Business

Why Raising Taxes on the Wealthy Won’t Work

[Editor’s note: the following is an article by John Carney that originally appeared on CNBC.com]:

Why Raising Taxes on the Wealthy Wont Work

CNBC Senior Editor John Carney

The belief that the United States under-taxes its wealthiest people has been greatly aided in its rise to respectability by the notion that raising taxes on upper-income earners would help ameliorate troubles allegedly generated by our federal budget deficits.

By now you are probably very well familiar with the standard terms of this debate. Democrats argue that there’s a lot of revenue that can be collected from the income of the wealthy — and point to the fact that the economy seemed to grow quite nicely under the higher tax rates during the Clinton administration. Republicans counter that higher rates won’t realize the revenue Democrats hope, and would harm the economy.

Don’t get down on yourself if find this debate tiresome. It is boring and, more importantly, entirely beside the point.

It is beside the point because it is focused on revenues. But the main reason our government would need to collect more revenues would be to combat inflation, if the budget deficit got so high that there was more aggregate demand than the economy could support.

Take a look at the newspapers. Unemployment is stubbornly high. Businesses are hoarding cash because they don’t see profit in expanding. Households are still deleveraging (although at a less frantic pace). Except for products designed by the late Steve Jobs, it’s hard to find any area of the economy where excess demand is a serious issue.

Which is not to say that we won’t someday overheat. Our budget deficits are massive. The federal government has made spending commitments to provide health care and income support to the elderly that could well put strains on the economy, especially if private sector spending also picks up. All that spending by government and the private sector may someday make inflation a real danger.

The problem for politicians at that point will be that taxing the wealthy won’t do very much to combat inflation. The reason for this should be familiar to anyone who followed the debates about whether tax cuts for the wealthy would create jobs: the wealthy spend a smaller portion of each extra dollar of their income than lower-income people do.

Here’s how the Congressional Budget Office explained it when we were all debating extending the Bush tax cuts back in 2010. The big question then was whether the tax cuts should be extended to everyone (“full extension”) or only to income earners below a certain level (“partial extension).

The full extension of the tax cuts through 2012 would increase GDP and employment more in 2011 and 2012 than would the partial extension through 2012 because it would have a greater overall impact on after-tax income. However, the economic impact per dollar of revenue reduction from the full extension would be smaller than that from partial extension because a greater proportion of the tax savings from the full extension would go to relatively high-income households, which tend to spend less of an increase in income than lower-income households do.

When you are trying to fight inflation, you have to go through this same thought process. The anti-inflationary impact per dollar of revenue increase from raising taxes on high-income households is muted by the tendency to save.

It may not really even be possible to raise taxes on the wealthy to fight inflation. They’ll move out of taxable income and rely on lower-taxed sources of wealth, which doesn’t necessarily dry up demand. So you get a slower economy and continued inflation. It’s the basic recipe for stagflation.

You can’t fight inflation by taxing the wealthy. And since fighting inflation is the primary reason our government would need to raise taxes, the proposals to raise taxes on the wealthy just don’t add up.

–

RELATED:

©2012 CNBC.com, John Carney. Front page photo courtesy the AP.

Comments (67)

1 2
  • phylboyse
    Posted on August 27, 2012 at 7:11pm

    Raising taxes on the wealthy won’t work – partly because they have enough tax loopholes to get thru anyway so they still don’t pay what the lower income people – those making less than $100,000. And ALL of congress is wealthy so they are just telling you crap – because most people don‘t realize this and either don’t care because they are on food stamps – or they don’t care because they are too lazy to do their homework.
    I get so tired of them talking about helping the middle class – those that make $250,000 or more – what about those that make less than $100,000. And the seniors that make less than $50,000. We all still pay the same taxes as those above $250,000 and millionaires – but those people have more tax loopholes.

    Report Post »  
    • Mike Benton
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 8:03pm

      The vast majority of the massive tax code was written under the control of Democrat majority legislatures. Dems like giving loop-holes to their friends. So did the GOP clowns who went along with the game.

      Report Post » Mike Benton  
    • nc_writer
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 8:21pm

      You say it won’t work because you think this is about the economy and debt.

      Obama’s Dream from His Father was one of anti-colonialism, of looting the resources of the poor countries to benefit the mother country. That is what Obama’s father was all about in Kenya, that is who he was. That was his dream.

      Obama‘s dream isn’t about making it in America or being rich or fixing the defict of debt. His dream is about equalizing the playing field, his dream from his father to taken to the individual level. You didn’t build that because you exploited some poor person, you put them back in chains. So now it’s time to make the rich poorer and spread the wealth around.

      The deficit? That’s just another way of taking money from Americans and giving it to other countries in the world.

      Monetizing the debt? That’s just a way of stealing from you by reducing your buying power and redistributing the wealth.

      Stimulus? You can figure that one out for yourself, right?

      The thing is – it IS working, you just don’t understand their goal. It’s doing exactly what they want it to do, it is making America poorer – remember that poverty level here is still in the top 10% of the world. The fly in their ointment is that the rich have evaded their trap….so high taxes to the rescue, they’ll get the rich too.

      Report Post »  
    • bolec slodkie
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 11:31pm

      The reason raising taxes on the rich won‘t increase revenues is because the government can’t tax money in your wallet. The government can only tax money as it is earned, either through income or sale of assets, and when it is spent. The rich don’t need to spend their money.
      The way to get he rich to spend money, or invest, is to reduce taxes on their earnings. When the taxes are lower they will take more risks and make more money. As a side benefit while the rich are making more money they will hire more lower and middle income earners who, because their money is always going in and out of their wallet, will pay more taxes.

      Report Post »  
    • sasquatch08
      Posted on August 28, 2012 at 12:32pm

      They don’t have more loopholes, they have a more competent accountant who shows them how to use the loopholes.

      Report Post »  
    • Military Vet
      Posted on August 28, 2012 at 1:30pm

      Please let me in on these “loopholes” you are referring to and you can replace my tax accountant. This is a typical vague and unsubstantiated canned argument liberals respond with who really have no clue about what they are prattling on about.

      Report Post »  
  • gdfleo
    Posted on August 27, 2012 at 6:28pm

    And you are so lazy you’ll take others stuff.

    Report Post »  
  • sbelse
    Posted on August 27, 2012 at 6:26pm

    Well I guess Nixon was right: “we’re all Keynesians now.” Because that’s exactly what this argument is-however correct the conclusion may be-it is a horribly confused argument.

    How do deficits create demand in the first place? In the normal world we would call deficit spending “borrowing,” which is really just the spending of money by someone other than the person who created it. Of course, in our system, when the gov’t spends more than it raised in taxes (the money taken from the producers) it creates money out of thin air. This expansion of the money supply is what inflation is. Increased prices and currency devaluation are merely symptoms–responses to increased demand (as people value more dollars less) without any comparable increases in the quantity of goods and services available for trade with those dollars.

    Speaking of inequality, since you don‘t notice a swollen wallet when the gov’t inflates, unless your wages adjust upwards, you’ve lost buying power and your demand will decrease. But we’re worried about “excess” demand? Really? Why do you think prices increase in response to inflation? And now we’re going to raise taxes so that it costs more to increase the quantity of goods and services available for trade? By the time those taxes kick in, prices will have adjusted upwards to correct for inflation, just in time to adjust upwards again to adjust for limited supplies. You know what else will go down–our standard of living. Brilliant.

    Report Post »  
    • gsalls
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 9:58pm

      A wonderful explanation of truth. Some seek the truth, others want someone else to the explain the truth. Those who seek shall find, others are just there to follow.

      Report Post »  
    • sasquatch08
      Posted on August 28, 2012 at 12:39pm

      “How do deficits create demand in the first place?”

      Artificially. They create a much larger market for something than should exist under normal market conditions. The government isn’t just putting a $1 trillion plus in a hole and lighting it on fire…

      They‘re taking money they don’t have, printing more money they don’t have and spending all of it. That spending is buying a product or service, or subsidizing it, hence creating demand for those products or services.

      Serious deflation could occur if the government suddenly stopped demanding those products/services. The prices would be expected to fall, but no one is willing to buy because they expect the prices to fall further. Why buy today for $10 what you can have tomorrow for $6? But then they next day $5… then $4…

      This is what happens when the government plays with economic fire. You end up in a situation that is very difficult to get out of without disaster.

      Report Post »  
  • Individualism
    Posted on August 27, 2012 at 6:13pm

    the rich could pay all the taxes easily. it works in Saudi Arabia pretty well with the royal families.

    Report Post » Individualism  
    • Elena2010
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 6:21pm

      Been there, seen that, did not like it much.

      Only the royals have anything while the rest of the country languishes under their despotism.

      Report Post » Elena2010  
    • Mike Benton
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 8:06pm

      You are nuts!
      The Royal family takes our oil money and passes it out as welfare. The unemployment rate is very high so everybody gets a share of our dollars.

      Report Post » Mike Benton  
  • UNBOTHERED
    Posted on August 27, 2012 at 5:23pm

    None of you Anarchists’can rightfully state, what giving the rich tax breaks all these years has done to help the middle class. Please some one tell me exactly what it did for America.

    Report Post » UNBOTHERED  
    • hctulc
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 6:10pm

      You will likely find out in Jan. 2013

      Report Post »  
    • dogmeat
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 7:34pm

      JOBS for one,you know what I mean? WORK! A PAY CHECK! A way to pay your BILLS! A way to EAT! OH then I’m thinking you have no clue! Get out of mommy’s basement and get a JOB!

      Report Post »  
    • LibertyGoddess
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 8:19pm

      You could tax the 1% at 100% and it would cover 7 hours of interest on our massive debt. Obama is blowing smoke.

      Report Post » LibertyGoddess  
    • bolec slodkie
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 11:49pm

      When the tax rates are low on the rich they invest to make more money. If the rich are only investing who is doing the work? The lower and middle class workers in the factories and offices of the companies where the rich people are investing.
      If the taxes are high the rich will go with no risk tax free government bonds. When the rich invest in government bonds there less money to invest in new factories and offices. Since you don’t have a clue where the money to expand your factories and offices are you are either a low wage earner who keeps his head down, a trust fund baby, or a brain dead academic who is upset that he doesn’t get paid enough for thinking.

      Report Post »  
  • thosjefferson
    Posted on August 27, 2012 at 5:09pm

    Marginal rates of income tax are a phony issue. The real problem is wealth inequality, and that’s never going to be addressed by a corrupt Congress. That’s why we need the Equalization Amendment to the Constitution, as described by Equalize-Now dot org.

    Report Post » thosjefferson  
    • COFemale
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 5:23pm

      Get an education and you too can become wealthy. Everyone has the same opportunity. If you don’t go for it, then why punish me for your lack of laziness? Why should you make the same I do when I bust my butt and all you want to do is sit on it?

      Take your wealth equality and shove it where the sun down shine.

      Report Post » COFemale  
    • TEXASQUINN
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 5:31pm

      North Korea already passed that amendment, cuba, venezuela are all passing it as well

      Report Post »  
    • PilgrimStuckInBizarroWorld
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 5:50pm

      Good one Texas:)

      Report Post »  
    • Psychosis
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 5:57pm

      what a mind numbingly stupid site, and an even more ridiculous idea

      it is so stupid, that seeing you think its a good idea, i am shocked your capable of even reading it

      Report Post » Psychosis  
  • sbenard
    Posted on August 27, 2012 at 4:46pm

    Interesting argument I hadn’t heard before.

    But the bottom line is still the fact that there aren’t enough rich people, and that spending is far more than what we could pay for just by raising taxes on the rich. Obama’s proposed tax on the wealthy would only cover about 5% of the deficit. We’re simply spending FAR more than our means!

    But all this is lost on Obama’s legions of leeches. In the progressive world, what happens is the following:

    1) the super-rich crony elites get bailouts
    2) the welfare poor get handouts
    3) the middle class gets left out

    Report Post » sbenard  
  • TheBurningTruth
    Posted on August 27, 2012 at 4:30pm

    As with all these “discussions” that claim that higher taxes under Blue-Dress Bill Clinton “helped” the economy, they miss the most fundamental event that happened during Cigar-Bill’s tenure (though not due to him at all). All significant increases in living standards have ALWAYS followed the introduction of a major productivity increase. This makes sense as it means that more things can be made more cheaply thereby increasing the living standard. Things like the Steam Engine, Railroads, Factory Assembly Lines, Robotic assembly, etc. During Bill’s Oral Office tenure, the PC achieved sufficient penetration into the workplace so that the average person could communicate and work seamlessly with others both in their company and outside. Before the 90s only managers and executives had PCs and by the end of the 90′s the average office employee would be lost without their PC.

    Higher taxes probably slowed down what would have been an even faster more effective introduction of the PC and resultant living standard. But since Progressive Liberals lack the brainpower to understand how economics really works, this gets missed everytime.

    If one want’s to thank anybody, try Steve Jobs, Michael Dell, and yes, Bill Gates.

    Report Post » TheBurningTruth  
    • EspaldaMojada
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 4:36pm

      It also follow the Regan revolution which ushered in the tech explosion. Clinton “inherited” a great economy. So BHO and him have something in common; however, Bill claimed it was his and BHO claims it is Bush’s.

      Report Post » EspaldaMojada  
  • repairsea
    Posted on August 27, 2012 at 4:02pm

    My concern is the definition of rich and where the line is drawn. 250K a year in some states like California is not rich but in Alabama it is rich.

    Report Post »  
    • JRook
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 4:11pm

      Unfortunately a mediocre answer to the wrong question. It is not a question of inflation, it is a question of bringing the tax rates to where they were historically and combating the concentration of wealth which as the report identifies, reduces consumption. Less spending hurts the economy and reduces what is referred to as the velocity of money. Let’s just bring back the tax rates that Reagan had in place relative to both income and capital gains. You know Reagan, the mythical Republican figure who’s policies and record are about half of what everyone claims.

      Report Post »  
    • loriann12
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 4:37pm

      How about making it where normal people can do their own taxes and figure out how much they owe? Right now, your first $8,900 is taxed at 10%, then you get taxed on the next bracket, and then the next, until you hit what you made. It’s not just if you made $250,000 a year you get taxed 35% of the whole thing. How about a FLAT TAX WITH NO LOOPHOLES except Charitable contributions? For the Atheists, they can donate to thrift stores or other charities, it doesn’t have to be what you tithe at church.

      Report Post »  
    • nc_writer
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 4:45pm

      Your concern shouldn’t be on the word “rich”, but on the word “work”. Of course raising taxes won’t help the economy in the long term. They would probably agree. But I think Obama‘s goal isn’t the economy, it’s social justice. Rich people got rich by exploiting poor people, so raising taxes on the right is simple justice – that is the dream from his father. By spreading the wealth around, he can ensure that he is taking what the rich didn’t build by themselves and leveling things out the way they should be.

      You see – when he said “You didn’t build it”, we completely missed what he really meant. And you know that we missed it because they shut up and let us have it…the actual truth was so much worse. “You didn’t build it“ really means ”You stole it from the poor”.

      So – raising taxes will make the rich poorer and that means that it works for them.

      Report Post »  
    • Jaycen
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 5:29pm

      @JRook

      Yeah, “the tax rates were this way before, so they should be this way today” is a brilliant argument. Logically sound, and supported by hard data based on absolutely nothing.

      You’re a genius.

      Report Post » Jaycen  
  • MiCurmudgeon
    Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:55pm

    Raising taxes on the top wage earners is like peeing in the ocean and trying to raise the tide.

    Report Post »  
  • cemerius
    Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:23pm

    We don’t have a “taxing problem” we HAVE a “spending problem”……hold ALL of DC to the fire and make them realize that is NOT their money they are spending!

    For a perfect example see how Social Security has failed? It is NOT an “intitlement” it is MY money as well as everyone else who put money into it! Washington DC could not stand the fact that their was a big pile of cash they couldn’t touch so they took that money and added it to their general fund also known as their “slush fund”!!! There are MANY cuts that can be made to include the Depertment of Defense AND Welfare…….sacred cows need to be streamlined!

    Report Post » cemerius  
    • DarkJello
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:51pm

      Obama admits we are spending too much, and then runs around promising even more stuff to this group and that. He and his ilk–R, I, and D–need to leave the rest of us alone. Stop wastefully spending our money! It really is that simple.

      Report Post » DarkJello  
  • KeithOlberdink
    Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:19pm

    Before a marxist government can come into power
    everyone must be broke and dependent on government.
    Do you think anyone could impose a marxist government
    on a country that was fully employed and prosperous?

    Report Post » KeithOlberdink  
  • blackbean
    Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:18pm

    Question: How many Americans have poverty as a life goal? How many want to rich? Government has to prove that they are responsible with the money they extract from us before being allowed another dime! I know, not going to happen.

    Report Post »  
  • simplygilly
    Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:09pm

    The Clinton economy was stronger in large part to greater tax revenue BUT less so to higher taxes on the wealthy than to a SIGNIFICANTLY GREATER NUMBER of taxpayers. Today, the 1/2 of the country that contributes nothing to the income tax coffers partakes in all the bennies they provide.

    Report Post » simplygilly  
  • MrKnowItAll
    Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:08pm

    Not one person I ever knew has any problem paying taxes. Like myself, they have a problem with the Waste of those Taxes. People who really Need Help never get it. If they did. Not a sould would be protesting.

    Report Post » MrKnowItAll  
  • Economist
    Posted on August 27, 2012 at 2:57pm

    Yes we all want taxes lower. But it fustrates me especially because Republicans focus soooo much on taxes when a much bigger issues is right there in front of them…. Monetary policy.

    Lets say you have a patent has a head wound (Fed policy) but also has a broken thumb (high taxes)but all the Democrats and Republicans care about is the broken thumb. See they don’t see or understand that he has been shot in the head and is bleeding out while they argue about how to bandage up his thumb.

    Same with monetary policy, you republicans need to understand that our government will not change until we revert course on Monetary policy. Fiscal policy does not matter. You can not keep a “socalist”, “deficit building” Federal governement with out a FIAT based central bank playing ball.

    Watch the other hand people

    Report Post » Economist  
    • tolerence
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:45pm

      first of all its the DEMOCRATS since carter that have been a one trick pony,raise taxes, raise taxes,…its a known fact the lower the taxes the more buisnesses hire and take risk,the more jobs ,the more a company expands,the more products being made and sold,the more people are employed and the more people that spend and the more to pay taxes,the more in fact revenue the goverment recieves,….we dont need more taxes we need more taxpayers,…you dont help the unemployed by bringing down the employer! you dont help the poor by bringing down the rich,if we took 30% of all money from the richest folks in AMERICA it would bring the obama administration only 360 billion dollars a year, the problem is obama is spending almost 2 trillion a yr.

      Report Post »  
    • Economist
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 4:11pm

      Case in point with the above statement. I am not even sure you finished reading my post before you thought I was a big gov. liberal wanting to raise taxes and missed my point about monetary policy. WOW.

      Well let me tell you IMO taxes should be 0%. But thats not the issue at hand now. You should finish reading my post.

      Report Post » Economist  
  • Libfreezone
    Posted on August 27, 2012 at 2:53pm

    The biggest problem is that increasing the tax revenue will only give the government more money to spend. This will do nothing to lower the debt or decrease the deficit. If you think the government would be responsible enough to allocate additional tax revenue to reducing debt and deficits well then you are the most naive person in America and you are too stupid to live.

    Report Post » Libfreezone  
    • progressiveslayer
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 2:58pm

      Or to vote,the lemmings lap up the BS from whoever happens to be promising all the freebies.They’re idiots and a threat to our republic and unfortunately for the rest of us normal people they have enough intelligence to find their way to vote.

      Report Post » progressiveslayer  
  • progressiveslayer
    Posted on August 27, 2012 at 2:47pm

    It’s the same old tax the rich BS the communists have used for years,the playbook is old your communistic ideas are old they suck and nobody wants any part of it. The taxes raised for two years is around 85 billion and it’ll feed the hogs in DC for ten days,then what you parasites?

    Class warfare has been used by the communists here in America for years and Barry is just following the old worn out playbook. Government extracts more money from the taxpayer and they’ll waste it on unconstitutional social BS programs and not to pay down the debt,there isn’t enough money in the world to satisfy the hogs in DC. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EW-i1LTDxR0&feature=fvsr

    Report Post » progressiveslayer  
  • Economist
    Posted on August 27, 2012 at 2:41pm

    This is a stupid article. You you cant fight inflation through fiscal policy, you need to fight it through monetary policy. It is like trying to put out a 5 alarm fire with a squirt gun.

    YOU PEOPLE NEED TO LEARN ECONOMICS!!

    Theft through taxes is small compared to the theft thru monetization of your purchasing power.

    The author is clueless. He is saying that inflation comes from demand. It does not come from demand, it comes from more money creation. Human demand is endless. Eveybody wants everything. It is only a problem when the government is able to “artificially” paper over the problems in our economy and satisfy the underlying demand by keeping interest rates below the market interest rates and expanding the FED’s balance sheet.

    Report Post » Economist  
    • progressiveslayer
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 2:54pm

      Possible solution to the madness of the FED,gold standard? Your thoughts,go.

      Report Post » progressiveslayer  
    • Economist
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:09pm

      A free banking system with a bimetalic (gold and silver) floating exchange. where you can exhange your notes into hard currency upon demand. Not a gold standard but a system that lets you pay in specie (gold or silver)

      NO FDIC
      NO FED
      Banks can also issue thier own currency notes and fractional banking is allowed.
      Yes you could still pay with credit cards, paper money, but your paper could be exchanged for metals.

      Report Post » Economist  
    • Economist
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:33pm

      The long answer to your question :)

      http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/honmoney1.html

      Report Post » Economist  
    • Rothbardian_in_the_Cleve
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:37pm

      “It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.” — M. Rothbard

      No matter how they jack with income tax rates it always ends up generating about 17 to 19% of GDP. Government seems hell bent on spending 23-25% of GDP. Problem?

      Report Post » Rothbardian_in_the_Cleve  
  • MBridOKC
    Posted on August 27, 2012 at 2:39pm

    WATERSRPEOPLE —
    You are probably of the ilk that covets what another has, but has no desire to try to obtain it for themselves. You despise the rich because you have no ambition to be able to achieve anything for yourself. You resent those who make something of themselves when you are nothing, and obvioulsy do not desire to be something. The rich provide jobs, the rich provide for charity to a greater extent than you. They are not all admirable or ethical, and some may have had it handed to them… but the VAST MAJORITY of them worked to get what they have and many if not most give to a greater extent than you may be able to do in your entire life. The rich are mostly rich, because they worked. They worked hard, most were honest, and deserve every bit of what they have obtained. The same may be said of you…. though since you obviosly don’t aspire to much… you probably have what you deserve as well. — Enjoy your day.

    Report Post »  
  • michael from Ga.
    Posted on August 27, 2012 at 2:37pm

    Taxing the rich means nothing; This is an Alinsky move to make the middle believe that they are on the same sides. The middle has been sliding backwards for many years. Inflation is taking a toll on the middle in everyday shoping and retirement savings. No, Treasury Sec., Federal Reserv. Chairman, and Head of the Executive Branch, you are not one of Us.

    Report Post »  
  • woodyee
    Posted on August 27, 2012 at 2:31pm

    Most of us on the Blaze know why raising taxes on the wealthy doesn’t work – it’s a disincentive to productivity.

    How I wish we could return to the days when loyalty meant something; perhaps then we could strip the Soros’ of our Nation of their citizenship and give THEM the boot!

    What does one have to do with the other? On the one hand the Left is consistent in attempts to stifle economic progress and demonize success and the capitalism that is essential to both. On the other hand, if they really don’t like it, well then we can provide strong incentives to GTFO and become citizens of countries that practice what our soon-to-be-expats believe!

    Report Post » woodyee  
  • watersRpeople
    Posted on August 27, 2012 at 2:24pm

    The rich are probably going to be taxed phenomenally. And you‘ll keep working hard because you’re just that greedy.

    Report Post »  
    • wisehiney
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 2:31pm

      But there is no more money to be made from broke deadbeat weasels like you.

      Report Post »  
    • LetUsReason
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 5:50pm

      Fortunately, there’s a good portion of money to be made by deadbeat wolverines. You’re right, when it comes to weasels like (whomever you’re indicating), then I suppose funds are meager. It’s the wolverines we have to look at for revenue.

      Report Post »  
  • mcsledge
    Posted on August 27, 2012 at 2:22pm

    Many complain about the greed of the rich without looking in the mirror. A vast majority expect more than what they merit (desire to reap what they have not sown). There are exponentially more who covet what others have without the willingness to make something of themselves. The model is absolutely unsustainable from day 1.

    Report Post » mcsledge  
  • watersRpeople
    Posted on August 27, 2012 at 2:20pm

    Actually for the most part it will work, because most of the current rich are so, so greedy they will keep on working harder. Much the same way a dog will risk it health to run through a window or barbed-wire fence to get a chunk of meat.

    Report Post »  
    • Stelex
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 2:41pm

      I’m sorry but when you post all I can picture is someone kinda Michale Moorish in his underware and yellow powdered hands and lips with a cheeto on his chest typing. Its very disturbing. You should strive to clean up that image.

      Report Post » Stelex  
    • progressiveslayer
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 2:50pm

      STELEX It’s living the simple life,we pay for it and they continue to suck,literally. It’s coming to an end though no matter who wins in November.

      Report Post » progressiveslayer  
    • Stelex
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:22pm

      That I agree with, there will be dramatic change no matter who wins the race.

      Report Post » Stelex  
    • mcsledge
      Posted on August 28, 2012 at 2:00am

      Anyone that expects another individual to pay the social costs for others against their will is irresponsible, disrespectful and deserves to have their freedoms taken by force. What a hypocrit.

      The rich are as entitled to their property as the indolent are their lack of property.

      Report Post » mcsledge  
1 2

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love