Paul L. Caron
Dean


Thursday, February 11, 2010

Obama's Budget Would Redistribute $112 Billion From Top 1% of Taxpayers

Tax Foundation, Obama Budget Would Increase Income Redistribution from Top 1% of Taxpayers by $112 Billion:

True to his campaign promise to "spread the wealth around," President Obama's recently released budget targets high-income earners for income redistribution to low- and middle-income families, according to a new Tax Foundation report. The president's policies would redistribute an additional $112 billion from the top 1% of taxpayers down the income scale in fiscal year 2012.

On average, the president's budget would redistribute another $101,314 from families in the top-earning 1% to the rest of the income spectrum, for a total redistribution of $509,257 per family. ...

Families in the bottom-earning 10 percent stand to benefit the most from the president's policies. As a group, they'll receive an additional $8.7 billion in federal spending benefits. On average, a family in the bottom 10 percent will receive an additional $494 in income redistribution for a total of $17,962.

https://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2010/02/obamas-budget-2.html

Tax, Think Tank Reports | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c4eab53ef0128778d8560970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Obama's Budget Would Redistribute $112 Billion From Top 1% of Taxpayers:

Comments

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

Posted by: Dostoyevsky | Feb 11, 2010 11:13:15 AM

"Income redistribution" -- when anyone besides the government does it, it's called "stealing".

Posted by: jvon | Feb 11, 2010 11:20:57 AM

The fruits of a mans labor is a sacred thing. When the fruits are deemed public domain and taken without consideration for the time, sweat and industry involved in their production, revolution is at hand.

Posted by: Stanley Baldwin | Feb 11, 2010 11:46:36 AM

We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal, and entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Oh yeah, and equal incomes for everybody, too.

Posted by: Warpspeeed | Feb 11, 2010 11:49:30 AM

Frankly, it's a good thing.

I would have just wasted a lot of that money on purchases satisfying my own selfish needs and desires.

Whatever was left after my splurges would have to be stored somewhere, and, frankly, I'm running out of room for the big banker's boxes full of currency.

No, far better to use that money for the common good by giving the large, bored-looking woman at the Motor Vehicle take-a-number station a larger raise that might motivate her to stop treating customers as unwelcome and undeserving interruptions. The last four raises didn't quite do it - I'm thinking one more might be the key . . .

Posted by: bobby b | Feb 11, 2010 11:56:08 AM

Isn't this just an elimination of Bushco tax cuts?

Posted by: jhill123 | Feb 11, 2010 11:58:56 AM

I assume the other $103 Billion is consumed in 'administrative costs'.

Posted by: Sickofit | Feb 11, 2010 12:02:44 PM

This shocks me!

Sure, Obama demonstrated a redistributionist tendency when he flat out told Joe the Plumber that he thought things worked better when you "spread the wealth around," but the media said 1) Joe was a plant and 2) besides that, he had a $1,500 tax lien.

Somehow I thought those two things invalidated Obama's statement. That sure seemed to be the implication, didn't it??

Odd that it turned out to be true after all!

Posted by: Hogarth | Feb 11, 2010 12:07:16 PM

"'Income redistribution' -- when anyone besides the government does it, it's called 'stealing.'"

Naaahhh, it's still stealing when the government does it, jvon - it's just that they've got all the prosecutors and judges in their back pocket.

Posted by: Barbara Skolaut | Feb 11, 2010 12:12:22 PM


"The president's policies would redistribute an additional $112 billion from the top 1% of taxpayers down the income scale in fiscal year 2012."

Absolute crapola.

People in the top 1% did not get there by being stupid. They have many ways to finesse around this, and the amount will not be anywhere near that. I would be my life on it.

Posted by: Chester White | Feb 11, 2010 12:24:45 PM

Stand and deliver.
It's time to render unto Caesar. To wit, me.

Posted by: Barack Obama | Feb 11, 2010 12:34:50 PM

Remember when the Congressional Black Caucus et al used to talk about Reparations? Looks to me like they've succeeded!

Posted by: BoogieOtis | Feb 11, 2010 12:44:26 PM

"Redistribute" is neocon code for "black." You are a RACIST bigot.

Posted by: Lerot Washintob | Feb 11, 2010 12:48:55 PM

Income redistribution has much the same effect on "supply and demand" as charge redistribution has on a battery. Forcefully creating a level playing field, and removing any potential difference, both leave you with an overall average of zero.

Posted by: Shelgeyr | Feb 11, 2010 12:56:00 PM

What is overlooked is the deficit increase, even after these tax increases. There is no real accounting for the unfunded liabilities of Medicare or Social Security, both of which are income redistribution schemes which create liabilities off the budget. Which income group will eventually pay for those bailouts? My guess is that it will have little effect on those with the pre-existing condition of Lazy.

Posted by: aaCharley | Feb 11, 2010 1:12:50 PM

As someone who will be hit with this, If I have to pay it, why doesn't my vote carry more weight?
This fool in the White House is going to turn this country in to Greece.

Posted by: cubanbob | Feb 11, 2010 1:27:24 PM

What will happen is that total revenues will "unexpectedly" decline.

A guest on Beck's show last week pointed out that 84% of California's tax revenue comes from those who make more than $100k and only 2% of revenues come from those that make $50k. And as productive people depart the state, revenues are--you guessed it--"unexpectedly" falling.

How many of us who can retire and reduce our incomes radically are seriously thinking of doing so, especially when to continue to work means you are simply having more stolen by the government?

Posted by: Koblog | Feb 11, 2010 1:29:55 PM

How much does the government siphon off in payroll, office supplies,buildings, ect. between the rich that the money is taken from and the poor that it is redistributed to? I think that the poor stay poor and that the government gets fat.

Posted by: Claude Maurer | Feb 11, 2010 2:31:53 PM

I'm curious to know when the breaking point on this Executive Branch will surface? How many more straws out of Obamas mouth will break down all order and send the countrymen into all out war with the Legislative (and perhaps Executive) branch?

It seems the White House is on track to make that event occur sooner rather that later.

I just might be there when it happens.

Posted by: Punkindrublic | Feb 11, 2010 2:45:21 PM

Capital (that is, the savings of a society) is what makes the world go 'round. Redistribution consumes capital or scares it out of the country - then we wonder why our businesses don't grow and the country gets poorer.

Posted by: Usara | Feb 11, 2010 3:16:02 PM

It's the eat-the-seedcorn-too policy of edible corn expansion.

Posted by: rhhardin | Feb 11, 2010 3:23:48 PM

Clearly, all of you who disagree with Obama's plans are racists!

Posted by: Woody | Feb 11, 2010 3:45:27 PM

I really doubt if anyone here is in the top 1%. (You would have to earn at least $390,000 in adjusted income)

And those who are, have been paying next to nothing in taxes since Bush gave them his tax breaks.

Its about time the government took care of the rest of us.

Posted by: liberty60 | Feb 11, 2010 3:58:46 PM

All this for a measly $500 for the year? That's not even $50/month! A ten-spot a week?

Posted by: Sandy P | Feb 11, 2010 4:38:45 PM

He told us that he wanted to "spread it around"...

Posted by: David Jay | Feb 11, 2010 5:13:00 PM

To quote the immortal George "Kingfish" Stevens, "Do the word theft strike a familiar note?"

Posted by: Watney | Feb 11, 2010 5:19:23 PM

"And those who are, have been paying next to nothing in taxes since Bush gave them his tax breaks."

Oh, please. Go look at who pays taxes in the country. You can have an opinion, but not your own facts. And the facts are otherwise. Everyone knows that, except those who don't bother to read about exactly how progressive our tax system is at present.

Posted by: snowguy | Feb 11, 2010 5:37:09 PM

"I really doubt if anyone here is in the top 1%. (You would have to earn at least $390,000 in adjusted income)... And those who are, have been paying next to nothing in taxes since Bush gave them his tax breaks"

Well let me give you a real world example; in 2008 my wife and I had an adjusted taxable income of $515,453 for Federal ($556,974 for CA State) and we paid Federal Taxes of $152,079 plus CA State income taxes of $47,190. So for us "next to nothing" amounted to $199,269. And of course that doesn't include Soc Sec, Medicare (about another $18,000).

Believe me, I don't expect any sympathy and we are very fortunate to have that income, but we also run two businesses and typically work 60-70 hours a week, if not more. So I hardly think we've been the undo beneficiary's of Bush era generosity.

Posted by: L.A.Guy | Feb 11, 2010 6:36:22 PM

Above in this thread I commented upon the tremendous increase in off balance sheet debt through Medicare and Social Security. This blog post at Zerohedge breaks down a paper looking at the Greece / EU situation, their budgets, and the tremendous problems they will have in getting thme under control with the vast unfunded EU obligations for Social welfare programs. It should be noted that Zerohedge followers have a generally dark opinion of the economic future. The paper is by a SocGen economist Dylan Grice with quite a thorough explanation. http://www.zerohedge.com/article/just-how-ugly-sovereign-default-truth-how-self-delusions-prevent-recognition-reality

Posted by: aaCharley | Feb 11, 2010 6:50:41 PM

$112 billion? Feh, they'll be lucky to get half that. Rich people generally don't get rich by being stupid. They can see this train coming, and they'll do all they can to get out of its way.

Posted by: Patrick Carroll | Feb 11, 2010 7:30:29 PM

"I really doubt if anyone here is in the top 1%. (You would have to earn at least $390,000 in adjusted income)
And those who are, have been paying next to nothing in taxes since Bush gave them his tax breaks.
Its about time the government took care of the rest of us."

It's not the government's job to "take care" of anyone. Grow up and take care of yourself.

But just in case you actually want to learn something, here's the share of income by quintile.

Bottom 20% Households: 3.4%
Next 20%: 8.6
Middle 20%: 14.5
Next 20%: 22.9
Top 20%: 50.5%

For interest: top 5% earns 22%

Keep in mind that richer households are larger — an average of 3.1 people in the top fifth, compared with 2.5 people in the middle fifth and 1.7 in the bottom fifth. So the smaller household almost by definition will make less - because fewer people are working. Can't have two incomes if there are only 1.7 people....

Now let's look at percentage of taxes paid:
Bottom 20%: 0.8 (all federal) and -2.8 (income - they got $ back)
Next 20%: 4.1 and -0.8 (they also got $ back)
Middle 20%: 9.1 and 4.4
Next 20%: 16.5 and 12.9
Top 20%: 69.3 and 86.3%

This info is from the Census Bureau and the CBO. So please don't quibble. You are welcome to look it up.

No matter how you slice it, the US tax code is steeply progressive, taxes any dollar that a two-income household earns more heavily than a one-income household, penalizes extra effort, and gives back far more to low income households than it takes.

The top 1% of taxpayers pays 40% of the taxes in this country. The bottom 50% pay 3%. I'd say we're taking good care of you.

Posted by: orthodoc | Feb 12, 2010 11:05:17 AM