By Douglas V. Gibbs
The Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 are going to expire at the end of the year. After their passage nearly a decade ago tax revenue increased. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. Unfortunately, Bush only believed in half of the equation, and spending increased. As a result, eventually the economy stagnated.
Tax cuts have ushered in a prosperous period before, as well. Under Ronald Reagan, tax cuts also kick-started the economy. From 1983 to 1989 the poorest 20 percent of the population saw their income rise 12 percent, as did the richest fifth of the population, which resulted in higher revenues because more money was being earned. On a percentage basis that means that as the rich got richer, so did the poor. In fact, family income levels rose across the board during the Reagan years.
Mr. Jack Kemp best articulated it when he said, "A rising tide lifts all boats."
The indisputable truth is that real economic growth without inflation occurs with tax cuts, and providing more opportunity by backing off with governmental regulatory control. A strong economy, spurred by those kinds of tax policies becomes vibrant, and prosperous for all.
The revenue comes from the tax producers, who are the folks that achieve. So, it would make sense to encourage achievement. Achievers are the working people (made up partially by small business owners) who are striving to make it in this country. If their activity is made easier by lower taxes and lower regulations, then economic activity increases. However, taxing an activity more heavily ultimately decreases the amount of that activity.
The activity of economic growth is directly tied to the private sector. And amazingly, this is an activity engaged in by the rich, too. And as that business activity increases, by the small business owner and the rich, it ends up employing more people. Everyone benefits from tax cuts across the board. And, everyone suffers when taxes are increased across the board. . . but especially when the tax increase against the wealthy is punitive, and unreasonable.
Hammer the rich, and they stop producing. A drop in production results in a drop of supply, and of jobs. Therefore, the best way to stabilize an economy is through supply-side economics, or doing things that encourage the growth of manufacturing and production.
This line of thinking is consistent with the principles of conservatism. Liberalism subscribes to a demand-side view of economics, and the offering of entitlements to those the liberals believe are unable to achieve. This means that conservatism believes that nobody needs to be excluded from prosperity. Liberalism establishes the classes of the haves and the have-nots, thereby excluding poorer Americans from opportunity, and keeping them down by making them dependents upon the government.
As Jack Kemp once said, "Conservatives define compassion not by the number of people who receive some kind of government aid, but rather by the number of people who no longer need it."
Even with the socialist entitlement systems in place, thanks to the achievers of America, our poor are still the wealthiest poor in the world. Our poor own multiple television sets, cars, computers, video game systems, cell phones, and homes. Nonetheless, if those folks wish to do better, they can in America if only the government would get out of the way and let them. Instead, Democrats encourage poverty by subsidizing the increasing numbers of the poor. The thing is, they pay nothing back. The entire system is dependent upon those that produce.
What if more people refused to be self-reliant? What if more people, as fostered by the Democrats, decided to obtain a dependency mentality on the government? Are we supposed to be sympathetic to those folks too?
Sympathy never brought prosperity, and I have never been hired by anyone other than someone who is wealthy, or at least is an achiever.
God help us if the takers someday begin to outnumber the achievers.
As Margaret Thatcher once said, "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."
Those that choose to be responsible achievers are tired of being told that they should give more through taxes for those that refuse to shoulder any responsibilities. The achievers are being asked to give and give until they have no more to give. Coupled with out of control spending, the economics of it all is destroying our financial system.
And now, in addition to all of the spending and taxation, the Financial Reform bill has been passed into law to hammer more regulations into the private sector, making it even more difficult to achieve.
But not all of the Democrats are completely insane.
As the expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts approaches, some of the Democrats are beginning to argue that maybe, just maybe, letting taxes creep upward may not be the best thing to do right now.
Are they admitting that tax hikes hurt revenue, and cripple economies?
Obama, and his minions, have proclaimed that they plan to continue the lower tax rates for individuals earning less than $200,000 and families earning less than $250,000 — what Democrats call the middle class. It's only them greedy achievers at the top that are going to be slammed.
How dare they be so prosperous in the United States of America! What do they think this is? The Land of Opportunity or something?
The Republicans, and some Democrats, are saying that the tax cuts should remain in play for all Americans. If the cuts are allowed to expire, however, taxes on income, dividends, capital gains and estates would all rise.
Tax hikes in the seventies by Jimmy Carter were catastrophic, and those few Democrats know it.
So the question is, will we dig our nation deeper into turmoil by following Obama, and the leftist Congressional Democrats, like a bunch of blind sheep being led to the slaughter, or will the Republicans and a few Democrats stand tough and ensure the tax cuts do not expire.
The Left believes that only the wealthy will suffer, and hey, they have so much money it won't hurt them a bit. . . but if we allow taxes to rise, coupled with the regulatory control the Democrats are now putting into place, our rip-roaring ride towards the destructive falls of economic collapse will increase its pace. Obama says the roar in the distance is recovery, but we all know it is devastation should we allow our raft to reach the point of no return.
Grab an oar, let's turn this baby around!
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Battle Looms in Washington Over Expiring Tax Cuts - New York Times
DWYER: Bush tax cuts boosted federal revenue - Washington Times
Margaret Thatcher on Socialism - Snopes
In Defense of the Eighties by Rush Limbaugh - Ronald Reagan Peers
The Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 are going to expire at the end of the year. After their passage nearly a decade ago tax revenue increased. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. Unfortunately, Bush only believed in half of the equation, and spending increased. As a result, eventually the economy stagnated.
Tax cuts have ushered in a prosperous period before, as well. Under Ronald Reagan, tax cuts also kick-started the economy. From 1983 to 1989 the poorest 20 percent of the population saw their income rise 12 percent, as did the richest fifth of the population, which resulted in higher revenues because more money was being earned. On a percentage basis that means that as the rich got richer, so did the poor. In fact, family income levels rose across the board during the Reagan years.
Mr. Jack Kemp best articulated it when he said, "A rising tide lifts all boats."
The indisputable truth is that real economic growth without inflation occurs with tax cuts, and providing more opportunity by backing off with governmental regulatory control. A strong economy, spurred by those kinds of tax policies becomes vibrant, and prosperous for all.
The revenue comes from the tax producers, who are the folks that achieve. So, it would make sense to encourage achievement. Achievers are the working people (made up partially by small business owners) who are striving to make it in this country. If their activity is made easier by lower taxes and lower regulations, then economic activity increases. However, taxing an activity more heavily ultimately decreases the amount of that activity.
The activity of economic growth is directly tied to the private sector. And amazingly, this is an activity engaged in by the rich, too. And as that business activity increases, by the small business owner and the rich, it ends up employing more people. Everyone benefits from tax cuts across the board. And, everyone suffers when taxes are increased across the board. . . but especially when the tax increase against the wealthy is punitive, and unreasonable.
Hammer the rich, and they stop producing. A drop in production results in a drop of supply, and of jobs. Therefore, the best way to stabilize an economy is through supply-side economics, or doing things that encourage the growth of manufacturing and production.
This line of thinking is consistent with the principles of conservatism. Liberalism subscribes to a demand-side view of economics, and the offering of entitlements to those the liberals believe are unable to achieve. This means that conservatism believes that nobody needs to be excluded from prosperity. Liberalism establishes the classes of the haves and the have-nots, thereby excluding poorer Americans from opportunity, and keeping them down by making them dependents upon the government.
As Jack Kemp once said, "Conservatives define compassion not by the number of people who receive some kind of government aid, but rather by the number of people who no longer need it."
Even with the socialist entitlement systems in place, thanks to the achievers of America, our poor are still the wealthiest poor in the world. Our poor own multiple television sets, cars, computers, video game systems, cell phones, and homes. Nonetheless, if those folks wish to do better, they can in America if only the government would get out of the way and let them. Instead, Democrats encourage poverty by subsidizing the increasing numbers of the poor. The thing is, they pay nothing back. The entire system is dependent upon those that produce.
What if more people refused to be self-reliant? What if more people, as fostered by the Democrats, decided to obtain a dependency mentality on the government? Are we supposed to be sympathetic to those folks too?
Sympathy never brought prosperity, and I have never been hired by anyone other than someone who is wealthy, or at least is an achiever.
God help us if the takers someday begin to outnumber the achievers.
As Margaret Thatcher once said, "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."
Those that choose to be responsible achievers are tired of being told that they should give more through taxes for those that refuse to shoulder any responsibilities. The achievers are being asked to give and give until they have no more to give. Coupled with out of control spending, the economics of it all is destroying our financial system.
And now, in addition to all of the spending and taxation, the Financial Reform bill has been passed into law to hammer more regulations into the private sector, making it even more difficult to achieve.
But not all of the Democrats are completely insane.
As the expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts approaches, some of the Democrats are beginning to argue that maybe, just maybe, letting taxes creep upward may not be the best thing to do right now.
Are they admitting that tax hikes hurt revenue, and cripple economies?
Obama, and his minions, have proclaimed that they plan to continue the lower tax rates for individuals earning less than $200,000 and families earning less than $250,000 — what Democrats call the middle class. It's only them greedy achievers at the top that are going to be slammed.
How dare they be so prosperous in the United States of America! What do they think this is? The Land of Opportunity or something?
The Republicans, and some Democrats, are saying that the tax cuts should remain in play for all Americans. If the cuts are allowed to expire, however, taxes on income, dividends, capital gains and estates would all rise.
Tax hikes in the seventies by Jimmy Carter were catastrophic, and those few Democrats know it.
So the question is, will we dig our nation deeper into turmoil by following Obama, and the leftist Congressional Democrats, like a bunch of blind sheep being led to the slaughter, or will the Republicans and a few Democrats stand tough and ensure the tax cuts do not expire.
The Left believes that only the wealthy will suffer, and hey, they have so much money it won't hurt them a bit. . . but if we allow taxes to rise, coupled with the regulatory control the Democrats are now putting into place, our rip-roaring ride towards the destructive falls of economic collapse will increase its pace. Obama says the roar in the distance is recovery, but we all know it is devastation should we allow our raft to reach the point of no return.
Grab an oar, let's turn this baby around!
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Battle Looms in Washington Over Expiring Tax Cuts - New York Times
DWYER: Bush tax cuts boosted federal revenue - Washington Times
Margaret Thatcher on Socialism - Snopes
In Defense of the Eighties by Rush Limbaugh - Ronald Reagan Peers
No comments:
Post a Comment