State of the Union

Beware Obama's State of the Union Tax Hike

The president's new tax plan will wreak economic havoc.

|

Trying to bury bad news by releasing it over a holiday weekend is one of the oldest tricks in the book.

What makes it funny in the case of President Obama is that the bad news isn't some inspector general's report or inside-the-Beltway scandal, but the details of the $320 billion tax increase that Obama himself plans to ask for in his State of the Union address this week.

The White House fact sheet on the tax increase was released at 8 p.m. on Saturday night of the three-day Martin Luther King Jr. holiday weekend. Compare it with how Obama released another aspect of his State of the Union policy package, free community college. That initiative got a weekday presidential speech. The tax increase to pay for it got the Saturday night fact-sheet treatment.

And it's no wonder that this White House treats its own tax policy as if it is some sort of embarrassment. It is.  Some day, when historians look back on the Obama administration, the Saturday night tax-grab will loom right up there with Benghazi, the broken Obamacare web site, and the je suis Charlie no-show as one of this presidency's lowest moments.

Low, but telling, because it shows how this administration approaches tax policy not from the point of view of raising the revenues necessary to run the government, and not from the view of creating the maximum incentives for growth and innovation, but rather as a kind of zero-sum, redistributionist means of political warfare. It is tax policy as power and punishment, tax policy as vengeance.

So Obama's 2012 opponent, Mitt Romney, had an individual retirement account valued at between $20 million and $100 million? Fine, Obama's fact sheet complains of "300 extraordinarily wealthy individuals who have accumulated more than $25 million each in IRAs." Obama proposed to deal with this problem retroactively, by taxing IRAs "once balances are about $3.4 million, enough to provide an annual income of $210,000 in retirement."

So banks are having success working with Republicans to roll back elements of the Dodd-Frank law, and JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon complains publicly that it's un-American for his bank to be "under assault" by five or six regulators at once? Fine, Obama's fact sheet proposes $110 billion in new taxes over 10 years on large banks, investment management firms, and insurance companies.

So some Christian conservatives or doctors', lawyers', and bankers' wives—in other words, Republicans—prefer to stay home with the kids? Fine, Obama's fact sheet creates a new "second earner credit," a $500 tax goodie that stay-at-home moms and home-schoolers can forget about, except that their family's money will be taken to give it away to others.

Even the internal logic of the Obama tax increase is flawed.

The fact sheet makes the case for an increase to the 28 percent rate on capital gains on the grounds that it was the top rate at the end of the Reagan administration. But no one in the Obama administration is talking about returning to the 28% top Reagan rate on income, a rate much lower than the current 39.6 percent. Nor is anyone talking about returning to Reaganite spending levels.

The Obama administration is running around paying lip service to the idea of cutting the corporate income tax rate on the grounds that ours is uncompetitive relative to lower rates elsewhere. But when it comes to raising the capital gains rate, the international competitiveness issue suddenly disappears from the Obama analysis.

A similar inconsistency is on display in the way the Obama administration makes the case for changes to the estate tax. The administration claims that its proposal to end the step-up in tax basis at death would "sharply reduce" what it calls "'lock-in' incentives to hold assets for generations, even when resources could be reinvested more productively elsewhere." But an increase in capital gains tax would increase the lock-in effect. If the Obama administration is really concerned about lock-in, it should reduce capital gains taxes and eliminate the death tax. Then, and only then, there might be a case for eliminating the step-up in basis.

Finally, the administration talks about the benefits of savings and of higher education. Yet it's proposing to start taxing withdrawals from section 529 college savings accounts. That would force more families to take out federal government-backed student loans, with income-based repayment or forgiveness programs for those who enter government-approved professions or earn incomes that the government deems sufficiently low.

None of these tax increases is likely to become law in the next two years with a Republican Congress. A Democratic presidential candidate may try to make these proposals the stuff of a campaign. But he or she may have a tough time. After all, you can't run an entire presidential campaign over a holiday weekend.

NEXT: The DEA Fights Drugs by Collecting Your Phone Records

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they 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 for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. They’ve already leveled the largest new tax in the history of the country, no? Why get embarrassed now?

    1. At this point they’re not even hiding the fact that this is all just about wealth redistribution.

      1. I, for one, have *never* forgotten Joe the Plumber.

        1. The guy who fixed and installed plumbing pipe and plumbing fixtures for a living BUT HAD NO PLUMBING CREDENTIAL?

          I wonder if he can weld up a killdozer?

      2. Did they ever bother hiding that? Wealth redistribution and identity politics are all he’s ever had.

    2. I just purchased a great Lancia after having earned $8533 this last 4 weeks and in excess of ten-grand last-month . with-out a doubt this is the most-comfortable work I have ever done . I actually started 3 months ago and practically straight away was earning over $73 per hour . visit this web-site

      http://www.Fox-Survey.comOK

      Plz don’t inlude OK

  2. “….free community college. That initiative got a weekday presidential speech. The tax increase to pay for it got the Saturday night fact-sheet treatment.”

    They don’t even see it, do they?

    1. referring to the “free” / “tax increase to pay for it”, I was.

  3. FTFFS: Address a basic unfairness in the tax system. Most middle-class retirees spend down their assets during retirement, which means they owe income taxes on whatever capital gains they’ve accrued.

    All right! He’s eliminating the capital gains tax!

    *** whisper from off-stage ***

    *Damn* it!

    1. Much of those capital gains have accrued only due to inflationary monetary policy over the years. Not much real gain in purchasing power at all.

      1. Which, of course, is why the capital gains tax was invented in the first place – to keep anyone from escaping the effects of monetary inflation.

  4. Sticking it to the One Per Cent; that’s what this administration is all about.

    1. Nonsense. They are the one percent. All this talk of taxing the rich is for show. They intend to tax the middle class.

      1. Exactly

      2. ^THIS.

        It may be sticking it to some in the lower reaches of the 1%, though.

      3. Of course! They could take everything the “One Per Cent” have and it would still not be enough to pay for all the crap they want. So naturally he middle class will have to ante up just as it always has. If Obama and crew had their way there wouldn’t be a middle class except for public employees.

  5. Someone name one scenario in which it would be appropriate to raise taxes on the very rich.

    1. Fuck off and die.

    2. Zombie King George III invades to make us rejoin his sorry ass empire.

      1. Yep, the libertarian concept of a society free of coercion and force: We can only force people to pay for programs that involve shooting other people.

        1. Tony|1.19.15 @ 4:52PM|#
          “Yep, the libertarian concept of a society free of coercion and force: We can only force people to pay for programs that involve shooting other people.”

          This is rich, coming from a shit-bag who favors shooting people for all sorts of reasons, not least of which is emptying their pockets.
          Fuck off, slaver.

        2. We can only force people to pay for programs that involve shooting other people.

          Lol, you took a comment starting with “Zombie King George” seriously.

        3. Sorry, Tony, that is not “the libertarian concept of a society free of coercion and force.” Perhaps you have forgotten that we libertarians are also badmouthed by your ilk as “isolationists”, because unlike Democrats, Republicans, progressives, and socialists, we actually oppose police and military spending.

          1. Entirely? Are you an anarchist? Most libertarians would say they’re for the collective protection of property rights and the preservation of the country. It is both deeply ironic and absolutely true that libertarians, who desire to reduce the amount of coercion in the world, are only OK with such government programs that involve actual physical violence.

            1. So, if a gunman shows up to your house, I presume you won’t call the police, since your argument is based on the premise that defending someone from violence is equivalent to inflicting it on them.

            2. What government programs that involve “actual physical violence” are supported by libertarians? Cops? Drones? Airstrikes?

              If libertarians ran the government, police force (and bad teachers too, OMG) in non dangerous parts of the country would be cut in half and the police would be relieved from non essential enforcement nationwide. I would be fine with that.

            3. All government programs involve “actual physical violence,” to the extent that if anyone does not obey, the government uses violence to enforce it. Your most beloved government programs (education, Social Security, Medicare, etc.) are, at their root, all enforced by violence.

              1. all enforced by violence

                Perhaps I shall now refer to Tony as Violent Tony, or perhaps Violent T, maybe just VT for short. Hmmmm

    3. First define “very rich” shithead. I and a lot of other middle class individuals have 529 accounts, either to pay for myself to go back to school someday, or to send children to school someday. Also, anyone with any investment income or who win any prizes of monetary value will be hit with the capital gains increase. These aren’t just tax increases on the “very rich,” but then again you probably already knew that, you fucking mendacious piece of shit.

      1. I just asked a question.

        1. And so will I:

          Are you retarded?

          1. The fact is, the rich already bear a large share of the tax burden, and rightfully so. But to single out the rich for harsher tax treatment, just because of envy, is a Bad Thing. That’s the problem with the “progressive” income tax and the death tax.

            1. It isn’t envy – it’s jealousy. Plain old dog-in-the-manger jealousy.

    4. If the the govt had no “non-essential” workers or programs.

      Oh wait- it does and that is exactly what it calls them.

      http://www.washingtontimes.com…../?page=all

      Go home, Tony, you’re drunk again.

      1. So you would expect a private company to only employ people who can keep the bare minimum functionality of the business up and running?

        1. YES! Why would they hire people they don’t absolutely need?

          Do you really think private companies can afford to keep non-essential people on the payroll? They generally go to great lengths to AVOID hiring people because it such a pain thanks to- wait for it- the many, many govt regulations you think are so wonderful.

        2. Absolutely. Work is slowing down at my company. They offered a voluntary leave program at the end of last year. My managers are digging trying to find more work for me. I just had a conversation with someone who’s worked for the company for 10 years and said this was the worst he’d ever seen it and that it was going to be a “bloodbath” this summer.

          Companies employ people because those people do work that needs to be done in order to generate some sort of profit. If there’s no work to be done, then the company doesn’t need those people.

          1. I think what Tony is referring to is executives.

            To the Tonys of the world, executives of private companies collect seven and eight figure salaries to play golf and eat sushi off of naked women. Tony is convinced that all companies can just let these people go and nothing else would happen.

            Even if that perception of corporate executives happens to be true, Tony cannot fathom that there are similarly unburdened people making a fat living off the taxpayer’s dime.

            1. Nobody in his right mind would argue in support of government wasting money.

              1. Nobody in his right mind would argue in support of government wasting money.

                Not explicitly no. Implicitly OTOH…

              2. Do you believe, then, that there is Nothing Left to Cut in our government?

              3. Keynes did precisely that. Hell, Krugman said it would be great if government launched a monumental emergency program to defend against space invaders.

                1. Well, you have to admit, space invaders are a bigger threat than climate change. Especially if the space invader is a really big chunk of rock traveling at 100,000 miles per hour.

              4. Then explain why Head Start still exists.

    5. “National emergency.”

      *** bites lip ***

    6. One scenario under which it would be appropriate to raise taxes on the rich would be in the event that they pay lower taxes than average people.

      Note that I didn’t say “pay at a lower rate”.

      All the caterwauling about the low taxes Mitt Romney paid when he paid a measly little $1.9 million? Let’s just see a show of hands, how many of us have coughed up $1.9 million to Uncle “We’re Not Greedy For Wanting All Your Money, You’re Greedy For Not Wanting To Give It To Us” Sam in our entire lives?

      1. Wow, and I’m told liberals are the ones who emote rather than think. Yeah that sounds like a lot of money. But it’s not a lot of money to Mitt Romney. He remains very wealthy after taxes. To make up the shortfall from your regressive system we’d have to tax the poor more, and a poor person paying a tiny fraction of Mitt’s tax debt would cripple her ability to even feed and clothe herself. What I’m saying is your moral priorities are fucked up beyond belief.

        1. No, actually that would be the result of the system you advocate, since you’d rather tax whoever you can than cut spending to makeup for a shortfall.

          1. Oh, you mean your idea of a fair tax system is one in which your entire ideological agenda gets enacted via means other than asking the people whether they want it? Who would have guessed.

            1. This guy wants to force me to be free!

              1. This is sufficient for you isn’t it? Your draconian laissez-faire agenda in which most people would be made more miserable is all justified because you call it freedom.

                1. most people would be made more miserable

                  Logic fail, unsupported premise, cite needed.

                2. How about we split this nation up into 50 (or more) separate countries? That way, you can go off into the Democratic People’s Republic of Kalifornia and enjoy the workers’ paradise, while I’ll go off into Libertopia (formerly known as Montana) to enjoy my hellish deathscape? It’s a win-win.

                  1. Wait…you have Missoula in Montana, yes? Are we sure that goes right when the 50 country plan is enacted?

                  2. That wouldn’t work because he wouldn’t be able to steal from you at gunpoint to pay for Kalifornia’s poor. You know, because he wouldn’t care for them out of his own pocket.

            2. via means other than asking the people whether they want it

              Lolwut? Looks like you dun’ put sum werds in his mouth.

        2. To make up the shortfall

          Why is there a shortfall, Tony?

        3. Wow, and I’m told liberals are the ones who emote rather than think. Yeah that sounds like a lot of money. But it’s not a lot of money to Mitt Romney. He remains very wealthy after taxes.

          Good for him. The American Dream is supposed to be all about accumulating wealth and prosperity for oneself, isn’t it?

          To make up the shortfall from your regressive system we’d have to tax the poor more, and a poor person paying a tiny fraction of Mitt’s tax debt would cripple her ability to even feed and clothe herself.

          OR, you could limit the government so a short list of specific duties and just pay for those to be implemented in as efficient a manner as possible.

          What I’m saying is your moral priorities are fucked up beyond belief.

          That’s rich coming from someone who thinks that only when the “very rich” are so poor as to be needing food stamps will they have “paid their fare share” to Papa Gubmint.

          1. Also, only in communist nations is wealth measured by “need” rather than “ability to honestly accumulate”.

      2. To put $1.9M in context: if one earns an average of $50K/yr for 38 years, that person will have earned $1.9M in total.

        Mitt paid as much or more in taxes in 2011 as many of us will earn in our lifetime.

    7. Someone name one scenario in which it would be appropriate to raise taxes on the very rich.

      To whomever is playing Tony Clifton today: The minute the rich start consuming more per capita government services than they are already paying for. That is what taxes are for. And since the rich have fewer children than the noble poor and are by definition very unlikely to be drawing food stamps, Section 8 housing, EITC and Medicaid I guess the answer is?never.

      1. If the rich were really clever they’d just give all their money away and become poor and live the good life. Why are they so dumb?

        1. Why are they so dumb?

          What exactly is gratifying about a lifetime of poor choices and the resulting outcomes?

        2. If the rich were really clever

          The rich are really clever, that’s why most of them are rich. You know what clever people do with their money when greedy people want to take more and more of it? Somewhere else.

    8. Why is taking from wealthy peril,e so important to your kind?

      1. Suicidy|1.19.15 @ 5:18PM|#
        “Why is taking from wealthy peril,e so important to your kind?”

        Guilt and envy. And the thrill of being a vicarious thug.

      2. It should be even more important to you, who profess to care about the imbalanced federal budget as if it were the biggest problem in the universe.

        1. Conversely, it shouldn’t be a big deal to people who think that budget deficits pay for themselves.

          1. The pitiable horror of the 1% having to pay 4% more in taxes shouldn’t be a big deal to anyone.

            1. The pitiable horror of the 1% having to pay 4% more in taxes shouldn’t be a big deal to anyone.

              Are you in the 1%, Tony? No? Then how would you know?

            2. For class envy reactionaries, I’m shocked that they think its some grand victory. But, that was essentially rolling back the Bush tax cuts.

              Maybe one day we’ll really stick it to the rich with a 42% tax bracket.

              Either way, I would think these dunderheads who want to raise tax revenue and reduce the deficit should realize that austerity policies are for the economically illiterate.

            3. “The pitiable horror of the 1% having to pay 4% more in taxes…”

              Nice trick, Tony. Raising the tax from 24% to 28% is about a 17% tax increase, not 4%.

              But like it has been said, you probably already knew that.

              1. If progressives could do math, they wouldnt be progressive.

        2. Because there isn’t some other solution, like say, cutting spending right?

    9. Tony|1.19.15 @ 4:40PM|#
      “Someone name one scenario in which it would be appropriate to raise taxes on the very rich.”

      After they cut the budget by at least 50%. Then if we still need higher taxers, if they raise taxes on everyone.
      THEN it’s OK to raise the taxes on the ‘very rich’.
      See how simple that is? Even a brain-dead proggy can do it.

      1. I pretty much told him that this morning. And again just now. I’m a sucker, I guess.

    10. It is NEVER appropriate to raise taxes on anyone ever.

    11. What other sites does Tony frequent?
      We should visit.

    12. I can’t think of any. Can you?

      1. When taxes are too low to pay for the things we’ve bought.

        1. If it’s really ‘we’ then by extension the middle and lower classes should also have their taxes hiked. Especially if they’re the ones apparently benefiting from said programs.

        2. we’ve bought

          Lol, we….

        3. Maybe “we” shouldn’t buy things “we” don’t have the money to pay for.

        4. But Obama is not proposing to pay for things “we’ve” bought; he’s proposing to raise taxes to buy more stuff. The “things we’ve bought” still won’t be paid for; in fact we’ll be worse off since no government program ever costs what its cheerleaders say it will–it almost always costs far more. So we’ll be yet deeper in debt.

    13. IOW, when is theft appropriate?

    14. A sports team owners tax to get back the money the citizens paid for to build stadiums for billionaire owners to watch their millionaire players chase a ball.

    15. If government were cut down to its proper size and scope and some clear threat with like a major war or an asteroid strike appeared, it might be OK to temporarily raise taxes to take care of the situation.

      As it is now, if there is something that really needs some money spent on it, there is plenty of useless bullshit that can be cut.

    16. Ok, I’ll bite. Imagine a government performing only its constitutional duties, not handing out free shit to political allies. Imagine one that doesn’t waste billions on graft, fraud, waste, wars, “loans,” and abuse. Then imagine that this government needs a bit more money, so it raises the flat tax rate on everyone. There.

    17. Someone name one scenario in which it would be appropriate to raise taxes on the very rich.

      There isn’t one. How about you name one scenario in which it would be appropriate to discriminate against people of color.

    18. If we cut spending to 20% of GDP, and then we had a deficit, I would support raising the flat tax.

      This would involve raising taxes on the very rich…as well as all other citizens.

  6. Any college age kids out there looking for a sure thing? Get an Accounting degree and you’ll be able to get a job paying 70K right out of college at a Big Bank as an internal auditor. They can’t fill those jobs fast enough.

  7. The rich get richer, though.

    More than half the world’s wealth will be owned by just one per cent of the population by next year as global inequality soars, anti-poverty charity Oxfam said today.

    In a report released ahead of this week’s annual meeting of the international elite at Davos in Switzerland, Oxfam said the top tier had seen their share of wealth increase from 44 per cent in 2009 to 48 per cent in 2014.

    On current trends, it will exceed 50 per cent in 2016.

    How can this be? Obama talks about economic justice all the time.

    1. Those 1% obviously did half of the productive work in the world.

      1. Your chocolate Jesus has been in office for over six years. For two of those years your team had the presidency and both houses of congress. Yet the evil 1% are still getting richer, inequality greater.

        I would tell you what this means, but I want to see if you can figure it out yourself.

        *headsmack*

        Stupid me. You already know what it means and things are just the way you like them.

        1. I suppose the administration is constantly talking about the problem of wage stagnation for the middle class because it’s trying to distract us all from its evil plan to actually enact the Republican agenda. Which is funny you know–you are perfectly aware that your people have absolutely no intention of dealing with this problem or even acknowledging it as a problem. But it’s Obama’s fault because he had a Dem Congress for a few months during the middle of an economic catastrophe. And you can keep your racism to yourself, you inbred fuck.

          1. You want higher wages? Easy. Get the fuck out of the way of business. Instead of shoving thousands of new pages of regs down the nation’s throat every fucking year.

            If you want to know who is to blame for stagnating wages just look for your nearest mirror.

            P.S. Fuck you Tony

            1. So the wealthy interests echoing your complaint that they are too regulated have also somehow managed to amass all of the economic growth for themselves despite that deep and ongoing problem? Are they just lucky like that?

              1. Are they just lucky like that?

                Logic fail….. all weaksauce today, Tony. Weaksauce.

              2. Huge corporations love regulations because they raise the cost of entering a business category for any possible competitors… regulations crystalize and stagnate the top corporate tier and harm any up-and-comers. They are expected to complain out of reflex, but they much prefer a crony position than a free market.

          2. D-

          3. They are constantly talking about it while constantly doing nothing about it. It wasn’t a few months. It was two years. My people have no power to address anything. The republicans intend on doing exactly the same thing the democrats intend to do.

            The only people paying more taxes are the middle class Tony. The political class and their cronies are the one percent you dumb fuck, they are the ones getting richer. Two terms of Obumbles has made everything we had under Bush worse.

            Again, you fail to address my point.

            “And you can keep your racism to yourself, you inbred fuck.”

            Whut? In what was did I indicate racism? Is that supposed to distract me or put me on the defensive? What does it even mean?

            1. You said the word “chocolate” in reference to a dark skinned person.

              1. So did the ex-mayor of New Orleans, Ray whats-his-face.

          4. The mandates in Obamacare have raised the cost of health insurance paid for by employers. What effect do you think increasing costs to employers has on wages?

            1. I hear payroll taxes are a huge cost to business as well. Anyone care to explain what payroll taxes are and how they hurt pay raises? Does a raise in min wage increase payroll taxes? How come no one talks about payroll taxes?

      2. They obviously stole all that wealth.

        1. Historically speaking, large-scale theft is how large amounts of wealth tend to move from hand to hand.

          1. Damn that Bill Gates fucker!

          2. Historically speaking, your post would be considered a logical fallacy.

          3. Yes, and that would be true again if your preferred economic policies were implemented.

            Thankfully, we don’t live in Tony’s Governmental Theft Utopia, so this is not as of yet an issue.

            Shorter Tony: Attila the Hun got rich on appropriated wealth, therefore that must also be true today.

            You should look at global poverty rates, Tony. Given that they are now the lowest they have ever been in the history of the human species, I can’t bring myself to whine that the richest 1% own a few more yachts. If the poorest 10% are rich enough that they are no longer starving to death in abject poverty, that seems to me like a fair trade.

            1. But you and everyone else here are self-identified plutocracy apologists, so why does your opinion matter? As long as life is “good enough” for the peasants, the rich can thieve all they want. They are rich, which means they’re better after all.

              1. Class warfare rhetoric: you can almost feel the butt-hurt on the other side of that.

              2. Fuck off, Teeny. You’re nothing more than a thief who wants the government to rob from people because you’re too weak to do it yourself. The Ferguson looters have more balls than you do.

              3. Why does your opinion matter?

                As for the rich – yes, most of them probably are better than the Tonys of the world are.

          4. Care to cite some examples?

            1. Oh I dunno, the unprecedented wealth of the United States owing itself largely to the occupation of a resource-rich continent, the destruction of its inhabitants, and the exploitation of those resources using slave labor for centuries? I guess in the libertarian moral universe that is called cleverness and productivity.

              1. A collective guilt non sequitur. Fascinating.

                1. the destruction of its inhabitants

                  You’re right Tony, the American government using force to acquire Indian land and resources is bad! Now, back to you arguing for the American government using force to acquire money.

              2. Mexico and most countries in Africa are pretty resource rich, but somehow things didn’t work out as well for them. Same with Russia.

                I guess that’s called cleverness and productivity.

              3. People who owned slaves in the south were the 1% of their time? Whoa. Those guys should have really walloped the north, where they had all the industrialization.

                The Indians in the Americas plundered land and property (that’s human history) too, but they were twice as backwards as Europeans settlers who arrived on their shore. America is a powerhouse and a magnet for immigrants it is today because of the economic freedom that was unprecedented even at that time. They had people who knew what they were doing.

                There are dozens of “resources rich” crapholes that are human sardine cans everywhere.

              4. Tony|1.19.15 @ 5:32PM|#

                Oh I dunno

                Indeed.

          5. Tony|1.19.15 @ 5:06PM|#
            “Historically speaking, large-scale theft is how large amounts of wealth tend to move from hand to hand.”

            Yeah, it’s called “taxation”.

            1. And war and colonialism and piracy. But it’s just stupid to think that that justifies more of the same. It’s sort of a tricky question for libertarianism. But I think that the simple answer is that the only thing to do is just say “no more stealing from now on” at some point. And accept that you can’t redress the evils of the past without causing new problems that are just as bad.

          6. Exactly. And that kind of “large-scale theft” is what libertarians oppose and what you advocate.

      3. Well, those among the 1% that made their money through investment or founding companies certainly did.

        Those people among the 1% (including the Clintons and Obamas) that got their money through rent seeking and cronyism obviously did not do much of any productive work.

      4. No, some get their money from being close to government.

        Hillary Clinton for example makes here dubious fortune from speaking fees to Wall Street.

        Essentially pre-bribes.

        But you will vote for her, won’t you?

    2. More than half the world’s wealth will be owned by just one per cent of the population by next year as global inequality soars, anti-poverty charity Oxfam said today sixty million people.

      1. Seems a lot less surprising when you put it that way.

      2. Actually, global population is somewhere in the 7-7.2 billion range, so you are talking 70-72 million people.

    3. Did they bother to mention that the overall pie will get larger, or that regulations and central bank policies are largely to blame?

      1. But, ZERO SUMZ!!!

  8. Oxfam said it would call for action to tackle rising inequality at the Davos meeting, which starts on Wednesday, including a crackdown on tax dodging by corporations and progress towards a global deal on climate change.

    Nothing says, “Empower the poor and disenfranchised!” like higher taxes and bigger government.

  9. Those 1% obviously did half of the productive work in the world.

    The world needs ditch diggers, too.

    1. “How’d you like to mow my lawn?”

  10. Robert Mugabe is safely in the “One Per Cent” bracket. He’s one productive motherfucker.

    1. I’d be curious to know how much of “the 1%” are actually private citizens and how many are miscellaneous despots, tyrants, and high level government appointees. I’m guessing that probably covers at least a large plurality if not a majority of those EVUL 1%ers. But by all means, let’s listen to Tony and hil ilk prattle on about TEH KKKORPORASHUNZ!!!111!!11!!!! some more.

      1. Because obviously here in America, all wealth is legitimately earned, unless you’re poor, then you probably owe the billionaires something.

        1. No, all wealth is obviously suspect and therefore subject to confiscation at your whim.

        2. All wealth is legitimately earned, except for crony deals made by leftist progressives. Like Al Gore, or Peolsi’s husband.

          1. Nothing is earned. Wealth is deposited where the institutions that control that wealth see fit to deposit it. But I can see how you might think that all wealth (except by liberals) is earned when you equate having wealth with being virtuous.

            1. Wealth is deposited where the institutions that control that wealth see fit to deposit it.

              Wouldn’t you consider the government and federal reserve as one of those institutions?

              I watched a debate between an Austrian economist and an advocate of modern monetary theory over the weekend. The position of MMT was that the government holds a monopoly on the supply of money. He used two analogies.

              The first was when he held up his business card and explained that it was pretty worthless on it’s own. Then he asked how much value it would have if he told the audience that there was man with gun at every exit and in order to leave the room, you had to have a business card. He was explaining that the US dollar would be worthless if the US government didn’t require you to pay your taxes in dollars.

              The second analogy was that the government was like a referee holding a score card and the referee could give and take away points as it saw fit – because it has a monopoly on money.

              The Austrian’s response was: It would be immoral for you to post a gunman at every door. So why is it ok for the government to do it? And why are we playing this game? Don’t we have a choice?

              You want to consolidate economic power in the government without realizing you’re just exacerbating the problem you’re trying to solve.

            2. Wealth is deposited where the institutions that control that wealth see fit to deposit it.

              You are confusing wealth and money again.

        3. Not in America, but Putin is reported to be the second richest person on the planet (in excess of $40B).

        4. Because obviously here in America, all wealth is legitimately earned,

          Obviously, a lot of the wealth is not legitimately earned. And you want to make sure that even more wealth is not legitimately earned.

          See, taxation takes money both from people that earned it legitimately and those that didn’t, but then it is spent to line the pockets of billionaires in bed with the current government. And you cheer the whole system on.

          Crony capitalism and unearned billions are a major problem, and people like you supporting the crony capitalists in the administration are the cause of it.

        5. Because obviously here in America, all wealth is legitimately earned, unless you’re poor, then you probably owe the billionaires something.

          No all wealth is arbitrary, unless you are rich, in which case, we know you’re an asshole and a cheat by some unexplained, vague sixth sense that we have. I may not be sure if a poor person earned their wealth, but I damn well sure know that a rich bastard never does. Right, comrade?

      2. This is a bit dated:

        http://www.forbes.com/2006/05/…..oyals.html

        Forbes doesn’t include heads of state in their “richest persons” list.

      3. THIS. I think many on the left would be surprised at how many of the 1% aren’t plutocrats who run manufacturing plants that employ tens of thousands like the Kochs.

        They will run into County Superintendents in California, for example.

        But I’m guessing those people will be lauded as being very productive.

  11. “It is tax policy as power and punishment, tax policy as vengeance.”

    Let’s not kid ourselves. While the above statement is true, the targets are not who Obumbles professes them to be. ‘The Rich’ includes all of Congress and Obumbles himself. They will end up paying less in taxes than they do now. After the increase is sold the definition of who is rich will be expanded to include everyone in the middle. The money will not go for whatever purpose they tell us, it will go to cronies and pension funds for public employees/unions.

    How many times have we seen this shell game before?

    1. You silly old cranks would be tiresome if it weren’t the case that your preferred political party always proves you right when they get into power.

      1. Pathetic.

        In what way does that even remotely address my point?

        And your preferred political party always proves us right when they are in power.

        The obvious is staring you in the face but you cannot see it.

        1. It stares at me in the face whenever I visit one of your rightwing bubble websites or turn on FOX News, but as someone who prefers not to be confined, I don’t live in that bubble.

          What have you been proved right about? What catastrophe has befallen us because Obama is president?

          1. Seven million moochers who now have health insurance?

            Not to mention the poor, poor investment banker who has to pay 39% instead of 36% on his income in excess of 1 million dollars. Boohoohoo. He won’t be able to buy a second yacht in the Maldives if this keeps up. Where is your sympathy for Donald Trump, Tony? You are one heartless bastard!

            1. First, pay your debts.

              Second, my family took a $4600 hit on health insurance for plans that are lesser to what we had before. How can you support legislation that worsened our health coverage that cost more? Sounds like a Haliburton deal…
              Oh yeah, we were promised a $2500 reduction in premiums as well as keeping the same plans. Keep in mind that prior to the ACA, nobody was paying for our premiums.

            2. american socialist|1.19.15 @ 5:18PM|#
              …”Not to mention the poor, poor investment banker who has to pay 39% instead of 36% on his income in excess of 1 million dollars. Boohoohoo”

              You look good in envy-green, shitbag. Now, did you pay your mortgage or are you just one more pathetic moocher?

            3. I am one of those “moochers” and I had insurance before I was kicked off and told to join Obamacare. Fuck off statist.

            4. Seven million moochers who now have health insurance?

              Yeah, and hopefully they don’t get sick, or they’ll be out about $6500 before that insurance kicks in.

              I see you don’t know how deductibles work, you moron.

            5. What about the guy that builds the yachts?

          2. You’re in a prison of your own Marxist bullshit.

            1. I must be especially impenetrable since I spend such an inordinate amount of time reading libertarians. When was the last time you read Krugman?

              1. Tony|1.19.15 @ 5:39PM|#
                “I must be especially impenetrable since I spend such an inordinate amount of time reading libertarians.”

                Reading =/ comprehension.

              2. I must be especially impenetrable

                You are impenetrable because you’re in a prison? That’s a nice non-sequitur. Yet another logic fail. All this Krugman reading and all this illogic…

              3. Tony:

                I must be especially impenetrable since I spend such an inordinate amount of time reading libertarians.

                obsessed and butt-hurt does not equal impenetrable.

              4. Recently, when I inadvertantly swallowed poison.

      2. Tony|1.19.15 @ 4:51PM|#
        “You silly old cranks would be tiresome if it weren’t the case that your preferred political party always proves you right when they get into power.”

        You shitstains ARE tiresome. Fuck off.

      3. Since our preferred political party hasn’t gotten into power, it can’t have proven anything right.

      4. I don’t recall the Libertarians ever winning a presidential election.

    2. Have you ever checked to see what the actual numbers are on the global 1%, the richest 70 million or so on the planet?

      Chances are if you have a computer and the electricity to power it and the electricity isn’t getting to the cardboard box you live in via a dropcord, you’re within waving distance at least of the 1%.

      No explanation for what – if it’s the uniquely American corporate greed that accounts for inequality in this country – causes the inequality in the rest of the world. Even those parts of the world that are governed specifically on the premise that government exists to remedy the fact that it just ain’t fair that some gots and some don’t gots.

      1. Fun stat:

        US Poverty rate for a single person puts you in the top 15% of global wealth stats.

        But yea, I am sure that Socialism thing will work out fine.

      2. The dirty secret is that $250k and up is the 1% and that will include many, many government employees in California, NY state, etc.

  12. We need to return to the glory days of the robber barons with widows and orphans living on the streets.

  13. Nor is anyone talking about returning to Reaganite spending levels.

    Haha, good one. Why would we want to go back to living in caves and eating grubs and leaves?

  14. I think the absense of A.M or P.M. links is Reason’s way of saying that it thinks black folk are lazy. Sad really.

    1. Well, it *could* be Reason’s way of saying “This is a day *on*, not a day *off*!”

      1. Since today is MLK Day, I’ve got the little one on her day off from school. I took her with me to the store and, as she was eyeballing all the Valentine’s day candy, she asked me why holidays like Halloween and Christmas and Easter and Valentine’s Day get candy and holidays like today don’t get candy.

        I told her I didn’t know because I didn’t quite know how to explain to her that there isn’t a candy company in the world with the balls to market little dark chocolates for MLK Day. Little chocolate bunnies or little licorice babies? You’re out of your freakin’ mind.

        1. little licorice babies

          You’re dating yourself.

          1. No licorice Gummy Bears either?

  15. trying to distract us all from its evil plan to actually enact the Republican agenda.

    How can anyone not a moron or hard core tribalist (a subset of moronism) not recognize this administration as a continuation of the GWB regime?

    1. If you try and explain that to Tony he will fling shit accusing you of being a republican racist. And you hate the poor. You get your kicks by torturing animals, don’t you?

  16. Our skinny, cowardly, feminine, sissified little Marxist in the White House is certainly a wonder to behold.

    Never forget: Socialism is for the people, not the socialist.

  17. One might be able to make a case for taxing cap gains as ordinary income, or on step-up basis in an estate, as long as the gain is indexed to inflation. I’ve got a number of funds and stocks I’ve held for years (for dividends, e.g.) that are UP but when adjusted for inflation, I have no real gain at all.

    1. as long as the gain is indexed to inflation

      That’s just *crazy* talk, creech, and you know it.

      1. Yeah, the hidden tax of inflation destroys many “capital gains” and, to compound it, many unsophiscated investors forget to deduct rolled-over dividends that have accumulated in their mutual funds when calculating their gains. I’d bet the feds actually collect more than the statutes require when it comes to capital gains.

    2. Indexed for inflation? But that would defeat the whole purpose of the capital gains tax, which is to keep individuals from avoiding the effects of theft through monetary inflation. It is no accident that the 16th Amendment allowing income taxes was passed at the same time the Federal Reserve System was created and given control of the money supply.

  18. “The president’s new tax plan will wreak economic havoc”

    Ira, do you right-wingers just copy and paste your bylines from January, 2013? Talk about lazy.

    Can anyone show me any evidence that any tax increase on the rich in the last 30 years has resulted in any adverse effect? I mean, it surely has an effect on deficits, which has an effect on debt-to-GDP ratios. Someone told me those we’re important a while back– although they apparently weren’t too good with Microsoft Excel.

    1. any adverse effect?

      Any adverse effect on whom?

      1. Any obvious macroeconomic indicator. I’ve never seen any evidence that the types of tax increases on rich people that have been enacted since 1980 have had any negative effect on economic growth, unemployment or any measured economic statistic. I haven’t read my CATO institute handbook lately so I’m probably missing something. What did they say about Obama’s economic agenda back in 2009? Right as rain, those guys are.

        1. I’ve never seen any evidence that the types of tax increases on rich people that have been enacted since 1980 have had any negative effect on economic growth,

          Who gives a fuck about economic growth? I mean shooting every tenth person in the head would also be great for the economy…I mean more resources for the rest of us, right?

          The point is that taxation depends on the threat of deadly force upon peaceful people. Now you, as a sociopath, may be comfortable with threatening to imprison or kill peaceful, non-violent people in order to take their stuff. I, as a Buddhist, am not.

          1. Commie kid probably believes Eric Garner was a wrecker who got what he deserved.

          2. threat of deadly force

            You guys don’t even bother thinking about these terms do you? You’re talking about breaking the law. Do you think there should be no law? Is it really necessary to exaggerate the penalty for the crime of not paying taxes–because government goons really will kill you for some crimes and provocations, and I guarantee that you’re perfectly OK with those instances, Buddhist.

            1. Tony|1.19.15 @ 5:54PM|#
              “You guys don’t even bother thinking about these terms do you? You’re talking about breaking the law.”

              Just up-thread, this steaming pile of shit was aghast that money should be collected for defense.
              Now he’s justifying it for sitting on the wrong seat in the bus!

            2. There is no exaggeration. If a guy refuses to pay his taxes, you are okay with the government using whatever level of violence is necessary to get him to submit, up to and including death.

            3. You’re talking about breaking the law.

              Shorter Tony: There’s no threat of force if everyone obeys. Lol.

            4. Is it really necessary to exaggerate the penalty for the crime of not paying taxes

              Ask Lon Horiuchi.

              and I guarantee that you’re perfectly OK with those instances, Buddhist.

              Oh, and what would those be?

              1. Ask Lon Horiuchi.

                Just don’t do it while holding an infant.

            5. The law? You can make breathing against the law. In and if itself, it means nothing.

              1. You can make breathing against the law.

                It already is against the law unless you pay your Obamacare penalty/tax or health insurance premiums.

            6. Also, talk to Wesley Snipes about exaggerating penalties.

        2. Hey, speaking of economic predictions, remember when unemployment spiked significantly higher after the stimulus passed than what Obama’s economic team predicted it would be without the stimulus? Good times.

    2. All rise for the American Socialist theme song. Sing along if you know the words!

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFFWFkDAuM4

    3. Anectdotally, my old company owner once took his tax increase out of the budget he had set up for wage increases for his largely Democratic workers, and paid the difference to himself.

      1. Can’t say I blame him even one little bit.

    4. american socialist|1.19.15 @ 5:08PM|#
      …”Can anyone show me any evidence that any tax increase on the rich in the last 30 years has resulted in any adverse effect?”

      Yeah, slimebag, the erosion of the middle class.
      Oh, and have you paid your mortgage yet? Still licking mass murderer ass?

      1. “the erosion of the middle class.”

        Oh, riiight. Sure. Caused by the succession of radical Leftist Presidents we’ve had since 1980. The ones who told us the days of small government were over.

        1. Yeah, remember when all those Republicans cut government spending? Oh wait, that never actually happened.

        2. What do you call this line of argument? When you sarcastically make up someone else’s argument for them? A “sarcastic strawman”?

          If it’s more fun arguing with the person living in your head, maybe you could post a script. Then we could reply with that, you could trot out your sarcasm, and it would be like having a conversation with a real person. Well, closer to one. Or, at least closer to some sort of communication that actually has a point, or something.

        3. american socialist|1.19.15 @ 5:48PM|#
          “Oh, riiight. Sure”

          No, there’s a counter argument! Shitbag is surprised!

    5. american socialist:

      Can anyone show me any evidence that any tax increase on the rich in the last 30 years has resulted in any adverse effect?

      I can show you plenty of left-wing proggies claiming that austerity policies are for the economically illiterate.

      Well, more taxes reduce deficits, which is what austerity is all about.

      Why is it that progressives talk shit about austerity policies, until it’s time to tax the rich, in which case, suddenly reducing the deficit is awesome? Whatever. I guess I should read more Paul Krugman.

      1. I’m arguing for raising taxes to reduce deficits? News to me. I thought I was, first, ridiculing suggestion that raising taxes on billionaires will bring about calamity and, second, arguing for more public sector spending on things like the dreaded free community college. I mean, having an educated society is such s drag on economic growth and productivity.

        You think taxing rich people and using those proceeds to pay for scholarships is austerity? I may be biased, but I think Angela merkel needs more people in her cabinet who share your definition of austerity.

        It would really help your argument about the negative consequences of raising taxes on rich people if negative things happened when taxes are raised on rich people. Empiricism is a cruel bitch for those of you getting your economic information from pop Austrian economic schools. You must know kind of what it’s like to be a member of the Manson Family.

        1. It would really help your argument about the negative consequences of raising taxes on rich people if negative things happened when taxes are raised on rich people

          Let’s just raise taxes on those evil rich to 75%. This one country already tried it and it worked out great! Nothing can possibly go wrong!

          /derp

        2. american socialist:

          I’m arguing for raising taxes to reduce deficits? News to me.

          Yes, you are, although you don’t seem to realize it.

          That’s the way government spending works. Governments spend money, and governments tax, and governments go into debt. You don’t look at this dollar and say,” this goes to pay for this program”. For example, you could say he’s proposing new taxes to pay for scholarships. However, he could have also cut spending somewhere else, or borrowed money. So, would the new taxes go to afford the scholarships, or to prevent the other cut, or to prevent borrowing? Which program did the tax pay for?

          In short, all the taxes pay for all the programs. Period. So, taxes are really just about how we want to pay for the government. Do we want to pull money out of the economy with taxes, or go into more debt? The degree to which you say “tax the rich!” is the degree you say “reduce the deficit”, which is the degree you say “austerity”. Because increasing taxes and reducing deficits is austerity, and the opposite is deficit spending. You know: that thing that’s 100% good and sweet and awesome all the time, except when it’s time to raises taxes on the rich, in which case, suddenly just going into debt isn’t so awesome.

        3. arguing for more public sector spending on things like the dreaded free community college. I mean, having an educated society is such s drag on economic growth and productivity.

          Dude, if they didn’t learn anything in four years of “free” high school, what makes you think they’ll learn anything in two years of free community college? ‘Cuz most public educators will happily tell you that the first two years of college are mostly just a rehash of what you should have learned in high school.

    6. I mean, it surely has an effect on deficits, which has an effect on debt-to-GDP ratios.

      If you knew how to look up OMB charts, you’d see what a stupid comment this is.

      No matter how high or low tax rates are, the government typically doesn’t take in more than 17.5% of GDP in revenue. It’s only taken in more than 19% eleven times since 1948, including during the 1980-82 recession. Tax rates don’t mean shit to deficits or debt-to-GDP, spending levels do.

      I guess you should be thanking the GOP House for holding the line on the Budget Control Act, by your stupid logic.

      1. Strange, I never see Tony or ASoc reply to comments devastating their points, only ones that are more screedy or off topic. Surely a coincidence…amirite?

        1. The next time you encounter a progressive online who argues in good faith and without the crutch of straw men and non sequiturs will be the first time.

          Tony and ASoc would piss us off more if we weren’t so used to this tired and frankly juvenile display. I am not complaining, but the intellectual shallowness of the modern left is astonishing. Could it be we’re really approaching peak leftist derp?

    7. Why not ask Hollande?

      He’s a card carrying socialist who found out 75% tax rates don’t generate much new revenue and cause economic harm.

  19. To make up the shortfall from your regressive system we’d have to tax the poor more

    Or, possibly

    (wait for it)

    NO, FUCK YOU, CUT SPENDING

    1. No need for the bold, it is entirely unsurprising that your solution to this (and every other) problem is to enact your entire ideological platform. My issue is that everyone from Scientologists to Muslim radicals all think the same thing, only they have different agendas.

      1. Tony|1.19.15 @ 5:14PM|#
        “No need for the bold, it is entirely unsurprising that your solution to this (and every other) problem is to enact your entire ideological platform.”

        And that lying piece of shit in the WH has the same solution for every problem he’s caused.
        But you’re right, there was no bolding; he was so embarrassed, he hoped no one noticed him proposing it.

      2. The fact of life in America today is that people want more from the government than they are willing to pay for.

        The libertarian answer of “then cut spending to a level that the taxpayers are willing to support” is not a demand to enact their entire ideological platform. It would be just as fair to point to the Progressive solution of always demanding punitive taxes on the rich as a demand to enact their platform under cover of claiming that we need the money.

        1. Nobody is asking for punitive taxes on the rich, and your point would be well-taken except for the fact that you’re using such exaggerations as have informed anti-tax propaganda for decades, leaving people convinced that they can get the society they want without having to pay what it costs. Thanks for that. That’s been a big help.

          1. Tony|1.19.15 @ 5:50PM|#
            “Nobody is asking for punitive taxes on the rich,”

            Yes, you are, shitstain.

          2. Nobody is asking for punitive taxes on the rich

            Lolwut? You’re boy Picketty slipped up then.

          3. Don’t pretend that underestimating the cost of new programs and a willingness to run deficits to cover the difference hasn’t been a bipartisan effort. Again, maybe the finger should be pointed at Progressives who always insist that their programs are free, free, free, and bury the lede as to who is going to pay for all the free stuff.

            If you want an authoritarian state where the bare minimum is provided to everyone and anything more than that is reserved for the political classes, then, yes, you do need to pay what it costs.

          4. …leaving people convinced that they can get the society they want without having to pay what it costs. Thanks for that.

            Actually that’s the bs that you and Obama hand them. You tell them that they don’t have to pay such a society – the “rich” will pay instead. Fucking bullshit artists.

    2. NOTHING LEFT TO CUT. /Tony

  20. I love when people like Tony/American Socialist argue that income inequality is evil and then, without bothering to offer any proof, claim it must be caused by conservative/libertarian policies and would be fixed by socialist policies. This is called ‘assuming what you have to prove’ since they never offer evidence that their solutions would even work.

    For example, do you know the country with the fastest growing income inequality on Earth? Sweden – wonderful progressive Sweden! Historically Sweden has had incredibly low inequality, but it is currently increasing rapidly.

    Why could this be? I know! Because historically Sweden was a homogeneous, mono-cultural country, so income inequality was low because the people were uniform and from very similar backgrounds. Income inequality has increased in direct correlation with Sweden’s very high levels of immigration in the last 15 years.

    It’s almost like (stay with me) inequality is caused by multi-culturalism since some cultural groups are bound to earn more than others due to historical wealth accumulation, valuing education differently, etc.

    This is equally as likely as your argument that it’s caused by laissez faire economics, and I’d argue it’s actually more likely. So how do you know socialism will solve a “problem” which may very well be the actual result of something unrelated to economic policy?

      1. I personally just find it hilarious that these ‘pro-diversity’ progressives choose Scandinavia as their paragon of virtue when Scandinavia has historically been the least diverse place on Earth.

        Progressives love multiculturalism so much that their perfect countries are comprised of 93% white people. Scandinavia’s whiter than the Republican party, but for some reason, unlike with the Republicans, progs don’t see that as a sign of Scandinavia’s immorality and racism.

        1. Progressives love multiculturalism so much that their perfect countries are comprised of 93% white people

          And yet they cringe in horror from multicultural Singapore.

          1. Or the richest multicultural country in the history of the world – The United States of America.

            The US has lifted a more diverse collection of people out of poverty than any other country in the history of the human species. So clearly we are evil, founded on white supremacy, and should adopt the policies of nations vastly less successful than ourselves.

            1. And judging by their preferred countries/cultures, we should also make monkey noises and throw bananas when opposing teams field players of African descent at our sporting events!

              1. Don’t forget placing synagogues under siege and frightening Jews to such an extent that they’ll only go to government schools if the school promises not to reveal they’re Jewish.

                Man, Europe is a fucking utopia.

            2. Those countries are more successful if you count success as meaning a decent standard of living for the bulk of the population. And we are founded on white supremacy, the effects of which are still being played out to the detriment of nonwhites. Curious the times libertarians declare that things are “good enough.” That’s hardly an entrepreneurial attitude.

              1. Yes, Tony, lecture me on “white supremacy”. I’m sure your half-remembered Howard Zinn quotes are more indicative of the reality of institutionalized racism than my own lived experience as a multi-racial American with the complexion of coffee with milk.

                1. Do you ever stop whining? Try being a homosexual in Oklahoma. I know perfectly well, practically down to the dollar, what privilege my whiteness and maleness have bought me. The fact that I’m loath to sacrifice any of it for anyone else tells me all I need to know about people who consider even contemplating the issue to be heretical.

                  1. Victim! Another statist magic-card.

                  2. Do you ever stop whining?

                    Fuck you, asshole. Don’t like that there’s an actual “person of color” here who can call you out when you attempt to browbeat your opponents by calling them racist?

                    Try being a homosexual in Oklahoma.

                    Really? What “closet” can a Black man hide in when he doesn’t feel he’s in a safe place? And let’s not even mention that one of the last bastions of no-shit racism in America is firmly within the LGBT community.

                    But frankly, I have no desire to play oppression olympics with you. However, every time you employ the adversity of people who look like me as a cheap parlor trick when an argument isn’t going your way, I’ll be there to call you out on your bullshit. You can count on that.

                    Happy MLK Day, motherfucker.

                  3. I know perfectly well, practically down to the dollar, what privilege my whiteness and maleness have bought me.

                    You didn’t really have to blow the boss for that raise, Tony.

              2. “Those countries are more successful if you count success as meaning a decent standard of living for the bulk of the population”

                You know nothing about Europe. The immigrant populations to Scandinavia have an unemployment rate higher than blacks in America and Sweden has the highest gap between native unemployment and immigrant employment in the OECD.

                If America had stopped allowing immigration circa 1950, we’d have higher living standards for ‘the bulk’ of our population because we wouldn’t have imported 40 million people from third-world nations subsequent to that. When you basically operate as a gated community for white people (which Europe was until recently) it’s not difficult to have high standards of living for ‘the bulk’ of your society.

                1. Uhh, what exactly is it about white people that makes them so much more able to be successful?

                  1. “Uhh, what exactly is it about white people that makes them so much more able to be successful?”

                    You’re an idiot. It’s an issue of past wealth accumulation.

                    Here’s a hint: If my parents were wealthy and educated, it’s easier for me to be wealthy and educated. Historically, what’s the most wealthy and educated place on Earth? Europe, you fucking idiot.

                    As a result, if a place that’s already wealthy and educated doesn’t allow much immigration, they will have fewer poor people living within their borders.

                    It’s not a racial issue, it’s simply related to the fact that Africa, the Middle East, etc., have historically been vastly poorer, so closing their borders to immigrants from such places allowed them to historically have relatively low poverty.

                    That’s no longer the case and you’re seeing an explosion in European poverty as a result.

                    So don’t try to claim I’m a racist Tony, just because you’re incapable of following an argument from point A to point B.

                    1. So don’t try to claim I’m a racist Tony, just because you’re incapable of following an argument from point A to point B.

                      Oh, but he will. Despite the fact that when it was pointed out how distasteful it was for him, as a white Okie, to attempt to smear his ideological opponents as slope-browed racists when one of the people he’s arguing with is as Black as Obama, he told me to stop being so uppity.

                      You can’t write parody like this.

                  2. Tony|1.19.15 @ 5:57PM|#
                    “Uhh, what exactly is it about white people that makes them so much more able to be successful?”

                    What makes, oh, Carlos Slim white, shitstain?

                  3. Tony:

                    Uhh, what exactly is it about white people that makes them so much more able to be successful?

                    It’s correlation, not causation.

                    If you’re white, you’re more likely from the US or western Europe, which have been enjoying capitalism for quite a long time.

                    If you’re Asian, then I hope you’re from Japan or South Korea.

                    If you’re black, I hope you’re not in Africa.

                    It’s not the race, it’s the place. And that rhymes, so you know it’s right.

                  4. Uhh, what exactly is it about white Asian people that makes them so much more able to be successful?

                    I dunno man, you tell me?

                2. When you basically operate as a gated community for white people (which Europe was until recently) it’s not difficult to have high standards of living for ‘the bulk’ of your society.

                  Scratch Tony and you’ll find that he’s always been a “National Socialist” all along. After I call him out for exploiting the suffering of people who look like me as a rhetorical prop for his insufferable and morally sanctimonious arguments, he usually gets all riled up and shouts racist comments about my wife (who has the audacity to be Asian) that are shocking in their vitriol.

                  1. I guess he does stop whining long enough for hyperbolic insult rants.

                  2. *slow claps for Herioc Mulatto*

              3. Tony|1.19.15 @ 5:48PM|#
                “Those countries are more successful if you count success as meaning a decent standard of living for the bulk of the population.”

                Shitstain, you got busted for this lie last week.Are you stupid enough to think no one remembers? Or slimy enough to hope no one does?

              4. Also, if Britain were a US state, they’d have the lowest GDP in the country. France would be one of the poorest states if it were in America.

                The US is unbelievably rich, even by European standards. Your ignorance on the subject has no bearing upon reality.

                1. So Tony, why don’t you educate yourself on this subject before trying to hold court next time. You’ll save yourself the embarrassment.

                  Here’s a hint: Left-wing talking points are no substitute for an education.

                2. Yes we are quite rich, and a huge portion of that wealth is being wasted on the very very wealthy (not because they are virtuous creatures of greatness who earned it, but because Republican politicians gave it to them in the name of bullshit economic theory). In the European places we’re referring to, being out of work or having bad luck doesn’t mean you enter a cycle of poverty. That’s what I’m talking about. All you’re saying is that we could afford a more decent safety net. I agree!

                  1. Tony|1.19.15 @ 5:59PM|#
                    “Yes we are quite rich, and a huge portion of that wealth is being wasted on the very very wealthy”

                    No, unfortunately, it’s being wasted on excrement like you and that pile of shit commie-kid.
                    Fuck off, slaver.

                  2. “In the European places we’re referring to, being out of work or having bad luck doesn’t mean you enter a cycle of poverty.”

                    Except for the 25% unemployment rate among Somali immigrants or tower housing blocks in Britain. Or French Banlieus.

                    Or the mass poverty across the entire southern border of Europe.

                    Or the 25% unemployment in Greece, despite the fact that they have the same social policies as Sweden.

                    Again: Educate yourself, Tony. You know nothing about this subject.

                    1. “being out of work”

                      Since Tony said this I don’t think you’re refuting him by citing unemployment numbers.

                    2. Tony and his ilk have no interest in any of the things they profess. They are exactly what Heroic said they are, fascists. They will whine and scream about social justice until they get their way. What will come about will be the opposite of their stated goals. Then they will put their boots on people’s necks and call them suckers.

                  3. In the European places we’re referring to, being out of work or having bad luck doesn’t mean you enter a cycle of poverty.

                    Yep, no multi-generational welfare or disincentives to work going on in EUrope.

                3. 2nd lowest, Vermont per capita is sitting at ~$28,000

              5. You are just a profoundly flawed being, which barely passes for human. I look forward to the day when we have a thousand Joe McCathiys cleansing our country of your kind.

        2. I’m Scandinavian. There’s a damn good reason so many of us came here.

          1. I have Scandinavian ancestors too. They moved to North Dakota and northern MN. Things must be pretty bad at home if you decide to do that. I mean, ND summers are great but they last like a month.

            1. Just sold my Grandpa’s family farm in northern MN a few years ago.

            2. I think things were a bit rougher in Scandinavia in the 1800s. But it’s still cold.

        3. Norway itself also produces a shit-ton of oil. The government basically owns and operates oil companies.

          So, the same progressives who will tell us that Scandinavian countries are the best run countries in the world, and you’d have to be psychotic to operate an oil company, even though the government of Norway is the majority owner of their oil industry, and uses the revenue to fund the government.

          So, apparently, the best governments in the world are psychotic. Not a glowing review, but I’ll accept that.

          1. ^ This is why I also love when progs bring up Norway as a great example of effective green energy.

            Norway basically subsidizes their green energy industry with oil money. Some cynical people (and thank God I’m not cynical) might point out that it’s a bit self-defeating when you use money from the sale of fossil fuels to fund your anti-carbon energy system.

          2. Whenever I mention Texas lately, the progs immediately say that without oil, Texas will be poor.

            But they don’t say that about Norway. You have to remind them that its a frozen Kuwait.

      2. No, you’re the psychopathic capitalists.

        1. Slow down, Tony, and take your meds.

          I think they make a cream for this kind of butt-hurt.

          1. It’s pretty obvious that there are multiple people running the Tony account. I swear that a few months ago Tony was still a leftist asshole, but was capable of stringing together thoughts into something vaguely coherent.

            The current person running the Tony handle flies into hysterical rages at the smallest provocation and is unable to write more than two sentences without engaging in bizarre non-sequitors.

            1. Or Tony’s just bipolar. There’s that too.

              1. Personally I miss the “libertarianism is inherently contradictory because they want less government, but they’re not anarchists!” Tony.

                I haven’t heard that one in a while. Can we do that again?

                1. My favorite tonyism is when it was asked to name one thing it does to help poor people, and it said it votes Democrat.

                2. “libertarianism is inherently contradictory because they want less government, but they’re not anarchists!”

                  I can do that for you if you want.

            2. Come on Irish, the rage Tony directs here is smaller than what’s directed at him by many here.

              1. pedantic contrarian is a pedantic contrarian!
                Film at 11

                I can see Bo in the corner of a Dallas bar, sipping Chardonnay, when the Dez catch was ruled no catch.
                “Well guys, to be fair, by the letter of the rule, which I will quote forthwith, the correct call was, in fact, made. ipso facto, you fellas really have no cause to be upset.”

                1. You’ve lost the ability to be objective about anything that riles you up I guess.

              2. The people running Tony are fascist pieces of shit that will line useful idiots like you up against a wall the first chance they get Bo.

                1. I’ve said before, and to him, that I think Tony’s positions can lead to that kind of dangerous thing. That doesn’t contradict what I said though; it’s silly to attack Tony for being rude or angry when he’s the target of much more pronounced forms of both from many posters here.

              3. Of course. We do good and Tony does evil. It is logical to be angry with evildoers.

        2. There’s nothing like a person who views violence as a legitimate means to get what they want calling other people psychopaths. Because using force is just so empathetic.

          1. What’s a lot of fun is when a proggie snaps in the middle of a discussion because he realizes that his plan requires your co-operation and that if you don’t consent, then he has to advocate taking your stuff by force.

            By contrast, most libertarian polices, because of the emphasis on negative rights, require nothing of anyone.

        3. From the soulless traitor progressive no less. Kill yourself.

    1. Look at Cuba, brimming with good wholesome equality! Where everyone works for $20 a month (ignore the private island owned by the Castros).

      1. This is a good counter. Equality in itself cannot be a moral good.

        1. Enforced equality is a moral evil.

      2. Cuba? A hellhole compared to true paradise; Venezuela. Pure, unadulterated socialist heaven.

      3. That’s is always what a progressive means by equality. Equally sharing nothing.

        1. Equally poor, enslaved, and miserable.

    2. This research suggests the link between inequality and immigration might be different than that.

      http://www.researchgate.net/pr…..000000.pdf

  21. Want to fight income inequality? Sell something to a rich person. You know, something useful, which actually has value.

    1. It doesn’t even have to have much value.

      When people get upset that some company is selling large spherical ice cubes shaved from icebergs, or whatever, I always think they don’t get it…rich people need to find ever more frivolous things to spend money on, and that’s a good thing.

  22. Speaking of incoherent idiots….

    Clint Eastwood’s new film and Best Picture Oscar nominee “American Sniper” shattered January box office records as it took in more than $90 million last weekend. But overshadowing the film’s glowing support from critics and theater-goers is a growing public debate about violence as America paused to remember the shooting death of civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

    “My uncle killed by sniper in WW2. We were taught snipers were cowards. Will shoot u in the back. Snipers aren’t heroes. And invaders r worse,” filmmaker Michael Moore tweeted on Sunday, setting off a lively online conversation. “But if you’re on the roof of your home defending it from invaders who’ve come 7K miles, you are not a sniper, u are brave, u are a neighbor.”

    I, ummmm….

    1. The sniper killed the wrong brother.

    2. People should line up phalanx style like they used to. You don’t even have to aim. It’s like hitting the broadside of a barn.

    3. Anyone have a list of Best Picture nominees that focus on killing? Like The Godfather and Clockwork Orange.

    4. There’s this thing called ‘tactics’ used in military situations Mr. Moore. One of its primary goals is to put you in a position of least harm while being able to successfully harm whomever your opponents are.

      1. What about the glory and delight in the battle?

        1. Then I strongly encourage Mr. Moore to run into a firefight naked with a claymore. That’ll make you brave…and dead.

          1. Ever see the video of the whale they blew up?
            That’s why Moore never goes to the beach.

          2. Seeing him naked will kill more than one person so his death would not be in vain.

    1. They ARE cutting spending – it works like this:
      If you are incurring 600 billion dollar deficits each year, and increase taxes by 200 billion, then you’ve “cut spending” down to 400 billion a year.

      What could be more simple?

  23. You thought everything was expensive before, wait until it’s free!

  24. Off topic. Could the bias be any more blatant??????

    “A REPUBLICAN, he aspired to be the first black U.S. senator from Nevada but chose a post-NBA career …”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..ml?hpid=z3

    1. The writer is probably upset that she couldn’t put that relevant information in the headline “Republican Aspiring Senator Arrested In Prostitution Sting”

  25. Well, the “MLK day” parade ruined my plans. I had all 3 kids today and planned to take them to the Natural History Museum. The “parade” ended and turned into a bunch of protestors blocking streets for no apparent reason. Fuck them.

    1. Well, the “MLK day” parade ruined my plans

      You had a dream?

      1. I had a dream, that my kids would get to see dinosaur bones, and then take a nap on the way home.

    2. I’ve heard nothing about this. All the news CNN et al. have seen fit to print is running victory laps about how Fox News had to apologize over quasi-exaggerating the existence of Muslim no-go zones in European cities.

      1. Local is just picking it up. I’m still getting random texts from friends, and some of the info is conflicting. It appears that the SEIU is somehow involved, though.

        1. The local labor mafia flexing its muscles, eh? A shakedown is coming.

          1. The brain is wonderful thing. I initially read that as: “labia flexing its muscles”.

            Thank you, brain, for that diversion from all the crap in this thread.

  26. According to the Obama administration, no such oversight is required, because people do not have any reasonable expectation of privacy regarding information they voluntarily divulge to others.

    Which is bullshit because Episiarch can spew some sick fantasy to his therapist, and that’s protected. There divulging of information to a second or third party does not mean said information is fair game.

    1. What have you heard?!?

      (looks around furtively)

      1. I’ve heard some pretty sick shit.

  27. Don’t we deserve a better class of troll?

    1. We obviously need some government subsidies to close the troll gap.

  28. Is Tony even going to get paid today? I wouldn’t pay for that work product.

    1. That is because you are a inequality loving capitalist pig, Playa. Duh.

      1. *are an

      1. I was expecting a color closeup of a large pile of dogshit.

    2. Is Tony even going to get paid today?

      I’m guessing he’s a public employee somewhere there in Oklahoma – so yeah, he gets the day off with pay. I’m just wondering if he’s state or federal.

  29. Why this matters: Conservatives LOVE to spend our money but hate taxes. Democrats love to spend money and want to tax only the wealthy.

    The mature approach is to pay for the government programs voters want.

    So which party is more mature?

    1. Neither, because nothing says ‘mature’ like threatening people with violence to exploit money out of them.

      Of course, given your mark on the Libertarian Purity Test, you’d know this.

      *Cue response filled with ‘mature’ whining about conservatives, religious people, or randomly screaming names like a child.*

      1. I don’t know, a government that pays its bills is better than one that spends equally and does not because it ends up paying them with interest down the line. Having said that, I’m not ready to accept that there is no option where the government pays its bills by radically reducing what it does.

        1. If you’re being a pragmatist, sure.

          If you’re being a libertarian, ‘mature’ doesn’t really describe a system based on the use of force to push a vague ‘collective’ in any particular direction. A libertarian would argue the opposite, that’s it’s the use of mankind’s most base and ‘immature’ behaviour.

          1. I guess I meant this: take two Libertopian states, both minarchist, involving some taxation, though much, much lower than what we have and governments that do much, much less. The only difference is that one of them doesn’t take in enough revenue to cover what the government does do. Given that government is going to have to pay those bills at some point and that will mean higher overall taxes than the first state implemented for the same level of government, I’d say the first one took the better approach.

            1. Yes, but this is not an example of Libertopias, this is a deliberate and direct argument about the apparent ‘maturity’ of Republican and Democratic administration.

              1. But he just said which was ‘more’ mature. I grant both parties are awful and thrive on theft, waste and cronyism. And I don’t agree with him that the Democrats are more mature because I don’t think they really act in the way he describes (they tend to take the taxes and then up the spending even more). So I was only referring to his more general point that an approach to pay the bills initially is better than one that does not.

                1. I deliberately threw that out there because he’s offering up a false dilemma. It’s perfectly reasonable, and somewhat expected from a libertarian, to reject either as ‘mature’ based on general libertarian philosophy.

                  1. I can see your point. Saying that one party that spends other people’s money as recklessly as the Democrats is better than another party that spends as recklessly as the Republicans is ‘more mature’ because they want to raise more taxes to pay for it is like saying one rapist is better than another because the first one uses a condom bought with the victim’s money.

                    1. Not the analogy I’d use, but fair enough. You must be an analrapist.

      2. I agree that taxation is armed theft. And deficits like Bush created is larceny.

        Medicare Part D costs $50b a year and NONE of it was paid for. The ACA cost 50% more and was paid for via higher taxes on the wealthy.

        Which is more fiscally responsible?

        1. Depends on what you dislike more: Medicare for its general idiocy and the ACA for both its long term and short term effects on the healthcare market. I’m perfectly willing to recognize both as bad, irresponsible policies with shitty long term effects.

          1. From a purely fiscal perspective Democrats are more fiscally responsible.

            1. Palin’s Buttplug|1.19.15 @ 7:41PM|#
              “From a purely fiscal perspective Democrats are more fiscally responsible.”

              Turd lies. That’s all; turd lies.

            2. What a load of shit to ultimately try to justify behavior which is bad anyway.

              Typical progressive. Which is why we need to get rid of them.

        2. But you spent 3 years telling us the ACA would save us money, and now you’re bragging about how much more it cost compared to some other bad program?

          And you’re a lying scumbag because the middle class is paying more for health insurance, not just the evil rich.

            1. Well that increased premium and doubled deductible, I didn’t do that, somebody else made that happen.
              And my friend who got his hours cut at the supermarket because of Obamacare, well you gotta break some eggs, right?

              You’re the worst kind of lying cocksucker there is.

            2. PB quit stealing turds.

            3. I lost my good plan and was stuck with a worse plan (platinum) for twice as much money or nothing.

              So fuck you, you Marxist traitor. You helped make this happen. I hope you due horribly like the rest of traitorkind.

        3. “The ACA cost 50% more and was paid for via higher taxes on the wealthy.”

          Liar.

    2. I think that loving to spend money, but telling people that the rich can pay more taxes to fund it all is actually less mature.

      1) Its a lie that is really dangerous
      2) Its divisive and prejudicial
      3) They fund the difference through borrowing.

      Also, the GOP has actually reduced spending, in part thanks to Obama assuming the GOP would be loathe to cut defense spending.

      Taxes also went up in that deal.

      And Sen. Corker just asked for higher gas taxes. That belies the rule you set up. I’m not sure that rule really holds, either.

  30. This tax increase proposal is obviously what the administration wants to put front and center to the public, and it well illustrates how he and the Democrats have become totally worthless to libertarians. There was a time when at least a fair number of liberals would talk about a desire or plan to pay for some of their beloved governmental programs by cutting other governmental programs, for example defense spending or corporate welfare. Now that’s not even seriously discussed, just outright theft, solely.

    1. Not true. Obama cut defense spending via the sequester and cut Medicare Advantage subsidies $40 billion per year. He also offered up SS cuts via chained CPI but was turned down in the Grand Bargain.

      1. The sequester is hardly one of the President’s initiatives. He’s regularly denounced it.

        1. He and Boehner worked it out in private and pissed off everyone else.

          1. He’s repeatedly denounced the sequester as something forced on him.

              1. So I give neither credit.

                And $40 billion dollars in Medicare savings? That’s a drop in the bucket compared to things like his stimulus.

                1. To historians if the POTUS signs it he gets the blame or credit.

                  1. Historians who are ignorant of the political context and how government works, I guess.

                    1. Obama has made deficit cutting a priority and campaigned on cutting the Bush $1 trillion deficit in half – then did it.

                    2. YOU LIE !!!

                    3. He ran up the deficit even more than Bush when his party was in power.

                    4. Palin’s Buttplug|1.19.15 @ 7:46PM|#
                      “Obama has made deficit cutting a priority”…

                      Turd had make cherry-picking and lying a priority, and unlike that lying piece of shit in the WH, turd has succeeded.

                    5. What a load of shit. You deserve stomach cancer.

                    6. This. Weigel is one of this most vile cretins on two legs.

          2. You really should change your handle to “Statist Buttplug”

  31. Happy Robert E. Lee Day

    “And in three states?Alabama, Arkansas, and Mississippi?MLK Day is also Robert E. Lee Day. This isn’t a different Robert E. Lee?some forgotten crusader for human equality. No, this is the Gen. Robert E. Lee who led Confederate armies in war against the United States, who defended a nation built on the ‘great truth’ that the ‘negro is not equal to the white man’ and whose armies kidnapped and sold free black Americans whenever they had the opportunity. Despite his betrayal of the Union (a stark contrast to fellow Virginian Winfield Scott, who refused to join the Confederacy) and his treatment of enslaved black Americans?as a slavedriver, he sold children and oversaw brutal punishments, including sewing brine into the wounds of returned fugitives?Lee’s popular image is of an honorable and decent man who fought well and loathed slavery.”

    http://www.slate.com/articles/…..neral.html

    1. I was going to say something nice about you Bo. Yet you are stuck in the past. It would do you good to work with some people from Africa, or maybe visit the place.

  32. That jsust not making a lot of sense to me dude.

    http://www.BestAnon.tk

    1. He took his vorpal sword in hand

  33. Want to bring out the most sociopath, luddite, downright evil trolls around?

    Write a story about increasing taxes or global warming. You get all the worst slime crawling out from under their rocks.

    1. Beware the Jabberwock my son.

  34. “it shows how this administration approaches tax policy not from the point of view of raising the revenues necessary to run the government, and not from the view of creating the maximum incentives for growth and innovation, but rather as a kind of zero-sum, redistributionist means of political warfare.”

    Progressive theocrats view politics as war. To whom is this news?

    To the victor goes the spoils. It’s the default pattern of government since forever.

    It’s really only in the Angloshpere, and in there only to limited and varying degrees, that government is not seen as rulers ruling.

    Some people wanted a cosmopolitan president with the sensibilities of the world. This is what he looks like.

  35. “Obama proposed to deal with this problem retroactively, by taxing IRAs”

    Ha! Any of you think they won’t be coming after *your* retirement accounts?

    All these tax deferred accounts are just a way for the government to know where your money is, so they can take it when they want.

    Think of it as a gun registration law. First they know where it is, then they take it.

    1. The only solution to the orogressive problem us attrition. Exactly what form that will take is not important.

  36. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NmHzAvQ4ewk

    ” but rather as a kind of zero-sum, redistributionist means of political warfare.” We’ve known this since 2008, why?he told us it was all about social justice

  37. I just purchased a great Lancia after having earned $8533 this last 4 weeks and in excess of ten-grand last-month . with-out a doubt this is the most-comfortable work I have ever done . I actually started 3 months ago and practically straight away was earning over $73 per hour . visit this web-site

    http://www.Fox-Survey.com

  38. You know, I haven’t even perused the comments to this article yet, but I see that they’ve gone over three hundred already. So I’m guessing someone must have lit the Tony signal?

  39. just before I looked at the draft four $9879 , I didn’t believe that…my… father in law had been truly erning money part time from there computar. . there dads buddy has done this for only 21 months and just repaid the dept on their apartment and bourt a great Land Rover Range Rover .
    Read More Here ~~~~~~~~ http://www.jobs700.com

  40. I can see what your saying… Sharon `s article is exceptional… last week I bought a great Ariel Atom sincee geting a check for $6508 this munth and in excess of ten k lass month . without a doubt it is my favourite work I have ever had . I started this five months/ago and almost immediately made myself minimum $83… per-hr ….
    ?????? http://www.Workvalt.Com

  41. My friend’s mother makes $61 an hour on the internet . She has been without a job for ten months but last month her pay was $15622 just working on the internet for a few hours.
    over here. ???????? http://www.jobsfish.com

  42. $89 an hour! Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening?And i get surly a chek of $1260……0 whats awesome is Im working from home so I get more time with my kids.
    Here is what i did
    ?????? http://www.paygazette.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.