By Douglas V. Gibbs
The conservative argument is that cutting taxes increases the ability for the achievers to become more successful, and as a result of that increased success, revenue actually goes up with taxes are slashed.
The Democrats have argued that tax cuts couldn't possibly increase revenue. But the fact is, it does. After Reagan's tax cuts the revenue from the top earners increased. It happened after the Bush tax cuts as well.
How does this happen?
The rich individually actually does not pay more, but the tax cuts provide more opportunity, so the number of successful people increases. After the Bush tax cuts, for example, the number of millionaires doubled.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Their Fair Share - Wall Street Journal
After the Bush tax cuts, for example, the number of millionaires doubled.
ReplyDelete... and unemployment tripled, not to mention the middle class disappearing.
Bret, let's be factual, please. First, the unemployment rate under Bush was around 5-6%. If it tripled, it would have gone to 15%+. Obviously, that did not happen, not even under the idiot in the White House right now. So, that part of your statement is false. Either you are ignorant, or a liar. Second, the unemployment rate began rising around 2007, coincidentally, when the Democrats took office in Congress. As for the Middle Class disappearing, that is also either your ignorance talking, or you are a liar. I am Middle Class, and I didn't disappear. Fact is, regardless of the argument on whether revenue rises or not due to tax cuts or tax increases, the fact is that you could tax everyone 100% and it wouldn't come close to paying the deficit spending that Obama and the Democrats are putting us through. So, really, the real crux of the whole thing is that spending must be cut drastically - otherwise, everything collapses. Liberal policies are not economically sustainable. Whether they are good ideas, or not; or if they have wonderful intentions, or not; fact is, we can't afford them anymore.
ReplyDeleteI think the "Bush Tax Cuts" are a little bit off the mark. Cutting taxes on those most likely to invest works imperfectly. They can also buy new BMW's and McMansions with their tax savings. Why not directly incentivize savings and investment by exempting them from taxes? In short, take limits off IRAs, for instance. Keynesians will cry this discourages spending, echoing the failed "stimulus" crowd. I'd like to see a tax code that exempts (only) savings, health care and education expense, as these are the things we need for our labor force to be productive. Am I missing something?
ReplyDeleteYour premise is off. Cutting taxes is not to benefit those most likely to invest that are already rich, but to incentivize and benefit those most likely to invest while working to achieve. Their wealth creation then enables them to move up along with the others that are doing well. You are concentrating on a productive labor force, while I wish to incentivize and benefit entrepreneurs.
ReplyDeleteRead it again Doug: I listed exemption of savings first, and hope to broaden its appesal and defend against those who say it woukld favor investors (those nasty rich folks) by suggesting exemptions for those activities (and ONLY hose activities) that contribute to the creation of wealth. The wealthy are not necessarily the entrepreneurs of whom you speak; that's my point. But the savers are, or at lease they "incentivize and benefit" entrepreneurs by providing capital.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe that only the rich should get tax cuts, and I think that is where you are coming from. No conservative thinks that. The belief is that tax cuts should be uniform across the board. Besides, the idea here is not necessarily to give the rich a break, though that is good too so that their operations continue to grow, but to give the "potential rich" the opportunities needed by allowing them to keep more of what they make. Mind you, the money is not the government's, it is the people. People create wealth. . . which means the rich do not become the rich on the backs of the poor.
ReplyDelete