Obama's Tax Plan Fails Basic Math

Reader Comments
Back to blog

"Millionaire" doesn't mean "making a million a year". It means "net worth over a million dollars." Your article lost credibility almost immediately. Calling it "Obama's tax plan fails basic math" is an embarrassing indicator of a myopic worldview.
Secondly, you mention the share of taxes paid by the richest Americans, but you don't mention the share of income earned by these people. That's a significant aspect, and one you seemed to willfully ignore.
I was going to chalk it up to horrible editorial oversight until I did a bit of research on Mr. Roff's background. I looked up "Let Freedom Ring", which his profile describes as a non-partisan public policy organization. If you Google that organization, the first result is the official page for the organization, which states "Let Freedom Ring is a non-profit, grassroots organization supporting the Conservative agenda and countering the efforts of 527 organizations like MoveOn.org..."
The other organization is an anti-regulation group with a picture of Ronald Reagan front and center on its homepage.
This kind of dishonesty is appalling and reflects poorly on US News and World Report. Mr. Roff is a wolf in sheep's clothing, and his work shouldn't be trusted. Lying about one's political affiliation is utter deception.

Dave Carlson of CA 5:43AM September 21, 2011

You have no idea what progressive means. It is proportionally based by stacking up individual earnings versus taxes as a percentage. In a system where one person earns $100 and another $1,000,000 you cannot say that it progressive for the first to pay $50 tax and the latter to pay $5000. Sure, the rich guy is paying 99% of the tax burden, but he is earning 10,000 times more than the poor guy at the bottom giving up 50% of his paycheck and only dropping 0.5% himself. To be proportional the rich guy would have to pay $500,000 in tax.
Simple math.
FYI the higest earner in the US in 2010 was Oprah Winfrey with an estimated $315,000,000. The lowest earner in the US for the same year likely lost their business, house and car and ended up on the streets.
You should be ashamed.

Och Notock of MN 12:58AM September 21, 2011

"Job shippers" might be a better name than "job creators," since a lot of jobs that have been created in recent years were actually shipped to foreign countries.
And, of course, a lot more people in this country make less than $200,000 than make more than that. It makes sense for the government to get more money from the people who have more money.
The US tax code has been far more progressive in America's history than it currently is. You could easily check that out by going back to school and taking a history course.

marik7 of HI 9:41PM September 20, 2011

People earning over $379,150 pay a tax of 35% or more. People earning over 1 million pay 24%. If giving tax breaks to millionaires really creates jobs then where are all of these jobs? The wealthy have had these tax breaks in place for almost a decade, so where are they? You're giving them breaks and saying "hey do you think you can invest some of that money into our economy"? When in the end it's their money and they don't have to do anything with it. And then people say "oh well they have to put it in the bank and then it will get invested and create jobs". You think these people don't have multiple bank accounts? You think they don't have money in countries other than the US? Hell, many of them have a lot invested in other these countries, which give nothing back to America. To not have millionaires pay at least the same amount as someone earning half their income is absolutely ridiculous. Give breaks where they are earned, by taxing this money millionaires will have to actually invest the money and not just act like they're going to...

Miggy of CA 9:36PM September 20, 2011

The simple way is to cut all the spending on wars and overseas bases and arming other countries and get out of the wto and gatt and nafta. make it unprofitable to move jobs out of the country and stop illegal imigration which can secure our borders with some of the military that come home from overseas..Cut the size government, Reduce the emissions regulations,( they don't help with everyone else in the world poluting..eg China)Reduce the regulatory rules that hamper bussiness from moving forward .If we have the best in Washington, WHY ARE WE IN SUCH A MESS?????

KEN WYANT of PA 8:25PM September 20, 2011

If the uber rich are truly creating jobs then why not just make it a legal requirement that they devote a large percentage of their income to a venture capital fund to help start companies that employ people rather than allowing them to spend all that money on goods like overseas made Bently and Rollls Royce cars and Russian caviar (financing jobs overseas)?

Hmmm... of IL 7:22PM September 20, 2011

"The top 1 percent—those earning more than $400,000 per year—pay 40 percent of all income taxes and pay 28 percent of all combined federal taxes. The top 5 percent pay nearly 70 percent of all income taxes. "
Lay those percentages up against what percent of the total income was earned by these groups and then lets talk about fair.
The premise is that if we tax the wealthy, they will stop producing jobs. Lets face it, what jobs? The only jobs being produced are overseas.

David of CA 4:32PM September 20, 2011

We just can't afford another four years of Obama. Billion Dollar Barry spends like a mad man then blames "the rich" for letting him run out of money. None of his programs have worked and have only served to dig a deeper hole.

Barry of GA 4:12PM September 20, 2011

If the progressives really do want to help the economy and are not playing politics then why
not push for a consumption tax and do away with
the IRS. More to the point of the article if I choose
to work longer hours to have more income I should
not have to pay more tax than you lazy dead beats.
Logrin

Logrin Vee of TN 3:38PM September 20, 2011

Republicans never want to pay for what has already been spent, even the total amount of debt "they" signed into law. Never is there motto. They think that there is never a good time for the federal govt. to collect revenue to pay off debt. At what point, year do they really want to start paying off the national debt....that means creating a surplus....that's is suppose to be our main goal...less debt = better stability.

filo bedo of NC 2:52PM September 20, 2011