In the first year. The Democrat trick is to levy the tax over ten years to pay for a spending bill this year, and to rely on data which is suspect.
So one would have to infer from an AP story here, but you have to do the math:
So one would have to infer from an AP story here, but you have to do the math:
About 392,000 households would get hit by the Senate Democrats' proposed 5.6 percent tax on income above $1 million, according to an analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank. In 2013, the first year the tax would take effect, those households would see their taxes increase by an average of $110,500, according to the analysis.
The latter figure extracted from that many households comes to just $43 billion, $404 billion short after the money has already been spent.
Socialsecurity.gov reports here, however, that fewer than 80,000 individuals had net compensation in excess of $1 million in 2009, collecting in the aggregate $184 billion. Taxing each and every dollar of that amount, not just the adjusted gross income over $1 million as the Democrats propose to do, would net just $10.3 billion.
Socialsecurity.gov reports here, however, that fewer than 80,000 individuals had net compensation in excess of $1 million in 2009, collecting in the aggregate $184 billion. Taxing each and every dollar of that amount, not just the adjusted gross income over $1 million as the Democrats propose to do, would net just $10.3 billion.
The Tax Foundation here has a much more conservative estimate of the numbers than The Tax Policy Center. It says that for 2009 there were just 230,323 tax returns reporting adjusted gross incomes in excess of $1 million, and just 8,148 reporting $10 million or more. (Adjusted gross income captures more than just wage compensation). It calculates that the 5.6 percent millionaires' surcharge all by itself would take an extra almost $45,000 in new taxes from the median filer in this group. That also comes to $10.3 billion in new revenues annually if that median filer is typical of millionaires.
Even over ten years for a one year jobs program Obama needs to get re-elected next year, either the rest of us will be paying the $344 billion the scheme is short, or it just gets added to the deficit, crowding out other spending.
The fact of the matter is, taxing the AGI of everyone in the top half of the country with an extra 5.6 percent surcharge still would not pay for Obama's one time $447 billionjobs spending bill.
The fact of the matter is, taxing the AGI of everyone in the top half of the country with an extra 5.6 percent surcharge still would not pay for Obama's one time $447 billion
That doesn't make any sense!
