I read this gem outlining Obama's rationale for reducing tax deductions for "the rich," and had to marvel at his slipperiness:
“Under existing law, the tax benefit of itemizing deductions rises with a taxpayer’s marginal tax bracket (the bracket that applies to the last dollar of income). For example, $10,000 in itemized deductions reduces tax liability by $3,500 for someone in the 35 percent bracket. Mr. Obama would allow a saving of only $2,800 — as if the person were in the 28 percent bracket. The White House says it is unfair for high-income people to get a bigger tax break than middle-income people for claiming the same deductions or making the same charitable contributions.”
Imagine if a private sector retailer tried this with, say, merchandise returns, and based the amount of money refunded to a customer based upon the customer's income. If you buy a toaster and return it, you get all of you money back as long as you make less than $250,000 a year. If you make more than $250K, you only get half of your money back. Or perhaps the price paid for merchandise was based upon how much the customer made: the lower the income, the lower the price. Obviously the retailer wouldn't stay in business for long.
All during the elections I kept telling people I knew that there was no way that Obama could pay for everything he was promising by just raising taxes on "the rich." A Wall Street Journal editorial pointed out that there are about 3.8 million people who make more than $200,000 a year.
Obama wants "the rich" to pay for health insurance for the uninsured, but if he took every last dime from those making $500,000 a year or more, there would only be enough money to fund the free health insurance for a year. There would be no "rich" people left after the first year.
Does anyone know if Obama took any math courses in college?
