Monday
Nov032008
It’s not Obama you need to worry about.
Monday, November 3, 2008 at 2:32PM
Those of us who are business owners are often suspicious of tax policy put forward by democrats. Lately I've been getting a lot of email from Obama supporters asking how I could be against a tax policy that promises to lower taxes for anyone making less than $250,000. My first response is that any "promise" made by a politician, democrat or republican, especially with regard to taxes, is immediately suspect.
But I digress. Our good buddy and possibly the most hated legislator of all time, Newt Gingrich, hits the nail on the head. If you think a House majority led by Pelosi and a Senate majority led by Reid will consider $250,000 the threshold below which taxes will not be raised you've ignored Bill Clinton's example and inhaled one extraordinary puff off the democrat peace pipe. Further, if you think Obama will adhere to his campaign promises and veto legislated tax increases passed by a congressional majority of his fellow democrats I've got an autographed hymnal from Jeremiah Wright I'll sell you for my next mortgage payment.
My point is this: tax planning has become increasingly difficult in the past decade. New tax laws are passed with the prolific flourish usually reserved for tabloids. You SHOULD expect new tax legislation if Obama is elected. You SHOULD expect that legislation to result in tax increases needed to fund social programs. You SHOULD NOT delude yourself in the belief that those increases will be limited to the richest of the rich. In the United States the median household income is $44,389. This means that half of all households make more than this, and half make less. The democrats and the Obama campaign cannot seem to make up their mind whether the increases will stop at $250,000 or $220,000 or $150,000 or 120,000. The aim of Obama's spread the wealth tax policy is income equality. By definition that means those with more are levied to provide for those with less. If you're in the top 50% your taxes will go up.
Suppose you think I'm an idiot. Today, on a Monday, I might grant you that point. Suppose I'm wrong and the dems don't want half the people to pay higher taxes so the other half can have more. That, after all, is a little too Marxist. Suppose the dems only want the top 25% to pay more. This sounds fair (to a socialist leaning, out of work democrat). If one person makes more than three of his peers he needs to pay more taxes...right? For all of you middle class, college educated, hard working folks out there with Obama signs in your front yard get out your checkbook. In the U.S. 75.84% of households make less than $80,000. The next time you're standing in line at the post office with three other people chances are you're the rich one.
If you vote for Obama, just do me a favor: don't drink the cool-aid. Social spending will go up, foreign aid will go up, the size of government will increase and YES, the $65k you brought home last year from your $80k salary will go DOWN (if you own a business it's going WAY down). This isn't the price tag for electing Obama, it's the price tag for a democratic controlled Congress with no impending Presidential veto. Now you know.
But I digress. Our good buddy and possibly the most hated legislator of all time, Newt Gingrich, hits the nail on the head. If you think a House majority led by Pelosi and a Senate majority led by Reid will consider $250,000 the threshold below which taxes will not be raised you've ignored Bill Clinton's example and inhaled one extraordinary puff off the democrat peace pipe. Further, if you think Obama will adhere to his campaign promises and veto legislated tax increases passed by a congressional majority of his fellow democrats I've got an autographed hymnal from Jeremiah Wright I'll sell you for my next mortgage payment.
My point is this: tax planning has become increasingly difficult in the past decade. New tax laws are passed with the prolific flourish usually reserved for tabloids. You SHOULD expect new tax legislation if Obama is elected. You SHOULD expect that legislation to result in tax increases needed to fund social programs. You SHOULD NOT delude yourself in the belief that those increases will be limited to the richest of the rich. In the United States the median household income is $44,389. This means that half of all households make more than this, and half make less. The democrats and the Obama campaign cannot seem to make up their mind whether the increases will stop at $250,000 or $220,000 or $150,000 or 120,000. The aim of Obama's spread the wealth tax policy is income equality. By definition that means those with more are levied to provide for those with less. If you're in the top 50% your taxes will go up.
Suppose you think I'm an idiot. Today, on a Monday, I might grant you that point. Suppose I'm wrong and the dems don't want half the people to pay higher taxes so the other half can have more. That, after all, is a little too Marxist. Suppose the dems only want the top 25% to pay more. This sounds fair (to a socialist leaning, out of work democrat). If one person makes more than three of his peers he needs to pay more taxes...right? For all of you middle class, college educated, hard working folks out there with Obama signs in your front yard get out your checkbook. In the U.S. 75.84% of households make less than $80,000. The next time you're standing in line at the post office with three other people chances are you're the rich one.
If you vote for Obama, just do me a favor: don't drink the cool-aid. Social spending will go up, foreign aid will go up, the size of government will increase and YES, the $65k you brought home last year from your $80k salary will go DOWN (if you own a business it's going WAY down). This isn't the price tag for electing Obama, it's the price tag for a democratic controlled Congress with no impending Presidential veto. Now you know.
Reader Comments