And the "Wealth Tax" begins....

There it is, right there in the second paragraph of this story.

It is this kind of ignorant journalism that allows the government to continue to chip away at our freedom and liberty. Can you spot it?

Obama budget to take aim at wealthy IRAs

By Bernie Becker - 04/05/13 11:45 AM ET

The Hill

President Obama’s budget, to be released next week, will limit how much wealthy individuals – like Mitt Romney – can keep in IRAs and other retirement accounts. 

The proposal would save around $9 billion over a decade, a senior administration official said, while also bringing more fairness to the tax code.

The senior administration official said that wealthy taxpayers can currently “accumulate many millions of dollars in these accounts, substantially more than is needed to fund reasonable levels of retirement saving.”

Under the plan, a taxpayer’s tax-preferred retirement account, like an IRA, could not finance more than $205,000 per year of retirement – or right around $3 million this year.

Romney, Obama’s 2012 opponent, had an IRA several to many times that amount, leading to questions about how the former Massachusetts governor was able to squirrel away so much money in that sort of retirement account.

In fact, the entire premise of the article is exactly 180 degrees from reality.  Look again at the second paragraph:

The proposal would save around $9 billion over a decade, a senior administration official said, while also bringing more fairness to the tax code..  

No.  Not save.  TAX!  Tax an additional $9,000,000,000.00!   And then they have the gall to mention fairness in the same sentence.  Let's talk fair:

• 39% of ALL taxes are paid by the top 1% of all earners.
• 86% of ALL taxes are paid by the top 25% of all earners
• 97% of ALL taxes are paid by the top 50% of all earners.

Think about that last one.  Only 3% of ALL taxes are paid by the bottom 50% of all earner....  This is "fair"?

But, wait.  It gets better: 

The senior administration official said that wealthy taxpayers can currently “accumulate many millions of dollars in these accounts, substantially more than is needed to fund reasonable levels of retirement saving.”  

Really? So now "The senior administration official gets to decide that you or I may have "..substantially more than is needed to fund reasonable levels of retirement saving.” Please show me in the U.S. Constitution where is says a government official has the right to decide what is reasonable and what is too much for me to save for my self?

You think this is only for the Mitt Romney type?  Remember this.  The original income tax only was 1%  up to $20,000 in 1913.  What are the rates now?

 

More Proof of Obama's Economic Ignorance...

You really can't make this stuff up....

Obama: Romney not necessarily qualifies to think about "economy as a whole"

CBS THIS MORNING

July 13, 2012 7:05 AM

Here is the quote that proves once and for all that Obama is the least qualified person to even discuss the economy, much less try to lead it:

"When some people question why I would challenge his Bain record, the point I've made there in the past is, if you're a head of a large private equity firm or hedge fund, your job is to make money. It's not to create jobs. It's not even to create a successful business - it's to make sure that you're maximizing returns for your investor. Now that's appropriate. That's part of the American way. That's part of the system. But that doesn't necessarily make you qualified to think about the economy as a whole, because as president, my job is to think about the workers. My job is to think about communities, where jobs have been outsourced.  [Emphasis added]

Yes, the President of the United States of America believes that:

1. A by-product of successful businesses is not jobs, but profit.
2. He doesn't need to think about creating a positive business climate, he needs to creates jobs.

Let's look at these statements:

 It's not to create jobs. It's not even to create a successful business - it's to make sure that you're maximizing returns for your investor. 


So your goal as a private equity firm is not to create a successful business?  While I agree, in principle, that a PE firm's main goal is to make a profit, I think BHO believes they make money by buying companies, closing them and selling their assets.  Certainly, Bain did not do this.  They bought companies and turned them around [or in some cases, funded start-ups] and eventually sold them for huge profits.  


BHO clearly does not understand that successful companies hire employees (or in his Marxist terminolgy "workers").  BHO has never run a business.  Aside from Valerie Jarrett, who parlayed her position as Commissioner of the Department of Planning and Development under the Daley administration into the CEO of The Habitat Company [to the tune of $800,000 per year) none of his close advisers have had a job in the private sector, much less had to turn a profit.  


... my job is to think about the workers.


Really?  I thought his job, at least as outlined in the constitution was to be the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces and to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."  He doesn't seem to understand how his policies have business leaders frozen in their tracks.  It is his policies that are setting the foundation of this economy.  History will show that under BHO, the government intrusion into the affairs of business through the regulatory agencies (EPA, OSHA, DOT, EEOC, HHS, etc...), the implementation of the largest tax increase in the history of the world with the Obamatax, and his continued bashing of the free enterprise system is undermining the U.S. economy.