Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Politics

Sampling the Obama Budget's Revenue Raisers

Peter Suderman | 3.5.2014 1:02 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
Whitehouse.gov

President Obama's budget proposes raising tax revenue above its historical average over the next decade in order to pay for federal spending. So where does all the new revenue come from? Tax hikes and tax-code changes on high earners, the energy industry, tobacco, and more.

The Cato Institute's Nicole Kaeding samples a few of the revenue raisers in the new White House budget plan: 

  • Buffet Tax" ($53 billion): President Obama resurrected this tax that would require high-income individuals to pay at least 30% of their income in taxes.
  • Limiting tax teduction ($598 billion): President Obama would also limit the value of itemized deductions for high-income earners.
  • Changes to the "Death Tax" ($131 billion): The president suggests going back to the estate tax rules of 2009 which would increase the marginal tax rate on estates and lower the exemption, subjecting more assets to taxation.
  • Changes to oil and gas taxation ($44 billion): Frequently criticized by the president, these tax provisions are not subsidies to oil and gas companies, but instead ameliorate the tax code's improper treatment of capital expenditures.
  • Changes to international taxation ($276 billion): Instead of moving the United States to a territorial tax system like the rest of the industrialized world, the president proposes further raising taxes on corporation with overseas earnings.
  • Cap on 401(k)/IRA Contributions ($28 billion): This provision would prohibit individuals from contributing to retirement accounts if the balance is greater than $3 million.
  • Increase in tobacco taxes ($78 billion): To pay for his universal pre-k proposal, President Obama would increase the tobacco tax from $1.10/pack to $1.95/pack.

The folks at Americans for Tax Reform have more detail on the energy tax changes here. 

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Senate Rejects DOJ Nominee Who Defended Convicted Cop-Killer Mumia Abu Jamal

Peter Suderman is features editor at Reason.

PoliticsPolicyBudgetTaxes
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (79)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Pro Libertate   11 years ago

    Is the point of analyzing the fake budget (because, of course, it's going nowhere, as everyone knows) to highlight it for the political fraud that it is? Obviously, Obama is looking to score electoral points for his party in some mysterious way by not actually doing anything.

    1. Warty   11 years ago

      It's to help when it comes time to give speeches about how the 1% use CITIZENS UNITED to keep from having to PAY their FAIR SHARE.

      1. Pro Libertate   11 years ago

        Really, do lefties totally buy this, or do they secretly know it's bullshit but join in the Big Lie to beat the Republicans?

        1. Episiarch   11 years ago

          It has nothing to do with buying it. They've been to told to regurgitate it, and they do. Remember, "doublethink" is a real thing; they can actually believe two contradictory things at once, and do so all the time. It helps that they're bonecrushingly stupid.

          1. Pro Libertate   11 years ago

            I just can't comprehend the mindset that says, "Political masters have spoken. Must obey." Especially when even the slightest look at reality shows that these people are destroying our wealth, security, and God knows what else.

            1. Episiarch   11 years ago

              You're not a desperately insecure moron who wants nothing more than to belong, and finds that a TEAM will accept you if you just follow the orders. See the difference?

              1. waffles   11 years ago

                Well I never really wanted to belong to anything, but otherwise you've got me pegged.

              2. Pro Libertate   11 years ago

                No, we're not TEAM statists, but we are willing to learn.

            2. Warty   11 years ago

              even the slightest look at reality shows

              Good idea. We'll call it America's Next Top President and have events where the contestants have to drone-murder citizens, evade special prosecutors, etc.

  2. Certified Public Asskicker   11 years ago

    Changes to the "Death Tax" ($131 billion): The president suggests going back to the estate tax rules of 2009 which would increase the marginal tax rate on estates and lower the exemption, subjecting more assets to taxation.

    I see this happening. Old people still get their goodies, but once their dead and gone the government can raid what's left.

    1. Pro Libertate   11 years ago

      Why do they need tax revenue at all, since they're spending many billions of money they don't have?

      1. Certified Public Asskicker   11 years ago

        I think they understand the theory that it can't go on forever (maybe?).

        Taxing dead people is one of the easier ways to collect revenue.

        1. Scruffy Nerfherder   11 years ago

          Taxing dead people heirs is one of the easier ways to collect revenue.

          FIFY

    2. General Butt Naked   11 years ago

      Shouldn't this one be called the "buffet tax"?

      1. Certified Public Asskicker   11 years ago

        Not when he sells life insurance.

      2. Loki   11 years ago

        I'm sure he's furiously fapping over this as we speak.

  3. Palin's Buttplug   11 years ago

    Total = roughly $1.07 billion over ten years.

    Or = one Iraq War (depending on your bias).

    1. Brandon   11 years ago

      Are you actually getting stupider?

      1. Episiarch   11 years ago

        Hey, stop picking on Tulpa! He's had a rough week!

        1. Certified Public Asskicker   11 years ago

          Tulpa isn't talented enough to pull of Shreek's shtick.

          1. Episiarch   11 years ago

            I wouldn't call that talented. It's not like it's hard to get people around here to respond to a sockpuppet.

            1. Certified Public Asskicker   11 years ago

              Sorry, what I meant is there is Shreek stupid and Tulpa stupid. Both unique.

              1. Episiarch   11 years ago

                Look, man, don't sell Tulpa's stupid short. He's capable of being all measure of incredibly stupid, including shriek stupid.

            2. General Butt Naked   11 years ago

              It's not like it's hard to get people around here to respond to a sockpuppet.

              Yeah, they talk to you, MARY.

              1. Episiarch   11 years ago

                They're on to me!

              2. Scruffy Nerfherder   11 years ago

                ooooooooooooooooo.......

                Fight fight fight fight fight......

      2. tarran   11 years ago

        It's not sentient. It is merely trying to elicit a response.

        The kindest, most humane thing you can do to it is to ignore it.

        1. So very tired   11 years ago

          You mean like you totally fail to when you post this stupid crap every time it posts?

          You do realize you are not ignoring it when you do that right?

          But more importantly, who fucking cares what you think about the subject that you need to share it ALL THE FUCKING TIME.

          You think it's a sock. We get it. We got it MONTHS ago after the first dozen times you posted it.

          1. So very tired   11 years ago

            And by the way, it almost certainly is a sock.

            I just can't stand being fucking nagged like that. "It's a sock nag nag nag"

            god shut up about it already

      3. Loki   11 years ago

        BOOOOOOOOSSSSSSSSHHHHHH!!!!111!!!!11! has been all he's got left for a while now.

    2. Lord Humungus   11 years ago

      that's one thing PB never stops doing, equating apples to oranges.

    3. Sevo   11 years ago

      Palin's Buttplug|3.5.14 @ 1:10PM|#
      "Total = roughly $1.07 billion over ten years."

      EIGHT fucking percent, dipshit!
      8 8 8 8 8 8 8
      Not ten percent, like you can find one in ten people. Nope. EIGHT PERCENT!
      Go fuck you daddy.

      1. Loki   11 years ago

        EIGHT fucking percent, dipshit!

        Did I miss some ecpic shriek stupidity in another thread? What's this new "8%" meme?

        1. Fr?ulein Nikki   11 years ago

          PB linked to some story about how great the ACA is, failing to notice that the same poll indicated only 8% of people actually wanted to keep the law in its current form.

      2. Juice   11 years ago

        TIL the Iraq War cost a billion dollars.

  4. Heroic Mulatto   11 years ago

    Changes to international taxation ($276 billion): Instead of moving the United States to a territorial tax system like the rest of the industrialized world, the president proposes further raising taxes on corporation with overseas earnings.

    It is impossible to fully articulate how injurious this would be to the economy.

    1. Episiarch   11 years ago

      Let's guess: businesses with any overseas presence flee like the US has been consumed with a zombie outbreak?

      1. tarran   11 years ago

        It's fucking amazing.

        The morons in the U.S. government are recreating Turkish style crony capitalism here in the U.S.!

        Just watch! The next step is to have rules about how much foreign ownership is allowed to operate in the U.S. with even more stringent exit controls to keep capital from fleeing the country.

        1. Episiarch   11 years ago

          Oh, I'm watching, and dreading. They really are this stupid. But we already knew that. If Obamacare didn't signal to anyone with a brain how stupid these people are, there's no hope for them.

          1. Swiss Servator, alles klar?   11 years ago

            I am so happy I work for a multi-national that appears to be a walking piggie bank to O!.

      2. Heroic Mulatto   11 years ago

        Just like all of Obama's cool musician friends who make Ireland their primary residence.

    2. Palin's Buttplug   11 years ago

      The overall top rate would fall to 28% from 35% though. It would remove the perverse incentive to move overseas we have now.

      1. Heroic Mulatto   11 years ago

        The incentive is to escape usurious minimum wage laws. The companies that have a large overseas presence are what we have left for manufacturing (barring the defense industry), not service. What this will do is seal the deal and have them move corporate over there as well.

        1. Jordan   11 years ago

          QE and regulatory compliance costs encourage outsourcing as well. And Obama is all-in on both of those.

        2. ~Knarf Yenrab~   11 years ago

          The incentive is to escape usurious minimum wage laws.

          What's wrong with loving your wife with a minimum wage?

      2. Sevo   11 years ago

        Palin's Buttplug|3.5.14 @ 1:19PM|#
        'argle bargle'

        Go fuck your daddy, shitpile.

  5. Rhywun   11 years ago

    Where did this sudden infatuation they all have with "Universal Pre-K" come from?

    1. General Butt Naked   11 years ago

      The younger age that the indoctrination begins, the better it takes.

    2. tarran   11 years ago

      They've expanded the existing bureaucracy to absurd levels.

      They need new bureaucracies to colonize.

      1. Episiarch   11 years ago

        If they don't keep expanding, they stagnate. They need to expand as much as possible under a like-minded president. And oh man have they been.

    3. Heroic Mulatto   11 years ago

      Because we must waste money on something educational research has consistently proven to be of little effect.

    4. prolefeed   11 years ago

      Where did this sudden infatuation they all have with "Universal Pre-K" come from?

      Nothing sudden about it. Many leftists have been wanting to take other people's children from them starting roughly at birth and hire loyal Democrats to indoctrinate them to worship the government.

      They see letting kids escape that for the first 5 years of their life as a failure of policy.

      1. Rhywun   11 years ago

        Yeah I figured as much, but lately it's been a trifecta with my mayor, my governor, and now my president yammering about it. It's like the left wing of the Democratic party is in lockstep more than usual lately.

    5. PapayaSF   11 years ago

      1) Sounds nice to bleeding heart voters.
      2) Payoff to single mothers.
      3) Payoff to SEIU and teacher's unions.

  6. Lord Humungus   11 years ago

    Is there nothing they can't keep their grimy little hands off?

    1. General Butt Naked   11 years ago

      Do you like buttsex? Or abortion?

      'Cause you're allotted those two.

      1. Lord Humungus   11 years ago

        whooo!

      2. Zombie Jimbo   11 years ago

        Umm, can we choose whether to give or receive? In either case?

        1. UnCivilServant   11 years ago

          No, that is decided by the bureaucracy.

          1. Swiss Servator, alles klar?   11 years ago

            Or Warty and STEVE SMITH

  7. Sevo   11 years ago

    Pretty sure the next "loophole' that'll get closed is the one that lets you keep some of what you've earned.
    Combine that with an "anti-going-out-of-business" law and Tony and shreek will die of joy!

  8. robc   11 years ago

    This provision would prohibit individuals from contributing to retirement accounts if the balance is greater than $3 million.

    So if in 1990 I had invested all of my IRA in Cisco stock, I would be forbidden from adding anymore today?

    Thats fucking stupid.

    Why $3 million?

    1. Swiss Servator, alles klar?   11 years ago

      "at some point you have enough money"

      1. robc   11 years ago

        Things the government has never said.

        Is the pyramid still on tv? If not, it should be brought back.

        1. Swiss Servator, alles klar?   11 years ago

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0-YJ1zCJAU?

          O! said it - though I mistook ... 'made' instead of 'have'.

    2. robc   11 years ago

      Because I was curious:

      2250 shares bought at the IPO in 1990 would have been worth about $3 million at its peak in 2000.

      Of course, that assumes good timing. But it would still be worth $750k today.

      1. Auric Demonocles   11 years ago

        How much would it have cost to buy those shares?

        1. Auric Demonocles   11 years ago

          It looks like it was about 8 cents a share at the IPO, so like $180.

    3. Lord Humungus   11 years ago

      because you don't need any more!

    4. CE   11 years ago

      Because no one needs a retirement account over 3 million dollars. Except government employees, if you calculate the equivalent cash value of their pension plans.

    5. Eric L   11 years ago

      There are ways to get around this. First thing that came to mind are variable annuities. There is no limit to how much you can contribute to variable annuities, which are really just tax-deferred plans like IRAs (even have similar withdrawal restrictions/penalties).

      The next step will be for the feds to confiscate all retirement accounts and dole out to us in retirement what they think we need.

  9. Swiss Servator, alles klar?   11 years ago

    "Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes"

    Any?

    1. robc   11 years ago

      About 5 minutes later he raised the cigarette tax.

      1. Auric Demonocles   11 years ago

        Even sooner than they he stopped doing public campaign financing.

    2. robc   11 years ago

      About 5 minutes later he raised the cigarette tax.

  10. Spartacus   11 years ago

    IIRC, current federal revenue is about $3.3 trillion. That works out to just over $9 billion per day, which by my rough calculation is enough Franklins to fill a 32 ft shipping container. Every. Single. Day.

    Lack of revenue ain't the problem.

    1. CE   11 years ago

      It is when you're spending 10 billion dollars a day.

  11. Auric Demonocles   11 years ago

    Apparently Obama put a big tax on alt-text too.

  12. Swiss Servator, alles klar?   11 years ago

    I was not angry since I came to Reason
    Until this instant. Take a trumpet, Auric;
    Ride thou unto the O! Administration on yon hill:
    If they will fight with us, bid them come down,
    Or void the field; they do offend our sight:
    If they'll do neither, we will come to them,
    And make them skirr away, as swift as stones
    Enforced from the old Assyrian slings:
    Besides, we'll cut the alt-text of those we have,
    And not a picture of them that we shall take
    Shall taste our mercy. Go and tell them so.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

The Fourth of July Is a Celebration of Freedom—From Government

John Stossel | 7.4.2025 12:01 AM

A Broad Ruling Against Trump's Immigration Policies Illustrates Alternatives to Universal Injunctions

Jacob Sullum | 7.3.2025 4:40 PM

Environmental Regulations Are Literally Baking Europeans to Death

Jack Nicastro | 7.3.2025 3:38 PM

Federal Prison Guards Allegedly Beat an Inmate to a Pulp. The Supreme Court Says He Can't Sue.

Billy Binion | 7.3.2025 2:48 PM

Jurassic World Rebirth Chases Summer Movie Nostalgia

Peter Suderman | 7.3.2025 1:40 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!