View Single Post
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 06-22-2008
goober's Avatar
goober goober is offline
President

 
Member Since: Apr 2005
Location: massachusetts
Posts: 10,333

   
Re: SSI under Obama= Welfare?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imperator View Post
Now consider how the Obama plan would affect the taxes paid by such an entrepreneur with a taxable profit from his business of $500,000. Under current law, he would pay $27,148 in Social Security and Medicare taxes, plus $142,969 in personal income taxes, for a total of $170,117. If the taxpayer did not change his behavior at all, under the Obama plan he would face a $31,000 Social Security tax hike and a $11,494 hike in his personal taxes – or a 25% tax hike. But, if the taxpayer responds as the economic models predict, his taxable profit would drop to $444,000. His Social Security and Medicare tax bill would still soar to $51,580. But his income taxes, even with a higher tax rate, would drop to $132,882 for a total of $184,462.

In other words, Sen. Obama is planning on a combined series of tax hikes to produce $42,000 in tax revenue, but consensus economic modeling suggests the government's net take would rise only $14,000.

We should also keep in mind that the economic well-being of the country is not measured by how much taxes the government can collect, or even the size of the deficit. Rather, it is measured by the country's productive capacity. Our theoretical entrepreneur's 11.2% decline in taxable income reflects both less effort on his part and a less efficient use of his income in order to avoid confiscatory tax rates. Or, to put it directly, Sen. Obama's plan would reduce an entrepreneur's after-tax profits by $70,000 – $56,000 in lost profits and $14,000 more in taxes – just to produce a net revenue gain to the government of $14,000.
This is why I avoid the WSJ editorial page.
The ideology over reality ratio is way too high.
It gives an example that shows that tax collections will fall if tax rates are raised. Based on "models".

Yet when taxes were actually raised, tax collections went up, and when taxes were cut, tax collections fell.
This has been demonstrated with the Reagan tax cuts, the Reagan Tax increases, the Bush tax increases, the Clinton tax Increases and the Bush tax cuts.
Yet, despite all this actual evidence, the WSJ editorial page still trots out it's long discredited theory and employs it like revealed wisdom to make it's point.
__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address
Reply With Quote