The Right Opinion
Debunking the Millionaires and Billionaires Tax Cut Rhetoric
I am amazed when I hear not just liberal Democrats but also some Republicans being suckered into the belief that "the wealthiest 2 percent of taxpayers, these millionaires and billionaires" should see their tax rates rise. It is class warfare, yes. More importantly, it is not true!
According to Bloomberg News, an overwhelming percentage of the people being called "the ultra rich" come nowhere near to earning $1 million dollars a year. Of this so-called "privileged class," 3.8 million of those filing taxes who the liberal wing of the Democratic party believes to be "the very wealthy" are earning somewhere between $200,000 and $500,000 a year. Only 608,000 taxpayers earn between $500,000 and $1 million a year. That leaves a grand total of 315,000 individuals or families that earn more than $1 million a year. And if you separate out from that number the Oprah Winfreys of the world -- megastar celebrities, professional athletes, and the true, few elites of the business and finance worlds -- the percentage of "ultra rich" is even lower.
But let's get back to that overwhelming majority of the highest tax bracket that liberals are so eager to see punished, even to the point of turning on their own president, who already has earned the reputation with many Americans of being the most liberal president since FDR. This tax class is made up of the small business owners, doctors, and small retail and manufacturing entrepreneurs who collectively employ nearly half of the nation's workforce.
While every big corporation and bank was getting a bailout during the economic collapse, and while those on welfare were seeing extension after extension of their benefits, this small group of Americans -- who already carry the brunt of the nation's tax burden -- struggled. And they are still struggling to keep their businesses and practices going. They are trying to avoid layoffs. They are cutting every possible expense.
These are the nation's most frustrated workers. Even while they have been balancing the economic viability of their enterprises on their own backs and out of their own pockets, they have had to watch as the bailed-out banks have made fortunes. And yet these same banks continue in their unwillingness and inability to lend money to the so-called "super wealthy" owners of small businesses so that they can keep their companies alive.
I have been a frequent critic of President Obama, but I must note that despite his clear left-of-center agenda, he was smart enough to realize that these 3.8 million non-millionaires, attacked as they have been by a mindless left wing, are the only hope he has for an economic recovery. Increase their taxes and inevitably they will have to cut back more in their own spending and, likely, on the number of people they hire and the services they use. Of course the president will never admit to this, but it is undeniable.
Now some conservatives are ready to sink the extension of the "Bush tax cuts" because of the extension of unemployment benefits that comes as a trade-off to get this deal done. Believe me, I want to see welfare reform back in place, just as it was passed by Newt Gingrich and the Republicans in the 1990s. But if conservatives kill the extension of the George W. Bush tax rates over the cost of the additional extension in unemployment benefits, they will be cutting their off their noses to spite their faces. The failure to extend the cuts would lead to a significant rise in unemployment and to the spending of more big money on a fresh new crop of unemployed Americans. And the "super wealthy" wouldn't be putting much back into the economy.
It seems that too few recognize what a critical moment we face on this tax issue. Increasing taxes on these so-called "wealthy" would be a guarantee of a new round of economic disasters. Let those who want to make a point about class warfare risk such a situation at their own peril.
Regardless, the next time you hear someone talk about taxing the "millionaires and billionaires," you will have these facts and can make clear to them that their desire to "spread the wealth" would only guarantee years more of economic misery. Maybe that's what they want.
COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

12 Comments
Rob Risko
Friday, December 10, 2010 at 8:02 AM
This will be over-simplified to remain brief:The 16th Amendment was to tax only the rich. But the rich were smarter than government (who isn't? - that's rhetorical) and protected their assets in legal entities. So government expanded taxes to the middle- and low-income earners to continue their big government plans.I think it was Maryland that decided to significantly increase taxes on millionaires. At that time they had 3,000+ millionaire citizens paying taxes. A couple of short years later and they only have ~1,000 millionaires to draw taxes from. So guess what happened to their revenue?Why are millionaires so willing to let their tax rates rise? I don't think it is because they have so much that they don't care. It is really that they don't care because they are smart enough to legally shelter and preserve their wealth.And if it gets bad enough...a millionaire can and will simply move to a less oppressive state...OR COUNTRY. And where does that revenue go?!I want to be as smart as the wealthy instead of trying to steal from them!
SULLY
Friday, December 10, 2010 at 8:24 AM
"...their desire to "spread the wealth" would only guarantee years more of economic misery. Maybe that's what they want." That's EXACTLY what they (progressive liberals) want, Mr. Towery. They can't stand the fact that there are people out there that endeavor to control their own lives, destinies and fortunes. They can't stand the fact that there are people out there who dare to think for themselves. Technology may have dramatically changed during the last 10,000 years, but human nature has not. This is nothing more than the age-old propensity for humans to excercise their "LUST FOR DOMINANCE" over their fellow humans, and force them to conform to a carefully monitored, carefully controlled, Orwellian style existence (while they, of course, live lavish and luxurious lifestyles, at taxpayer expense). And to assign arbitrary amounts to who is considerd "rich" and who isn't, is absolutely preposterous. So a couple making $251K is "rich", but the couple making $249K isn't? Absurd, at best. If they don't stop pushing their twisted, degenerate, and perverted agendas on all of us, this will all end very, very badly. It's long past time to roll out the guillotines. Thanks for the column, Mr. Towery. Well done, sir!
William Mikulski
Friday, December 10, 2010 at 9:00 AM
Here we are again, responding to the leftist's propaganda. The real response should be "What is wrong with being rich?" The purpose of taxes is to fund the legitimate functions of government.
David Conservative
Friday, December 10, 2010 at 10:53 AM
If the tax increase was moved to $1m, even on the coasts $1m leaves ample $'s after all bills are paid. So if the increase was only on earners of taxable income of $1m, 315,000 families, maybe it would be wise for conservatives to agree with the left on the issue and contest the unemployment benefits extension? If you are a business owner and have taxable income in excess of $1m, you could reduce that amount of taxable income by investing more $ in your business, assets or employees, both of which boost the economy, and if these higher tax rates do that, they are successful. Of course if those companies close down and those wage earners leave the country, that is another story!
Rob Risko
Friday, December 10, 2010 at 11:36 AM
U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section. 8:"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"Theoretically then (or obviously?), uniform means "Flat Amount" NOT "Flat Tax". So every citizen, regardless of income supports the government equally for equal representation and defense of liberty. So a tax return is: "Send your check of $500.00 to the U.S. Treasury."???????
tdrag
Friday, December 10, 2010 at 12:44 PM
To put this very simply, what the Socialist Democrats want is discrimination, a word these crooks love to trot out every time they are trying to scam the rest of us. It is discrimination against a small segment of society that has used their skills to create wealth. A better solution is to tax every adult citizen of this country. There should not be 47% of Americans who don't pay anything but actually receive a check at tax time. Oh! Wait! There is a solution! It's called the Fair Tax.
Joseph Randolph
Friday, December 10, 2010 at 12:51 PM
The left adores money as much as anybody, but they create every appearance of loathing money, and meanwhile punctuate their loathing with the implication that a man making money must love money more than people. The fact of the matter is that a socialist needs more money than is to be had in all the world, for with the mammoth kind of government he envisions he requires a bottomless well of it. Putting this loving and loathing of money together is an art form the left thinks it has perfected and few of the public ever penetrate the mystery of how a politican can loathe money and always be ready with cash in hand for their hand. But such is the socialist. J. Randolph, author of Debilitating Democracy
Rob Risko
Friday, December 10, 2010 at 1:06 PM
Comment amendment:I support it doesn't reference "Taxes" for "uniform" does it?
Richard Ryan
Friday, December 10, 2010 at 1:53 PM
The purpose of taxes may very well be to fund legitimate functions of government. However; the problem we have in DC is the fact that the government is involved in too many illegitimate functions. If DC were involved in only those functions authorized by the US Constitution, it would take a fraction of the taxes we now pay.Richard RyanLamar, Missouri (Birthplace of Harry S Truman)
John WIS
Saturday, December 11, 2010 at 9:51 AM
Though I am not a "wealthy" person, I have done work for many wealthy people. Some were modestly wealthy, and some were extremely wealthy.After getting to know them a little bit, most were decent people, and hard working.......and very generous.But I will say this, that every now and then, (I thank God that they were few), I would do some work for some wealthy people that I would eventually come to learn that they were very liberal, politically and socially. They were the worst to work for.They complained all the time, though there was nothing wrong with the work, they were difficult to get a payment out of, and they would always try to lie and manipulate the contract so that they wouldn't have to pay, and of course...they always pulled the "I have a lawyer on retainer".They are, just as they seem publicly, as they are politically.......cheap!......and they walk lockstep with those elected to office who push the liberal agenda.They want something for nothing......and they always want something at someone else's expense.If the tax extension is not for all across the board.......what we have seen in the last couple of years, will continue for a few more.......and it will get worse.And we can thank the liberals for making it happen.
Tilley
Saturday, December 11, 2010 at 6:31 PM
I believe the author is very selective in his excerpts; The very same Bloomberg article Matt Towery quotes from suggests that letting the tax cuts expire for the ultra-rich will have limited effect on 76% of them. According to the article, the 3.8 million will only see an average increase of $532. Matt identifies this group ( people earning between 200k-500K/yr) as small business owners, doctors, etc. and suggests that they will have to cut back spending and people due to this proposed tax increase. I disagree. A $532 average increase on this group will have minimal impact and shouldn't cause a big impact on hiring decisions or expansion as Matt has suggested. Read the article for yourself and make your own decision:http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2010-08-11/earners-of-less-than-500-000-wouldn-t-face-higher-taxes-in-democrat-plan.html
Dawn
Friday, July 8, 2011 at 11:34 AM
I don’t believe we should be taxing any citizen until we have exhausted other efforts, such as: control spending, cut government waste, address fraud in government programs (such as welfare, Medicaid, and others). I also believe Congress needs to address its own members’ perks and get them on par with the “regular” people of this country (e.g., put them in the same Social Security system, on the same proposed government health care plan, etc.). I’m sure there are many other ways to close the deficit gap. After that, then I think we could explore a surtax on the “super wealthy.” (By the way, I am nowhere close to the millionaire / billionaire level of income!)