The Tax Me More Act

r1135317653.jpg
Ok infidels, let’s see if the hypocritical libs have the courage to approve this bill in Congress and actually put their money where their big mouths are. From today’s WSJ:

The Tax Me More Act
April 11, 2008
We recently suggested that if Bill and Hillary Clinton are eager to pay more taxes, they should write a personal check to the U.S. Treasury to compensate for the lower tax rates they so frequently decry. And lo, here comes legislation to make it easier for the former first lady and other pseudo-populists to do just that.
California Republican John Campbell yesterday introduced in the House his “Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is Act,” which would amend the tax code to allow individuals to make voluntary donations to the federal government above their normal tax liability. The bill would place a new line on IRS tax forms to make this easy.
Mr. Campbell says he has heard the “cries” of those wealthy Americans – Mrs. Clinton, Warren Buffett, Barbra Streisand – who reject the lower tax rates passed in 2001 and 2003 and complain that they and their fellow rich don’t pay enough. “It’s a great injustice that citizens wishing to fulfill their dream of paying more taxes cannot simply check a box on their 1040 form to make a donation,” he says. His bill would give liberals a chance to salve their consciences without having to raise taxes on millions of Americans who already feel overtaxed as it is.
Still, don’t expect many to take Mr. Campbell up on his offer. The Treasury already accepts voluntary donations to decrease the nation’s debt; last year it received all of $2.6 million. Apparently even most liberals would rather keep their money, or bequeath their estates to charity rather than to the IRS.

This is perfect for all you millionaire limousine liberals. You can voluntarily pay more taxes. I choose to keep my money and spend it to help the economy. Have a great weekend folks.

12 thoughts on “The Tax Me More Act”

  1. This is actually a good idea. Of course it will go nowhere politically, because it would make it harder for leftists to posture about taxes, and because it would lead to political pressure for wealthy legislative proponents of higher tax rates to disclose the amounts of their own voluntary payments.
    One way to improve this proposal might be to allow earmarks. For example, some people might want to contribute extra for national defense, without worrying that their contribution would be diluted or diverted to uses they don’t approve. Is there any Constitutional reason not to allow earmarked contributions?

  2. Earmarked contributions would probably go the way of Social Security contributions. Or lottery money that was originally earmarked for education.
    As the saying goes, the problem is not with the law, but with enforcement. Let’s not hold our collective breaths waiting for Obie’s check to Treasury. When did you last see a liberal live up the same expectations he imposes on others?

  3. Since anyone can already contribute to reduce the nation’s debt, the bill Mr. Campbell is proposing is a waste of time and taxpayer money.
    Does anyone think that Mr. Campbell’s bill is a solution of substance?

  4. the bill is there to make a point about the hypocrite democrats that love to tax and spend others money.
    no different than Charlie Rangel’s bill to reinstitute the draft. He did it for a point and didn’t even vote for it.

  5. Democrats tax and spend. Republicans borrow and spend. We’ve had the biggest deficits under Republican Presidents and Congresses. Unfortunately Reagan, Bush I or Bush II never proposed to Congress a balanced budget.

  6. Jack, GWB, is not demonstrative of GOP fiscal policy. We have a deficit because of the war.
    we need to trim spending
    not raise taxes

  7. I love it that this came from CA!! Contrast that with CA SB1322, Sen. Alan Lowenthal’s Communism bill which would change current law and allow registered members of the Communist party to teach in CA schools.

  8. Mike,
    I agree we need to trim spending. The question is where? Most of the budget is interest on the debt and entitlements. But one of the biggest entitlements Social Security is pay as you go until 2041. LBJ put it into the budget to mask deficits.
    Do we cut defense spending in a war? Its about 17% of the budget. If we were to close entire departments like Commerce, State, EPA, Justice and Treasury all at once we would still not balance the budget.
    Cut our interest payments on our debt? That’s the stuff Castro and Chavez have done.
    The tough choices are going to piss off conservatives and liberals alike. We need to cut benefits in the entitlements and raise taxes. We have to stop being the world’s policeman. We can’t afford to stay in Iraq 100 years like Senator McCain wants. We need to end corporate welfare ($30 Billion for Bear Stearns). We have to stop paying farmers not to grow crops.
    Bush signed Farm and Highway spending bills in his first administration which had nothing to do with the war and should have been vetoed. Bush’s Perscription Drug bill added to the deficit since drug companies wrote a provision to not require a bidding process to address drug costs. That spending bill had nothing to do with the war either.
    To keep Bush’s tax cuts past 2010 we need to find $300 Billion. Where is that going to come from?
    AMT provides about $82 Billion in taxes per year. Eliminate it and replace it with what?
    Since they are tough decisions neither party will make them.
    I see Rangle is drilled pretty badly here again in other posts. He proposed a new tax bill which is considered dead in the water. But it phased out AMT and cut the corporate tax rate from 35% to 31%. It did raise the top rate and capital gains I believe among other things.
    So cut where Mike?

  9. I don’t have a copy of the entire federal budget but I’m sure there’s a lot of pork that can be eliminated; much of it from the Dem earmarks.
    Raising taxes in a slowdown will hurt the economy more. As it was shown, the Bush tax cuts resulted in more revenue coming into the Treasury. The AMT is now hurting the middle class and needs to be repealed. The death tax which will come back after the sunset period raises little revenue. Corporations pay a buttload in taxes and the money they pay employees and shareholders are taxes too.
    The dems definition of rich is a household making $70K per year which is hardly rich. Someone like me and I’m far from rich, hell I drive a Chrysler, the dems want to lump me with Bill Gates.
    I pay a buttload in taxes and I don’t even get a lousy t-shirt. It’s bad enough that I’m phased out of all schedule A deductions; I’m phased out of th child credits; I cannot deduct any of my medical expenses; I cannot deduct any of my student loans, ; I pay the max in the ss tax even though I’ll never see a penny of it when I’m old, and these wanks say I should pay more? I friggin work 60-70 hours per week and I should pay more taxes so my money will go to deadbeats who don’t want to work and to people who don’t need government money?
    You know what I do with the money I save from not paying taxes? I spend it. I buy things. I help the economy. When the economy revives then more money is entered into the treasury.
    McCain is Pork’s worst enemy. Obama will raise taxes and wants to enact a healthcare system that will bankrupt the country or force to adopt European taxation of 50% tax rates and a national VAT.
    Why should I bust my ass like I do if half of what I earn is going to go to the Taxman?
    Government is the problem not the solution.

  10. Jack, Social Security is not included in the budget.

    Another important point is that government accounting principles are more stringent than in the private sector regarding calculation of annual deficit/surplus. In the private sector, if, say, you buy a building, you do not include the entire cost of the building in that year’s budget — unless you did buy the entire building outright. If you are making payments on it, you include in that year’s total debt only the amount you paid/will pay that year.

    Federal accounting principles require the government to include the entire cost in the year of purchase, whether it is bought outright or the payments are amortized over 30 years.

    So in other words, the annual federal deficit, if looked at from the point of view of private business principles, often looks a lot worse than it is.

Comments are closed.