Obama thinks the rich need to pay their fair share of income tax. As it stands now:
Top 1%-$380,000- Pay 38% of Federal Income Tax
Top 5%- $160,000- Pay 58% of Federal Income Tax
Top 10%- $114,000-Pay 70% of Federal Income Tax
Bottom 50%-Pay 3% of Federal Income Tax
49% Pay 0
Apparently, that's not fair enough. Then Warren Buffett says that he and the rich are being coddled and should pay more. (Of course, Buffett owes the IRS a billion dollars in back taxes.) So Obama comes out with a scheme named after Buffett to soak the rich even more.
Buffett and Obama say that it's unfair for Buffett to pay only 15% on capital gains taxes while his secretary has to pay 25% on her income (or whatever it is). Never mind for a moment that capital gains are acquired at considerable risk. If you earn a 100 million dollars in capital gains, you pay $15,000,000 in taxes at 15%. If you earn $50,000 in income as a secretary, you pay $12,500 in taxes at 25%. In other words, the Democrats think that one citizen paying $15,000,000 and another paying $12,500 is unfair to the one paying $12,500. They think the billionaire should pay a higher rate than the secretary. Some say 70%, but assume it's 50%. That would mean the billionaire would pay $50,000,000 in taxes. Is that fair, or is one citizen more equal than another under the Equal Protection Claus of the Constitution's 14th Amendment?
With a federal deficit running at about $1,400,000,000,000, you could tax the entire wealth of the top money makers at a 100% rate and still not cover one year's deficit. Moreover, if you give the government more money, they'll find a way to spend it and then claim they need even more revenue. There's no end to government greed or its insatiable demands for your money which, by the way, they now regard as belonging to the government who will then decide how much of it they will allow you to keep.
When George W. Bush found he had a budget surplus, the Democrats demanded that it be spent on new programs or redistributed to their base instead of given back to the people who paid it in to begin with. But if Bush had done that, we'd still be in the exact same position we're in now thanks to the spending of Obama and the Democrats. (Bush didn't help, but he was a piker compared to the spending now.) Now the president is proposing to pile another $450 billion of new spending on the existing deficit. It will be paid for, he says, by increasing taxes by over a trillion dollars over the next ten years, most of which will come in the out years. In other words, spend now, tax later.... maybe. It's just Keynesian stimulus again, just as it was when they spent a trillion or so dollars in 2009 to no avail. It sounds insane. (As someone pointed out, the vast majority of jobs lost in construction were for new housing, which is mostly not unionized. Bridges and highways have unionized workers, so you can see why the president keeps calling for "infrastructure" spending even though it didn't work in 2009 and much of the stimulus money for infrastructure then remains unspent.)
It's time to realize that calls for extra taxes on the rich have nothing to do with fairness, nor will they put a dent in the deficit. It's all about class warfare and income redistribution because the Democrat party is now under control of the Democratic Socialists of America. They want to impose huge, permanent increases in the size of government and then claim that if only the rich paid more taxes, we could cover the deficit. In reality, they're setting this country up for fiscal failure. And that will lead to a couple of choices. Huge tax increases on everybody, and a permanent welfare state to take care of all the poor people that will be created. Or a dictatorship to strip the defense budget down to a fraction of its size and to oppress any dissent. And that, I believe, is their ultimate objective, that is, to drastically reduce the power of the United States, both economically and militarily, so that it can fit into a global, fascist government scheme as just another nation.