receives more in benefits from Washington than he pays in taxes? Economists Allan Meltzer and Scott Richard posed this question 27 years ago. We may soon enough know the answer.
Barack Obama is offering voters strong incentives to support higher taxes and bigger government. This could be the magic income-redistribution formula Democrats have long sought.
Sen. Obama is promising $500 and $1,000 gift-wrapped packets of money in the form of refundable tax credits. These will shift the tax demographics to the tipping point where half of all voters will receive a cash windfall from Washington and an overwhelming majority will gain from tax hikes and more government spending.
In 2006, the latest year for which we have Census data, 220 million Americans were eligible to vote and 89 million -- 40% -- paid no income taxes. ... [T]his will jump to 49% when Mr. Obama's cash credits remove 18 million more voters from the tax rolls. What's more, there are an additional 24 million taxpayers (11% of the electorate) who will pay a minimal amount of income taxes -- less than 5% of their income and less than $1,000 annually.
In all, three out of every five voters will pay little or nothing in income taxes under Mr. Obama's plans and gain when taxes rise on the 40% that already pays 95% of income tax revenues.
The plunder that the Democrats plan to extract from the "very rich" -- the 5% that earn more than $250,000 and who already pay 60% of the federal income tax bill -- will never stretch to cover the expansive programs Mr. Obama promises.
What next? A core group of Obama enthusiasts -- those educated professionals who applaud the "fairness" of their candidate's tax plans -- will soon see their $100,000-$150,000 incomes targeted. As entitlements expand and a self-interested majority votes, the higher tax brackets will kick in at lower levels down the ladder, all the way to households with a $75,000 income.
I am reminded of the poem by Martin Niemöller:
- [T]hey came first for [those making $250,000], And I didn’t speak up because I [didn't make $250,000];
- And then they came for [those making $150,000], And I didn’t speak up because I [didn't make $150,000];
- And then they came for [those making $100,000], And I didn’t speak up because I [didn't make $100,000];
- And then . . . they came for me [because I made $75,000] . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up.
1 comment:
First of all, let me commend you on a well written and insightful post.
I do feel that your post is missing an angle that, if included, would lead to an entire different set of conclusions.
You examined the tax contribution by income bracket, which is well known and published on numerous financial sites.
However, I believe that if you looked at the amount of disposable income and its ratio to gross income, it would show a very different picture.
To wit:
An individual who makes $40000, pays $2000 in taxes, and has a disposable income of $3000 (after paying bills of $35000 for a family at the edge of the poverty line) is looking at a ratio of 12.5% (disposable income to total).
On the other hand, an individual who makes $400000, pays $120000 in taxes and has a disposable income of $235000 (400k - 120k - 35k) at the level of a poverty line (although this individual would probably *choose* to spend more), actually has a higher percentage of disposable income.
So, in effect, a progressive tax structure is in a way more "fair" than a flat tax.
Remember, the proportional impact of tax shrinks as the amount of disposable income grows.
A $2000 tax bill hurts a lot more if you bring is $2500 a month than a $10000 tax bill if you bring in $35000 a month.
Post a Comment