Biden’s calculations behind his $ 3.5 billion spending plan fit second-grader



[ad_1]

President Joe Biden, 78, has a master’s degree in basic math from a 7-year-old.

“My Build Back Better program costs zero dollars,” Biden said via Twitter on September 25. Regarding this multi-trillion dollar budget, he continued, “And that does not add any dollars to the national debt.”

You can imagine a sophomore named Joey Biden showing off his new train and telling his playmates, “My dad bought it for me from Woolworth. So it didn’t cost anything.

It’s cute enough to make a coal miner cry. But in a Commander-in-Chief who turns 79 on November 20, such a “reflection” should make America cry.

Biden’s Build Back Better Act originally cost $ 3.5 trillion, an average of $ 24,424 for each of the 143.3 million U.S. taxpayers. The House Budget Committee’s version of this socialist extravaganza weighs in at $ 4.3 trillion.

It’s 23% more expensive and even more left. Somehow, Biden argues that it all costs “zero.”

Biden may think that if he and his fellow Democrats can shake up taxpayers for $ 3.5 trillion or $ 4.3 trillion, then this massive dump of rising social spending and shiny new rights will add up to “zero.” Never mind the trillions of dollars sucked out of the US Treasury through the Internal Revenue Service.

But even this absurd “zero” does not make sense. As massive as these tax hikes are, thankfully they are not massive enough to cover these incredibly high new expenses. The budget committee’s 2,465-page text proposes a simple $ 2.3 trillion tax hike to secure this Democratic cornucopia. Of course, that doesn’t even reach the original price.

It is only in Biden’s mind that $ 3.5 trillion minus $ 2.3 trillion would equal $ 0.

Biden must also count $ 50,000 = $ 400,000.

At least 42 times, Americans for Tax Reform reports, Biden has publicly promised these or similar words: “I promise you, you have my word, if you make less than $ 400,000 a year, you won’t pay a dime. more in taxes.

Since multiplication and division eludes most 7-year-olds, Biden could be forgiven for mistaking $ 400,000 for the much lower income levels he wants to raise taxes on.

The Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) announced that Biden’s plan would increase taxes on:

• 8.8% of those earning between $ 50,000 and $ 75,000

• 17.9% between $ 75,000 and $ 100,000

• 34.8% between $ 100,000 and $ 200,000.

Economists understand that the working class will pay much of Biden’s $ 858 billion corporate tax increase – from 21% to 28% in profits. Businesses will finance these higher taxes by raising prices (inflation!), Laying off workers, and reducing or slowing compensation for survivors.

“The literature suggests that 25 percent of the corporate tax burden can be borne by work in terms of decreasing wage growth,” JCT chief of staff Thomas A. Barthold told House Ways & Means Committee September 14.

Who would get that potential $ 214.5 billion bill? Barthold said: “Work. Workers.

Biden also has complete control over what constitutes a “fair share” of income taxes. As a second grader, he sees rich people and yells insults.

As Biden said on September 16, if his plan is implemented, “the super-rich … can finally start paying their fair share of what they owe.”

But even a Cub could use IRS statistics to rebut Biden’s remarks. The latest data shows that in 2018, the richest 1% of taxpayers earned at least $ 540,000 each. This group scored 21 percent of all national income and paid 40 percent of all federal income taxes.

And the bottom 50%? They earned less than $ 43,600 each, earned 12% of national income, and paid a meager 3% in income tax.

As childish as Joe Biden’s mathematical prowess is, he’s a true calculus teacher alongside House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). Obviously, she never learned to count.

Regarding Joe’s budget, Nancy told ABC This Week, “We’re not talking about numbers and dollars. Let’s talk about values.

Deroy Murdock is a Manhattan-based Fox News contributor, editor-in-chief of National Review Online, and senior researcher at the London Center for Policy Research.

[ad_2]

Source link