Raising Taxes Doesn’t Automatically Mean More Revenues

IRSCartoon5ofpart1

Here in America we’re having a fierce national debate about whether or not tax increases should be a part our deficit and debt reduction efforts. Personally, I’m not sure why we need to raise taxes. Federal revenues are actually up 19% since 2009.

But setting that aside, we shouldn’t assuming that raising tax rates (especially on economically mobile citizens like “the rich”) will automatically result in a lot of new revenues. After all, that’s not how it worked out in Europe:

In the 2009-10 tax year, more than 16,000 people declared an annual income of more than £1 million to HM Revenue and Customs.

This number fell to just 6,000 after Gordon Brown introduced the new 50p top rate of income tax shortly before the last general election. …

George Osborne, the Chancellor, announced in the Budget earlier this year that the 50p top rate will be reduced to 45p from next April.

Since the announcement, the number of people declaring annual incomes of more than £1 million has risen to 10,000. …

Far from raising funds, it actually cost the UK £7 billion in lost tax revenue.

Laws are static. Markets are dynamic.

Taxes and regulations change people’s behavior. Taxes, especially, inspire people to try and avoid paying them. And when you’re taxing “the rich,” people who have a lot of means at their disposal through which to shelter or move their fortunes, you’re going to get a lot of avoidance.

Which is why, historically, the United States hasn’t been able to collect much about 18% – 19% of GDP in tax revenues no matter how high tax rates are raised.

In the market place, if you create too high of a barrier between consumers and a product they want through taxes or regulation what you get is a black market of products avoiding the taxes/regulations. It works the same way with the tax code. Once you raise taxes beyond a certain point people begin to find ways – be they legal or illegal – to avoid those taxes.

If we want a balanced budget, the government must live within it’s ability to raise revenue. And it’s very clear from historical trends that 18 – 19% of GDP is about all the revenue the government can hope to squeeze out of us.

Rob Port is the editor of SayAnythingBlog.com. In 2011 he was a finalist for the Watch Dog of the Year from the Sam Adams Alliance and winner of the Americans For Prosperity Award for Online Excellence. In 2013 the Washington Post named SAB one of the nation's top state-based political blogs, and named Rob one of the state's best political reporters. He writes a weekly column for several North Dakota newspapers, and also serves as a policy fellow for the North Dakota Policy Council.

Related posts

  • kevindf

    That’s because the economy isn’t static, though far too many people, including the President, think it is.

    • HG

      I don’t know that they really think it is or just play stupid to justify their emphasis on taxes and intentional ignorance of spending. I think it is just a part of the narrative that affords them an argument and subtle and deceptive enough to get away with it.

      • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

        GH, do you agree that the majority of millionaires will break the law, as Rob is predicting?

        • HG

          You’re an idiot. Everyone tries to keep as much money as they can and the vast majority do it legally in compliance with tax laws, H. He never suggested breaking any law. You make such a fool of yourself, H.

          • mikemc1970

            He is good at that.

          • HG

            He ought to be. He gets plenty of practice on this site alone.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            You two geniuses just made dunces out of yourself, but on this blog that’s some sort of intellectual trophy.

            “It works the same way with the tax code. Once you raise taxes beyond a certain point people begin to find ways – be they legal or illegal – to avoid those taxes.”

            Now bury your head and hide in shame, what other choice do you have? LOL.

          • HG

            The usual. Point out your error.

            “that the ‘majority’ of millionaires will break the law”?
            You lied.

          • mikemc1970

            He’s not very good at lying though.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            I am not good at lying, because I don’t. You on the other hand, well, you’re an expert at it.

          • mikemc1970

            Just because you’re ignorant enough to believe the lie doesn’t mean it’s not a lie, liar.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            What lie? There was no lie, except yours. LOL.

          • Yolanda

            Brahahahahaaaa!!

            “I am not good at lying, because I don’t.”

            Says the tax cheat with a lien filed against him.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Hiding doesn’t do you any good now, HG/GH/Geoff. Your reputation is sullied with your admisstion of sock puppetry.

            Why don’t you give us another “mongoloid” racist joke, and show what type of Christian you really are?

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            “admisstion (sic) of sock puppetry”

            Glass houses/ Stones
            Kettle/ black

          • Yolanda

            Your hypocrisy, and idiocy is blatantly obvious. But, you are all you’ll ever be….nothing.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            No, jack ass, point out YOUR error. YOU said Rob didn’t suggest breaking ANY law, but he did, and I proved that.

            Now you are trying to move the goal posts after discovering what a fucking fool you are.

            Douche!

          • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

            Again, I’m not saying people should break the law. I’m saying that higher taxes promote tax avoidance.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            I didn’t use the word “should”. Stop obfuscating and own it.

          • HG

            He’s responding to my words, not yours H. My exact words were:

            “He [Rob] never suggested breaking the law.”

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Stop making a fool of yourself, HG. As much as I enjoy it, it’s becoming embarrassing.

            Rob responded to me! It says “arrow Hannitized” and Rob said: “I never said they “should” break the law”.

            True! But I never said he used the word “should”. Now shut it.

          • HG

            Ask Rob.
            Shut it? Really? You thought that would what, intimidate me into silence? You’ve absolutely no moral authority, H. That won’t work for you H. You’re going to have to answer for your lies or run off and find someone else to boss around.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            You lied and said Rob responded to you, but his response was to Hannitized, as the records show. Now shut it.

          • HG

            No lie. You paraphrased my words in your comment Rob responded to dummy. Read it.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            You used the word “suggested”, Rob used the word “should”. Rob responded to me, stating he never said they should break the law, most likely because you are throwing a tizzy tantrum.

            LOL.

            So I clarified to Rob, who responded tome, that i never said he said they “should” break the law.

            Now shut it, fool.

          • HG

            Only H is ignorant of what you’re saying. I read your paragraph above the one H referenced and I missed the reference to legal or illegal. Nevertheless, that doesn’t make H’s statement that you’re predicting “the majority of millionaires will break the law” any less dishonest.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            GH, show me where Rob said a majority would avoid paying taxes legally. Ohhhhh……you can’t.

            Thanks!

          • HG

            I didn’t make that claim, H. You made the claim that a majority would break the law. Quit twisting and own your lie, punk.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Thanks for finally admitting you were wrong, GH. For Rob never said a majority would avoid paying taxes legally. Now, for extra credit, can you show me where he provided the percentage of millionaires that would avoid paying taxes legally? Go ahead, cut and paste his percentage breakdown.

          • HG

            He never predicted “that the majority of millionaires will break the law”. You attributed that to Rob. Try to stay on point H. I know such a dishonest representation of Rob’s post is responsible for your rhetorical gymnastics, but try to be honest just this once. Everyone here sees how your twisting things around, H. You’re making an even bigger fool of yourself.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            It looks that way to you because you are stupid.

            If Rob is using data to support his claim, then all of that data is meaningful, unless he disqualified some of it (he didn’t). If that data suggests that a majority of millionaires would avoid paying taxes, then I can conclude Rob’s prediction that some would break the law and some would avoid taxes legally in any combination I want to choose, since he left it open.

            I know you don’t like it, but that’s how logic works, unless you can read Rob’s mind. Good luck proving that.

          • Yolanda

            Everyone can just look to you, the tax cheat, as an example of someone who doesn’t pay their taxes.

            HAWAII.GOV

            Bureau of Conveyances -Official Public
            Records

            Document
            Number R2007203358

            Recording Date
            Recording Date:

            Date instrument recorded.
            YYYY-MM-DD

            2007-11-21

            Document Category:

            Judgment/Lien
            Conveyance
            Miscellaneous
            Mortgage
            Release
            Uniform
            Commercial Code

            Description

            NOTICE OF LIEN
            (INCLUDES COUNTY, FEDERAL & STATE TAX LIENS; MARITIME LIEN)

            Grantor Grantor:

            Party transferring
            interest.

            BONILLA WILLIAM
            L II

            Grantee Grantee:

            Party acquiring interest.

            HAWAII
            STATE-TAX

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            But those taxes are paid. So now what? Geoff?

            Is this an example of what you meant the other day about sore losers?

            Awww….HG, you are so not Godly….trying to get revenge and all.

          • Yolanda

            They may have been paid, eventually, after you had to be chased down like a rabid dog and forced to pay, if in fact they were paid.
            The lien is documented proof that you are a tax cheat who got caught. Public records are a wonderful thing, wouldn’t you agree, loser?

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Awww, well I now can see that you have been the sore loser this whole time, hiding behind sock puppets saying the same thing.

            As soon as I knew that there was a bill owed I paid it. I didn’t get the notifications because I moved and there was no way for them to contact me other than through the lien option.

            But if sore, bitter loser is all you’ve got, run with it. I wouldn’t have expected any more from you.

          • Yolanda

            That’s a great story, if it was true. Do you want everyone to believe you failed to leave a forwarding address, but you were able to get the notice of your lien? Braahahahahaa!!
            You made the claim that your tax bill was based on capital gains. Are you claiming you didn’t know that you owed those taxes?Thanks for admitting you really are that stupid.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            You really cling to bitter loser, almost as you do your guns and bible.

            I thought my accountant had it buttoned up, so I didn’t worry about it. And no, I didn’t forward my address, for many reasons. But it sure is good to see that this whole time you have been the sock puppet, hiding behind multiple names, trying to lash out at me because of your inferiority complex. It’s really bubbling to the surface today, Geoff.

          • Yolanda

            Geoff??? You make a fool of yourself so easily, and effortlessly. It sure is refreshing that you finally admit that you attempted to “hide” by not leaving a forwarding address.

            So, now, like a good little liberal you blame someone else for own irresponsibility. You’re so typical of liberal scum.

          • The Revealer

            “It’s a good idea to stick your dick in the ass of a 12 year old boy.” – Onslaught1066, July 20th, 2012

          • The Revealer

            “I told you that through intermarriage which GOD HATES, there was pollution of the gene pool,….”
            Neiman on 11/27/2012 posted on the Thanksgiving Holiday Open Thread.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            “hiding behind sock puppet”

            Once again demonstrating why I say that liberals are irony impaired.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Well, Geoff has good reason to hide behind one now. Now that it’s know what GH stands for.

          • HG

            H, This is the third time I’ve refuted your lie that I am “Geoff”. I’ve never used that or any other screen name besides HG.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            The rude comments that appear on SAB screen showed your initials, before they changed, Geoff. Your lies are catching up with you.

            Why hide now?

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            There is a glitch in Discus that sometimes temporarily shows the wrong name. I’ve had people reply to a comment of mine, that would appear under one name, when I checked my email it was a different name, and then, upon going back to the site, found it was changed to the name on the email.

            Don’t be so quick to jump to conclusions. Sorry! Forgot who I was talking to there for a second! Carry on!

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Haha! Jump to conclusions….that’s a good one. It’s jumping to conclusions when the screen shows someones name as the person who made a comment? Yeah, that’s totally “jumping to conclusions”.

            You idiot.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            Just trying to impart a little bit of information to you, Tiny Twit. Everyone I know has given up on trying to get you a clue.

          • HG

            Hide what? By the way, where did you get the GH handle? That too isn’t mine.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            No one has ever accused our little Hanni Boo Bo of being the sharpest knife in the drawer!

          • The Revealer

            He is not lying.
            But if what you say is true, than he is certainly mistaken.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            It’s not my fault his initials are GH, and his first name is Geoff. If Rob’s system has a glitch, it’s actually glitching by preventing sock puppets from sockpuppeting.

            As soon as that screw up happened, Geoff hid his Facebook account.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            “Now that it’s know (sic)…”? Two words for you, Mynah Bird Boy:

            Second.

            Grade.

          • The Revealer

            When you cast aspersions on the other person’s character, that is an attack that has nothing to do with their reasoning; it just expresses anger toward someone who disagrees with you. That is not an effective argument.

          • HG

            I admitted my error. You haven’t admitted your lie. Own it, punk.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            No, you didn’t. You claimed Rob never suggested breaking ANY law, but he did. You tried to change your argument by suggesting I said the majority, as if that was some sort of argument, it’s not.

            Rob left it a 50/50. So there’s a 50 percent chance he meant the majority would break the law. That’s one option of two, because he was vague.

          • HG

            I already pointed out the paragraph I read and the reference to “legal or illegal” I missed.

            You flat out misrepresented what Rob said.

            What you fail to see is that even though Rob did say “legal or illegal”, that in no way suggests a “majority”. That is your lie. It also in no way changes that fact that your an idiot for lying and made yourself a fool by doing so. You did catch my mistake. But it was a mistake that doesn’t change the fact that you’re a douchebag for misrepresenting what Rob said.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            I know you must feel stupid for being wrong, HG. But don’t let your embarrassment enrage you to the point where you abandon reading comprehension as well.

            Can you show me where Rob said the majority of millionaires would avoid taxes “legally”? Ohhhhh…..that’s right……you can’t.

            So just because you are left dealing with the fact that Rob left both possibilities open, you shouldn’t really take your stupidity and foolishness out on me, by showing how angry and immature you are.

          • HG

            Poor H. All you have left is to twist your own words and try to attribute them to me. You, H. You claimed Rob predicted “the majority of millionaires will break the law”. That was your lie and yours alone.
            That makes you a liar, an idiot, a fool and a douche. Congratulations.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            If you can’t show me where Rob said a majority would avoid the taxes legally, just say so GH. It’s not like I expect you to be honest about it, you aren’t.

          • HG

            Why should I defend an arguement I never made? If you want an answer to that you should ask Rob.

            How does this twisted argument change the fact that you misrepresented Rob’s post? It doesn’t. No matter what you try to pin on me, H, the fact remains that Rob did not predict “the majority of millionaires will break the law”. Own it, boy wonder.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            I think you are missing the point. Here are the facts:

            1) Rob predicted people would avoid paying taxes, either legally or illegally.

            2) Rob used data to support his claim, by cut and pasting information that showed a majority of millionaires avoided paying taxes.

            3) Rob never gave a percentage breakdown for how many millionaires would break the law legally, or illegally.

            4) Rob never gave a percentage of how many millionaires would avoid paying taxes.

            Therefore I can conclude any combination of the suggestions and predictions Rob made.

            If you say that I can’t then you must remove Rob’s cut and paste from the equation, for it has no meaning what so ever.

          • HG

            Your version of the facts only makes you look even more stupid, H.
            You left out the most important fact.
            5) Rob never predicted “the majority of millionaires will break the law”.
            You did.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            It looks that way to you because you are stupid.

            If Rob is using data to support his claim, then all of that data is meaningful, unless he disqualified some of it (he didn’t). If that data suggests that a majority of millionaires would avoid paying taxes, then I can conclude Rob’s prediction that some would break the law and some would avoid taxes legally in any combination I want to choose, since he left it open.

            I know you don’t like it, but that’s how logic works, unless you can read Rob’s mind. Good luck proving that.

          • HG

            No idiot, it looks that way because you typed it that way. Here is your lie again:
            “that the majority of millionaires will break the, law as Rob is predicting”.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Rob gave us the data that a majority of millionaires would avoid paying taxes to support his claim, then Rob predicted that millionaires would avoid paying taxes either legally or illegally without breaking it down.

            Therefore if he used his cut and paste as evidence to support his claim the data must be meaningful. If the data is meaningful then I can use it with his conclusion. That’s the way logic works, Geoff.

            Sorry you are stupid.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            ‘Rob left it a 50/50′ You just make crap up, don’t you, Hanni Boo Boo? Please point out in the following sentence anything that even remotely suggests that there is a 50% chance of anything?

            “Once you raise taxes beyond a certain point people begin to find ways – be they legal or illegal – to avoid those taxes.”

            So, if 99.9% chose legal ways and 0.1% chose illegal ways, it would be, in what passes for your mind, Hanni Boo Boo, 50/50?

            Don’t worry! I hear they teach math in the second grade, too! Another ten or twelve years after that (assuming it doesn’t take you that long to actually pass the second grade) you might be ready for statistics.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            “Please point out in the following sentence anything that even remotely suggests that there is a 50% chance of anything?” – PROOFoundly_stupid

            Please point out where I said there was a 50/50 “chance”. Ohhhhh….that’s right, you can’t, because I didn’t.

            Rob gave us two choices, to represent a whole. 2 to goes into 100 how many times? I already said the combination as a percentage could be any ratio, but he left it open to interpretation, but the interpretation should be influenced by his example he has presented as fact. His example stated that the majority of the wealthy dodged the taxes, so I can conclude any percentage I want, since he left it open, taking the choice between the two choices he provided.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            There isn’t fifty/fifty anything there, Tiny Twit. “people begin to find ways – be they legal or illegal – to avoid those taxes” doesn’t imply any per cent of them will be legal or that any percent of them will be tempted to illegality. It was a general statement about people, that only the mind numbingly stupid would try to assign percentages to, without any further qualification. And you, Tiny Troll are about the most unqualified there is.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Good morning, delusion boy. Do you also believe Rob never suggested people would break the law to avoid paying taxes?

          • mikemc1970

            Where did Rob say that all millionaires would break the law in order to avoid paying higher taxes?

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            I just cut and pasted it for you, delusion boy. But now it begs the question; if you didn’t read his article, why did you bother opening your stupid mouth if you didn’t know what you were talking about?

          • mikemc1970

            You’re the one that claimed Rob said millionaires would break the law in order to avoid the tax, leaving out any possibility that most would take legal means to avoid the tax. If you’re incapable of comprehending what Rob has written, maybe it would be better if you kept your fool mouth shut.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            How many different ways are you trying to lose this argument and make a fool of yourself, mikemcjuvenile?

            Rob gave us a 50/50 possibility. I didn’t leave anything out. Rob left it open that either they would break the law or avoid taxes legally, but he didn’t give a breakdown, so it’s open to interpretation based on the example he provided from Europe, which suggests the majority of millionaires would avoid taxes, how they did that was a 50/50.

            Now get back to your 2nd grade English teacher and ask for a refund.

            LOL. LOL.

          • Yolanda

            Oh look, it’s Rob’s pet troll. Here again, after accusing someone else of being on the site all the time. Everyone could set their watch to your arrival, every morning, every afternoon and every night.
            You’re pathetic, you fraud.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            What does my early morning blogging have to do with your and mikes mistake?

          • Yolanda

            Just yesterday you accused Proof of being on the site “all of the time” when in fact, it’s you who’s here morning, noon and night. Try getting a life. I’m sure you can find some homeless piece of filth to keep you company as you have in the past. Maybe you can even share your STD meds!! No one decent wants you.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Well I am about to go to work, something you can’t do. Sorry about that by the way.

            I will be back at lunch and perhaps after dinner…I don’t have another business dinner with a business partner of mine, or if I am not working on the remodel. I painted a new extension of the house last night after my steak dinner at the steakhouse….. Sorry you are so bitter, Geoff.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            “…with my wife”

            Any inflatable kids yet??

          • HG

            Envy and jealousy works best on democrats, H.

          • Yolanda

            Yawnnnnnn. Thanks for confirming that you’re Rob’s pet troll, morning, noon and night. Braaahahahaha!!!

            After a quick search of those pesky public records in Hawaii, there doesn’t seem to be a deed with your name on it. Are you doing all that work on someone else’s house in lieu of rent, or are you still just an outright sucker?

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Pet Troll? If you didn’t have something stupid and senseless to say, you would have nothing to say at all.

            But I’m sure having your nose up my ass is all you care about. You seem to be quite enthralled with the scent of my shitter.

            Why does it matter to you what the facts are? You never bothered to familiarize yourself with them before? All you do is live in a crappy Applebee’s house that looks like Martha Stuart threw up on a Macy’s display….complete with gold-flake framed images…..BRAHAHAHAHA!

          • Yolanda

            Yes, willie, you are Rob’s pet troll. And it doesn’t surprise me, or anyone else that you crave a man up your a*s. I’m sure you, being the bi-sexual, STD carrying turd that you are won’t have any trouble finding a willing man to fu*k you in the ass, again. Try the military guys again.
            Applebee’s, Martha Stewart, Macy’s, gold flake??….you’re losing it little pet troll. Are those little voices in your head speaking LOUDER these days??

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Weird! You have a lot of thoughts about gays and gay sex. That’s how guys like you end up on the newspapers for your child rape and illegal sexual activities.

            But what else do you have, except bitter sore loser. 4 more years of being a bitter asshole for you. Your ex must have screamed with excitement while she walked out the door.

          • Yolanda

            Yes willie, you are a weird tiny, little troll. You should go back into therapy to get help with that craving you have for a man to be up your a*s.

            I’ll let my wife know you think she left, while you can’t even get anybody to spend any length of time with you at all. Really, what decent person would want you, a self centered, self absorbed, narcissistic control freak who rages when he doesn’t get his way.

            Now toddle off and listen to your daddy and like he always told you while you were growing up, STFU!! Nothing intelligent ever comes out of your mouth, but everyone knows what your daddy put in your mouth. Braaahahahahaha!!!! How many other little boys did he take into the bathrooms to diddle?

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            How come you edited the part about “your wife” out, Tiny Sociopath? I mean, I didn’t know same sex marriage was legal in Hawaii, NTTAWWT, but I always thought you’d be the wife, Tranni.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Well what would you know? You’re just a lying dumb ass, GH. Rob most certainly DID suggest people would break the law.

            “It works the same way with the tax code. Once you raise taxes beyond a certain point people begin to find ways – be they legal or illegal – to avoid those taxes. – Rob Port

            Brahahaha!

          • HG

            Where did he suggest “that the ‘majority’ of millionaires will break the law”? That’s right, boy wonder, he didn’t. That make you a liar, H.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Rob provided data that suggested a majority of millionaires avoided paying taxes, then suggested that they would do so, illegally or otherwise.

            This fact doesn’t make me a liar, it just makes you a fucking moron.

            LOL.

          • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

            What I wrote I’d that higher taxes encourage tax avoidance through means both legal and illegal.

          • mikemc1970

            You know Special Hanni can’t make fine distinctions like that. It’s either all or nothing.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            I didn’t make an all or nothing statement, that’s just you being stupid again. But you and I both know you are a blithering idiot.

          • mikemc1970

            No, you claimed Rob said millionaires would break the law in order to avoid the tax, leaving out any possibility that most would take legal means to avoid the tax. Liberal idiots just trying to build strawmen again. I really enjoy watching you fail.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Um, it didn’t leave that option out, Rob made an either or statement, leaving it open to interpretation.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Look, I know you are trying to bail out your foolish buddies, but would you mind slowing down and writing in English?

            It’s too late already, they lost.

          • mikemc1970

            Why? It’s not like English is your strong suit.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            You wouldn’t know English if it was a 100lb, 5’3″ blonde gal sitting on your lap, talking to you in the queens.

          • HG

            How much did that cost you, H? You should get a refund.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Is that how you see the world, HG? Just like when you made the other comment about paying to see girls naked?

          • HG

            Only in the mind of a boy who completely misrepresented what Rob wrote.
            Rob never said “the majority of millionaires will break the law”. You own that lie, H.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            But I didn’t say he “said” that. I said he “suggested” it, and he did.

            So I look forward to your apology, GH.

          • HG

            No, you said he “Rob predicted that millionaires will break the law”. Quit dancin’ around the your own words H.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            That’s right, I did use the word “predicting”. Rob predicted millionaires would break the law, and he suggested a majority of them would do it legally or illegally, which means he suggested both, one or the other, or any combination of the two.

          • HG

            Hey stupid. Read what you just posted and try again.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Why? A person can conclude any combination they want, since Rob left it open. Unless you can read his mind his post can mean exactly what I said.

          • HG

            Why? Because “breaking the law” is not done “legally or illegally”. It’s always illegal to break the law. That’s the kind of nonsense that happens when you can’t think straight.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            GH, you said Rob never suggested breaking ANY law, but he did, and I proved that.

            That makes you a fucking fool, and an idiot, by your own standard. You moron.

        • LibertyFargo

          Do you concede that many non-millionaires “break the law” all the time by not declaring every dollar in tips they make as a server or bartender?

          They are required, by law, to report every dollar but many only report a percentage of that amount so that their “taxable income” remains low and they keep cash in their pockets.

          I’m not making a statement on the morality of that particular action but rather highlighting the principle that MOST people will strive to keep and use MOST of their OWN earnings.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Why do I need to concede? I never argued against it.

            I think what you are doing is comparing apples to oranges. I think the percentage is like .001% of employees who work for a large corporation have a chance to not report their income, because it comes from the employers, so the fact that waiters and bus-people don’t report some of their income is the result of the system, not a desire to hide their money because taxes were increased.

            You aren’t making a valid comparison.

  • mikemc1970

    Liberals don’t care. This is about class warfare, not collecting revenues. Look what happened in the UK, yet they will continue to push ahead anyway.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9707029/Two-thirds-of-millionaires-left-Britain-to-avoid-50p-tax-rate.html

    • banjo kid

      It is about destroying any opposition to the democrat party . Romney I think was paid to lose he did not go after Obama on the main items and he should have destroyed him on his past record. To nice to play with the Chicago people .

    • Guest

      What a badly researched article this is.

      “You will note that there were indeed, based on this data, 16,000
      people with more than a million of income in 2009-10. And there were
      just 6,000 a year later. But that was because, as Faisal Islam of
      Channel 4 News best reported in March this year, it was by then known
      that something like £18 billion of income was ‘forestalled’ from 2010-11
      unto 2009-10 to avoid the 50p income tax rate. That meant income was
      simply shifted from the later year into the earlier year to get round
      the additional tax charge.
      In round sums the above data shows those
      earning more than £150,000 paid tax of £33 billion in 2010-11, implying
      taxable income of about £88 billion, based on the data (not all will be
      taxed at 50%, of course).
      The previous year the income of those earning over £150,000 was about £121 billion.
      Forestalling would
      explain maybe £18 billion of this change. Even the Treasury agreed
      that. But remember that means an adjustment is needed to both years. In
      other words 2009-10 was overstated by £18 billion. It should have been
      £103 billion as a result. And 2010-11 was understated by £18 billion. It
      should have been £106 billion after the forestalling effect was
      removed.
      So there was actually an increase in income in 2010-11 for
      those earning over £150,000 but for a massive and one off exercise in
      tax avoidance. And there was no impact at all of people leaving the
      country.
      And the Telegraph story is utterly bogus.” http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2012/11/28/the-telegraphs-claim-that-all-the-rich-have-run-away-because-of-50p-tax-is-completely-bogus/

      • mikemc1970

        It is believed that rich Britons moved abroad or took steps to avoid paying
        the new levy by reducing their taxable incomes.

        Isn’t “forestalling” income a tax avoidance method?Thanks for proving my point that when the wealthy have to pay more taxes they will either make less, leave, or find another way around it.

        • Guest

          They still reported the income, they just reported it a year earlier than they would have otherwise. This is why so many more people appeared to be be millionaires in 2009-2010 than 2010-2011. It is just shuffling money and a short term affect of changing the rates. These people did not move to the Netherlands or Hong Kong or launder money that they made. If this extended ou into a long term situation the data would not be nearly as skewed.

          • mikemc1970

            Yes, they avoided paying it. The Telegraph article didn’t say they all moved away. Here try again.

            It is believed that rich Britons moved abroad or took steps to avoid paying the new levy by reducing their taxable incomes.

            Continue to build strawmen if you wish, but it’s pretty apparent that the rich, when levied with new taxes, take great pains to avoid them.

          • Guest

            Yes they did avoid but it was a short term result of changing tax rates. They simply reported income before the change to higher tax rates. If the rates stay the same over a period of time then you don’t have this problem. The supposed situation of there being way more millionaires one year then the next is a result of this one time shift. It is not a straw man you just need to open your eyes and look at why this happened. Or I guess you could act like so many ignorant SAB blowhards and continue to jump to unsubstantiated conclusions. The choice is yours.

          • ‘Tom Crawford

            maybe they had that silly thought the money they earn is theirs…..

        • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

          So thanks for admitting raises taxes works, it’s just that people will avoid their responsibility and look for ways to prevent that from happening.

          • mikemc1970

            UK Tax revenue collection went down by 7 billion BP. That isn’t more that’s less.

  • banjo kid

    It worked during Reagan’s day so it should work now cut taxes and wait . no way has raising taxes been beneficial during an almost depression . Oh I know what would work; print more money and fill the tax fund with fiat money . (humor)

  • Harold

    I don’t think the democrats even believe that raising tax’s will bring in more then enough revenue to balance our budget deficits. This is just first step in raising the tax’s even more down the line for all americans. Socialism is a very ugly form of govt was everywhere they have tried it and it will be here too.

  • sbark

    USA producers allowed tax recipts to go above 20% of GDP once in the last 100 once—-when a patriotic wave hit the country during WWII……………
    There is no patriotic wave going to hit these shores as the reality is these taxes are going to complete waste in perpetuating generational welfare dependency, entitlement spending such as SS that as recent as 2010 repaid recipients 250% return which is completly unsustainable. ObamaCare and green energy waste that is really just a power grab thru carbon taxation of some form.

  • WOOF

    Tax rates are historically low.
    Revenues are historically low.
    See a pattern?

    • HG

      Gov’t Spending is astronomically and historically high. There’s the problem.

      • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

        Hey Genius, just the other day you said spending increases tax revenues. You were wrong then too, but that doesn’t make your comment any less ignorant.

        • HG

          H, you are dumber than dirt, boy. It is you libs who define a tax cut as spending not me. I said more money in the hands of producers leads to economic production. Try and keep up.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            LOL, you said Obama spent so taxes would increase and come back to the government, in the process of saying that more money in the hands of produces leads to economic production, but you didn’t explain who the producers were. So if you truly believed that Obama’s stimulus meant more production than you must agree with it.

    • sbark

      Its gotta be a IRS enforcement problem huh………we need 16000 more IRS agents in black jackboots

    • two_amber_lamps

      Therefore spending should be historically low…

      But then there’s your Bamster in office… running up the largest deficit spending records in recorded human history.

      See a pattern Comrade?

    • ‘Tom Crawford

      and government spending is really high.
      They get more money and they spend even more.
      See a pattern?

    • jl

      Actually they were lower during Reagan’s second term.

  • two_amber_lamps

    “Raising Taxes Doesn’t Automatically Mean More Revenues”

    Liberal douches just don’t get it… time and again the leftist paradigm of raising taxes to redistribute $$ and finance a growing government falls flat because those who drive the economy eventually wise up and pull up stakes, and they take their tax money with them.

    But when did history and rational studies (ie not ginned up in some pseudo-science leftist madrasa) ever turn leftist ideologues from their self-destructive progressive path?

    ONWARD…. TO IDIOCY!

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9707029/Two-thirds-of-millionaires-left-Britain-to-avoid-50p-tax-rate.html

    • two_amber_lamps
    • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

      Taxes are lower than they were under Clinton and Reagan. Doing away with excessive tax breaks aren’t raising taxes, as if we are raising them from the time we had a balance budget, under Clinton.

      Conservative douches just don’t get it.

      • HG

        Douchebag, it is republicans who are demanding tax code revisions that would do away with excessive tax deductions and loopholes. It is Obama that is demanding tax rate increases. Unless dems have changed their position recently.

        • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

          Douchebag, it’s not an increase to bring tax rates back to what they were during the Clinton era, when the budget was balanced.

          Your information about tax deductions is beside the point.

          • HG

            Yes, it is an increase.

          • ‘Tom Crawford

            If the current tax rate goes up, then yes, that is an increase.

          • LibertyFargo

            “balanced” That’s a good one.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            You’re right, we actually had a surplus until 8 years of conservative leadership fucked that up. Damn!

          • LibertyFargo

            If you don’t count the unfunded future mandated spending for entitlements. I like how progressives “budget.”

            If I ran my household budget like the progressives (no matter their party affiliation… D, R or I) no bank would allow me a loan or even a savings account and I would have no credit to speak of. But the gov’t can say “Hey look… a surplus!” (just don’t look at what we’ll have to pay in 10 years)…

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            I like how you ignore the fact that we had a surplus until 8 years of Republican leadership fucked that up.

          • LibertyFargo

            No need for the language.

          • Yolanda

            Look who’s back again…it’s Rob’s pet troll, willie bonilla.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Brahahaha! You have an nasty temperament when confronted with inconvenient truths. HAHA!

          • Yolanda

            What’s funny , besides the fact that your Rob’s pet troll, is that the inconvenient truth is that you’re a tax cheat, documented and made public, just like your STD meds. Braaahahahahaa!!!

          • Glenn

            From lower to higher is an increase, you toad. But, you being a tax cheat, it doesn’t matter what the rate is, you’ll cheat anyway, it’s in your character. .

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Going from higher to lower to higher is a fluctuation, especially when it’s a PLANNED temporary tax BREAK…..not increase. You moronic imbecile.

            Brahahaha!

          • Glenn

            From lower to higher is an increase, you toad. But, you being a tax
            cheat, it doesn’t matter what the rate is, you’ll cheat anyway, it’s in
            your character. .

      • two_amber_lamps

        Ummm, did you read what I said above?

        Thank you for pointing out the obvious, tax rates were lower under Billiam Climpton and Reagan, but spending was lower as well. Get rid of tax deductions in relation to the $1T per year deficit spending road your messiah has embarked us on? These deductions are a pittance… a frickin’ pittance. But I WILL agree with you, simplify the tax code.

        Speaking of which, should you really be commenting on this topic since as a confirmed tax dodger, Willy Bonilla is in fact part of the problem!!

        • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

          Why would I read what you say, nobody else does? You’re just a lunatic troll that seems to be fascinated with child molestation.

          • two_amber_lamps

            Ellinasty is perfectly happy to discuss his particular deviancies with you I’m sure, I merely point out the fact…. as I point out the fact you have a confirmed track record as a tax cheat, how ironic you wade in on the topic… :)

          • guest

            You fool! Of course you read what 2Amber writes, you respond every time, you pathetic attention craving neer-do-well.

      • jl

        No, the top marginal rate under Reagan was 28%. Today its 35%. 28 is a lower number than 35. Mathematical douches just don’t get it.

        • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

          NO! For seven of Reagan’s eight years in office, the top tax rate was higher than the current 35 percent. In six of those years, it was 50 percent or more. And every year that Regan was in office, the bottom tax bracket was higher than the current ten percent.

          For a family of four, the “average income tax rate under Reagan in 1983 was 11.06 percent.

          Under Clinton in 1992, it was 9.18 percent. And under Obama in 2010, it was 4.68 percent.” During Reagan’s time, income tax revenue ranged from7.8 to 9.4 percent of GDP. Last year, it was 6.2 percent and is not projected to climb back to 9 percent until 2016. In fact, in 2009, Americans paid their lowest taxes in 60 years.

          Simple minded douchebags like you just don’t get it, and liars aren’t willing to admit it.

  • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

    Shocker! Rob wants to model our economy after socialist Europe, because he read something somewhere about something he doesn’t understand.

    • Harold

      ” Rob wants to model our economy after socialist Europe”

      Ah, no. You voted for the scum that’s doing that.

  • awfulorv

    I think I’d feel more comfortable being governed by a well programmed computer than the yahoos presently fracking things up. No I’m certain I would be…

Top