Obama Explains “Spread the Wealth”

Robin Hood (who was a Robbing Hoodlum):

Take from the rich and give to the poor.

Obama:

QUESTION: Mr. President, are you — thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Are you reconsidering your plan to cut the interest rate deduction for mortgages and for charities? And do you regret having proposed that in the first place?

OBAMA: No, I think it’s — I think it’s the right thing to do, where we’ve got to make some difficult choices. Here’s what we did with respect to tax policy. What we said was that, over the last decade, the average worker, the average family have seen their wages and incomes flat. Even in times where supposedly we were in the middle of an economic boom, as a practical matter, their incomes didn’t go up. And so, well, we said, “Let’s give them a tax cut. Let’s give them some relief, some help, 95 percent of American families.”
Now, for the top 5 percent, they’re the ones who typically saw huge gains in their income. I — I fall in that category. And what we’ve said is, for those folks, let’s not renew the Bush tax cuts, so let’s go back to the rates that existed back in — during the Clinton era, when wealthy people were still wealthy and doing just fine, and let’s look at the — the level at which people can itemize their deductions.

And what we’ve said is: Let’s go back to the rate that existed under Ronald Reagan. People are still going to be able to make charitable contributions. It just means, if you give $100 and you’re in this tax bracket, at a certain point, instead of being able to write off 36 percent or 39 percent, you’re writing off 28 percent.

Now, if it’s really a charitable contribution, I’m assuming that that shouldn’t be the determining factor as to whether you’re giving that $100 to the homeless shelter down the street. And so this provision would affect about 1 percent of the American people. They would still get deductions. It’s just that they wouldn’t be able to write off 39 percent.

In that sense, what it would do is it would equalize — when I give $100, I’d get the same amount of deduction as when some — a bus driver who’s making $50,000 a year, or $40,000 a year, gives that same $100. Right now, he gets 28 percent — he gets to write off 28 percent. I get to write off 39 percent. I don’t think that’s fair.

So I think this was a good idea. I think it is a realistic way for us to raise some revenue from people who’ve benefited enormously over the last several years. It’s not going to cripple them. They’ll still be well-to-do. And, you know, ultimately, if we’re going to tackle the serious problems that we’ve got, then, in some cases, those who are more fortunate are going to have to pay a little bit more.

Obama belongs in a commercial saying, “I’m not a centrist, but I play one on TV!”

By invoking both Clinton and Reagan, Obama wants to appear “centrist”. He wants to act like he is just wanting to do the same things that Clinton and Reagan did. But pay attention: he wants to INCREASE TAXES by ending the Bush tax cuts and raising the tax rate from 36 percent to 39.6 percent, and he wants to INCREASE TAXES by decreasing deductions from 36 percent to 28 percent. Neither Clinton nor Reagan did that combination!

Carter had the top tax rate at 70 percent, and charitable deductions at full face value (same 70 percent tax rate). Reagan reduced the top tax rate to 28 percent, and charitable deductions at full face value (same 28 percent tax rate). Clinton raised the top tax rate to 39.6 percent, and charitable deductions at full face value (same 39.6 percent tax rate). The Bush tax cuts lowered the top tax rate to 36 percent, and charitable deductions at full face value (same 36 percent tax rate).

Obama, however, wants to have his cake and eat it, too. He wants to appear reasonable and appear to be following past precedent, while simultaneously pulling off an unprecedented “dubbly whammy” to increase taxes two different ways! He wants the top tax rate increased to 39.6 percent, and charitable deductions reduced to 70.71 percent of their face value (28/39.6 of full face value, to result in an effective 28 percent tax rate for deductions, even though you pay the full 39.6 percent tax on the money used to make that contribution). That is unprecedented in the history of the IRS, but Obama wants to pass it off as if he is only doing what Clinton and Reagan did.

Again, by invoking both Clinton and Reagan, Obama wants to appear “centrist”. But the reality is that his plan to tax charitable contributions is even farther left than Carter! Under Carter, no one paid any tax on charitable contributions. Obama plans to effectively create a new 11.6% tax on the charitable contributions of top income earners. Obama said:

In that sense, what it would do is it would equalize — when I give $100, I’d get the same amount of deduction as when some — a bus driver who’s making $50,000 a year, or $40,000 a year, gives that same $100. Right now, he gets 28 percent — he gets to write off 28 percent. I get to write off 39 percent. I don’t think that’s fair.

That is blatently dishonest. Right now, both Obama and the bus driver get to write off 100% of their charitable contributions. It is a lie to say “he gets to write off 28 percent. I get to write off 39 percent.” They both get to write off (deduct) the full 100 percent of the $100 they gave. Obama wants to change it so that “bus driver” gets to write off the full $100, and the high-income person only gets to write off 70.71% of their $100 deduction. I don’t think that’s fair. And it’s not in the best interest of the people currently being helped by charitable organizations in this country.

Obama doesn’t think it’s fair that both people currently get the same deduction. Obama doesn’t think that it’s fair that both people currently pay no tax on the charitable contribution. Obama thinks that the people in this country who give the most money to charity should be taxed at a Clinton rate (39.6%) but only be given a deduction at a Reagan rate (28%), so that under Obama they now pay the difference (11.6%) to the government for every dollar they give to charity. I don’t think that’s fair. And it’s not in the best interest of the people currently being helped by charitable organizations in this country.

Ed Morrissey has an interesting take on this, that it could be said that Obama’s “fairness” logic could be misconstrued as an endorsement of a flat-tax plan. Of course Obama would not endorse a flat-tax plan, but Ed has a good point: If Obama wants to argue that different tax rates for the same $100 donation are unfair, then how can Obama not see that different tax rates themselves are unfair?

Obama realizes that if he succeeds with his plan, the government will get their grubby hands on more of the taxpayers’ money, so the taxpayers have less money to give to charitable (often faith-based) organizations.

Communists don’t want ministries to be funded. They want everyone to look to the government for charity. They want Government to replace God. As one lefty put it:

Charities are concerned that reduced deductions will translate into reduced donations, hurting nonprofits just as foundation and government support declines. But nonprofits opposing this progressive reform miss the big picture. Government, not private donors, should decide how tax dollars are allocated.

Authoritarianism: You don’t get to decide where your charitable donations go…that’s the government’s job!

I give to charities that meet not only people’s physical needs but also their spiritual needs. I give to charities that spread the gospel.

Obama thinks there should be less of that, and more secular government welfare.

At its core, this battle between Socialism/Communism and Capitalism is more rooted in spiritual warfare than many people realize.

Socialism/Communism is quite literally Satan’s system of economics… based on greed and envy, and promising something that sounds better, but in reality is far worse.

Someone might say, “but Obama’s a Christian!”

Yeah, right. He’s a believer in the Socialist Gospel and has a completely un-Biblical view of “collective” salvation.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Obama Explains “Spread the Wealth”

  1. Pingback: Obama: He’s Not a Centrist, But He Plays One On TV « I Took The Red Pill (and escaped the Matrix)

  2. A Referendum on the Redeemer
    By SHELBY STEELE

    Barack Obama put the Democrats in the position of forever redeeming a fallen nation rather than leading a great one.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s