With math skills like this, no wonder the federal deficit is $1.3 trillion:
The Washington Examiner reports that at a fundraiser in Las Vegas, the president said the following about his jobs bill:
But last week, we had a separate vote on a part of the jobs bill that would put 400,000 teachers, firefighters and police officers back on the job, paid for by asking people who make more than $1 million to pay one-half of 1 percent in additional taxes. For somebody making $1.1 million a year, that’s an extra $500. Five hundred bucks. And with that, we could have saved 400,000 jobs.
Most people making more than $1 million, if you talk to them, they’ll say, I’m willing to pay $500 extra to help the county. They’re patriots. They believe we’re all in this thing together. But all the Republicans in the Senate said no. (Emphasis added).
As every Corner reader who graduated from 4th grade determined immediately upon reading the above quote, one half of 1 percent of $1.1 million is $5,500, not $500. But, hey, even though he said it three times, cut the president some slack — he’s off only by about factor of ten.
But even if the president meant to say $5,500, his math continues to pose some challenges. According to the IRS, a total of 235,413 taxpayers earned more than $1 million last year. If each “was willing to pay $[5,]500 extra to help the country,” that would generate only $1.3 billion in revenue — approximately what the federal government spends every three hours. Wouldn’t it be just as patriotic for President Obama to turn off the federal spigot for three hours and dedicate the savings to funding those 400,000 jobs?
The president at least deserves credit for finally bringing down the cost of all those jobs his administration “saves or creates.” Saving 400,000 jobs at a cost of $1.3 billion comes to just $3,250 per job — far less than the $250,000 per each job allegedly created by the 2009 stimulus bill.
But wait, that means that each of the 400,000 jobs will only pay $ 1.60 an hour — far below the lawful minimum wage. And that’s without benefits. Aren’t those the kind of jobs Americans won’t do?
Even if the president were to politely “ask” all of those willing millionaire patriots to pay an extra one half of 1 percent of their total aggregate income for 2010, the added revenue would be only about $3.6 billion. But that still comes to only around $4.50 an hour, again without benefits. Not sure how many cops, firefighters, and teachers would be willing to work at that rate — even if the Department of Labor permitted it.
Maybe the president should just ask the 47 percent of American filers who pay no federal income taxes if they’re willing to pony up anything for those shovel-ready jobs. Surely the president doesn’t think millionaires are the only patriots in this country.
No, your math is correct but your reading comprehension not so much. The surcharge only is on income above $1M so someone making $1.1 million would only have the surcharge on the $100,000 portion of their income. .5% of 100,000 equals $500.
You did get past the 4th grade right?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo then it will generate even less than 3 hours worth of money into the maw of bambam's coffers eh?
You know what else? I volunteer you to pay an extra $500. You'd do it, right, for the children?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo what you're saying is, Obama isn't so much a moron as he is a blatantly dishonest demagogue. I have to say though, if he really wanted to appeal to you rubes, he could've improved on this. He could've used $1.001 million as his example, and gone on about how only $5 would save 400,000 jobs!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHis reading comprehension is fine. While the President clearly means marginal tax he says "paid for by asking people who make more than $1 million to pay one-half of 1 percent in additional taxes" to me that sentence reads taxes on their income, not taxes on their income over $1 mil.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell, that's the exact opposite of how our marginal tax system works, so why would anyone assume that he meant that? How would such a tax be assessed?
What you (and Mr. Kirsanow) propose makes no sense whatsoever. I would submit that his reading comprehension is not, in fact, fine.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat a horrendous error. It's so bad that even the NYT might notice. But I'm not holding my breath.
And it's even worse than you say -- not everyone who makes more than $1 million makes $1.1 million, obviously. He's asking for a minimum of $5500, and for others, much much more.
But hey, saying $500 is close enough for Government work.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBoth you and Mr. Kirsanow need a refresher course in marginal tax rates, apparently. Your post is pretty ironic.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBut Obama followed the $500 with "and with that, we could have saved $400,000 jobs." He's clearly implying just an extra $500 per "rich person" would have saved the jobs. No other way to take it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe could have saved '$400,000' jobs? Those are some high-paying jobs that we could save!
Seriously. If you're going to criticize someone for inaccuracy, you have a responsibility to avoid making mistakes yourself. The alternative is epic fail.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGreat point. Accidentally typing a dollar sign is just like leading people to believe that the total cost to each rich person would only be $500.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe $ typo is from the original Las Vegas Review Journal article.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePretty sure that's because the tax, as proposed, is only applied to income above the million-dollar threshold. Therefore, the tax would only be applied to the 100K, not the whole thing.
It's stupid either way, but the above explains where he got the $500 number from.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMr. Kirsanow,
Do you need a refresher course in how marginal taxes work? I ask, because the prez is correct, and you are wrong. His proposal calls for a .5% tax increase on income OVER one million dollars, not on all their income. Someone earning 1.1 million would pay an extra.... 500 dollars. Did you think he chose 1.1 million as his demonstration number randomly?
Who reads these things before you post them? Embarrassing.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRight. Obama is right on the numbers, but extraordinarily misleading on the point. Under his plan, the average millionaire would pay about $10,000.
Pretending that his plan can be paid for by people chipping in $500 is dishonest.
Beyond that, even if Republicans were to support the $10k+ tax hike, Democrats will simply propose another one, as the goal is to get Republicans to oppose one so Obama has the talking point in hand for 2012.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf you're right that the "average" millionaire would pay 10K more, then the average millionaire must make $3 million per year.
One half of 1% is .005. For (taxable income over $1M)*.005 to equal 10K, taxable income over 1M must be $2M, so the person must make $3 million in taxable income a year.
So the question becomes: can a person earning $3,000,000 in taxable income/year afford $10,000 more in taxes?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLet's stipulate that someone making $3 million could "afford" $10,000 more in taxes.
1. That person is already paying something like $750,000 in federal income taxes. Our fiscal problems are not caused by some people only paying $750,000 in taxes and they won't be solved by getting them to pay $760,000 instead.
2. Even if you took all $3 million that person earned as taxes, along with every dime that every other millionaire earned, it wouldn't cover half the federal deficit. There have to be huge spending cuts, and 0.5% or 5% or 50% surtaxes are just a distraction to avoid facing the problem.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRoger, your analysis is absolutely correct, up to the point where you state 'the question becomes...'. The question is NOT whether someone earning $3M per year in taxable income can 'afford' to pay the extra $10K in taxes, but whether they should be 'required' to do so. In my opinion, the answer is no.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo, he didn't choose it randomly. He chose it willfully maliciously, and probably with an evil cackle -- because his intention was to deceive. To vastly understate the actual amount of taxes he means to extract from his victims, er, "patriots."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePeter: "But even if the president meant to say $5,500, his math continues to pose some challenges. According to the IRS, a total of 235,413 taxpayers earned more than $1 million last year. If each “was willing to pay $[5,]500 extra to help the country,” that would generate only $1.3 billion in revenue"
Yikes, Peter you are not the sharpest tool in the shed are you? Why would you multiply the number of millionaires by the $500. The tax is a percentage. What do those 235,413 taxpayers collectively make over the $1 million dollar threshold. Then you would take that number and multiply it by the .5% surcharge.
You are really embarrassing yourself. And you started this post by saying, "with math skills like this . . . " LOL.... too funny.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSlide, you are such a tool. You are also a moron, who failed to take Peter to task for the real reason he is wrong: Obama was correct in noting that the tax was 0.5% on the income over $1MM, which makes it $500 for a taxpayer earning $1.1MM. You, in your vigor to call him stupid, failed to figure that out. Nice job.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse