Obama - not a math whiz

#1

volinbham

VN GURU
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
69,801
Likes
62,551
#1
From a recent fundraiser:

Obama: 'Patriots' willing to pay more taxes | Campaign 2012

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 country. They’re patriots. They believe we’re all in this thing together. But all the Republicans in the Senate said no. (emphasis added)

Okay, so less than 450,000 people make more than $1 mil./ year. $500 is all it takes for 1 job (450k taxpayers; 400k new jobs)????

Less then 9000 make $10 million a year ($5000 contribution according to Obama-math)

Also, trying to figure out how .5% in taxes on $1.1 million is only $500.
 
#3
#3
His math seems on par with the average American citizen and even the former president.
 
#4
#4
At $500 bucks increase in revenue per millionaire earner it probably wouldn't cover the costs to change the tax code, publications and compliance efforts!
 
#5
#5
His math seems on par with the average American citizen and even the former president.

That's the perfect liberal response. People are too stupid to do any better, so they need government help...and, as a kicker - Bush's fault.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#6
#6
I believe this portion of the bill has a price tag of $35 billion (87,500) per job. Given the number of million $ earners you would need to average that same amount 87,500 per filer in this group to pay for it. Once again, he's using tax revenues over a decade to cover a one-time spending binge.

Clearly since the prior stimulus did not make these jobs permanent this one should not either so 10 years of tax increases to pay for one year of job?
 
#7
#7
I believe this portion of the bill has a price tag of $35 billion (87,500) per job. Given the number of million $ earners you would need to average that same amount 87,500 per filer in this group to pay for it. Once again, he's using tax revenues over a decade to cover a one-time spending binge.

Clearly since the prior stimulus did not make these jobs permanent this one should not either so 10 years of tax increases to pay for one year of job?

Sounds about right given the extension of unemployment benefits under Obama. Work one year and then draw unemployment till the next job cycle.
 
#8
#8
I'm not a math whiz either, but isn't one-half of one percent of 1.1 million equal to $5,500, not $500. This seems of by an order of magnitude. What am I missing?

As for the rest of the math, I think it would be more important to know what the average earner over 1 million makes. The additional tax wouldn't just apply to their first million. If that average is about 1.1 million, then he would only create with about $6,000 salaries. But, the average of all earners over 1 million is more like $5 million, then it would create jobs with a salary more like $30,000.

Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
Last edited:
#9
#9
That's the perfect liberal response. People are too stupid to do any better, so they need government help...and, as a kicker - Bush's fault.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

I guess I should be more obvious when trolling, thought the Bush comment would make it obvious enough.
 
#11
#11
Obama does math?

you mean like the healthcare bill that was so awesome it was actually going to lower the national debt?
 
#12
#12
Obama does math?

you mean like the healthcare bill that was so awesome it was actually going to lower the national debt?

not only lower the debt, but lower the cost of healthcare, but employ millions of work people.:birgits_giggle:

what a pathetic fool.
 
#13
#13
yeah and miraculously no one was every going to get sick because now they have insurance
 
#14
#14
I'm not a math whiz either, but isn't one-half of one percent of 1.1 million equal to $5,500, not $500. This seems of by an order of magnitude. What am I missing?

As for the rest of the math, I think it would be more important to know what the average earner over 1 million makes. The additional tax wouldn't just apply to their first million. If that average is about 1.1 million, then he would only create with about $6,000 salaries. But, the average of all earners over 1 million is more like $5 million, then it would create jobs with a salary more like $30,000.

Posted via VolNation Mobile

You are correct on the first part. On the second, we know that roughly 400K filers earn $1 mill or more but only 8 K earn $10 mill or more so we can extrapolate a bit.

The stated cost of this part of the Jobs Act is $35 billion - it takes $87500 per filer to pay for it. Even if $5 million is average filer income in the group, taxes would have to go up about 2% on this income to cover it.

I believe he's doing another we'll pay for this over a decade for one year of spending approach.
 
#15
#15
You are correct on the first part. On the second, we know that roughly 400K filers earn $1 mill or more but only 8 K earn $10 mill or more so we can extrapolate a bit.

The stated cost of this part of the Jobs Act is $35 billion - it takes $87500 per filer to pay for it. Even if $5 million is average filer income in the group, taxes would have to go up about 2% on this income to cover it.

I believe he's doing another we'll pay for this over a decade for one year of spending approach.

Just curious, VB, but where are those figures (400k and 8k) represented?
 
#16
#16
Just curious, VB, but where are those figures (400k and 8k) represented?

i did a google search and those kept coming back embedded in articles. I checked the Census but didn't see in broken down. I'm guessing the IRS was the source.
 
#17
#17
If my math is correct, he is claiming he can save 400,000 jobs at about $56,000 per job (if all millionaires make $10 million). Laughable given his track record.
 
Last edited:
#18
#18
Again, my guess is he's taking an increase in tax revenues that will occur over some time period (decade) and saying it will pay for this one-time spending.
 
#19
#19
Obama not a math whiz?

They don't call him 'zero' for nothing?

11165489.jpg


wash.jpg
 

VN Store



Back
Top