Let's get a few facts straight about tax cuts for the wealthy and how they affect the revenues coming into the Treasury because the American Pravda is not being honest with the public, and the Republicans are doing a lousy job defending the need to extend tax cuts for all Americans, rich and poor alike.
Read from Front Page Mag:
The Truth Behind the Tax Cut Lies
[...]
"Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, now a professor at Berkeley, has made the case for the liberal Democrats’ position in an article in the November 28th issue of the San Francisco Chronicle titled 'Extend benefits for jobless, not tax cuts for the rich.'
Professor Reich points out that both Republicans and some conservative Democrats say that we cannot afford another extension of unemployment benefits because the deficit is already too large.
Then he adds: 'But wait. These are the same members of Congress who say we should extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.'
Reich advocates 'extending unemployment benefits for struggling families without a breadwinner' because 'These families need the money. The rich don’t.'
This is the Democrats’ argument in a nutshell. It seems very persuasive on the surface, however shaky it is underneath. But cuts in tax rates do not mean cuts in tax revenues, as Reich assumes. How the tax-rate battle in Congress turns out may depend on how well the Republicans answer such arguments.
These are not new arguments on either side. They go back more than 80 years. Over that long span of time, there have been many sharp cuts in tax rates under Presidents Calvin Coolidge, John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. So we don’t need to argue in a vacuum. There is a track record.
What does that record say? It says, loud and clear, that cuts in tax rates do not mean cuts in tax revenues. In all four of these administrations, of both parties, so-called 'tax cuts for the rich' led to increased tax revenues— with people earning high incomes paying not only a larger sum total of tax revenues, but even a higher proportion of all tax revenues.
Most important of all, these tax rate reductions spurred economic activity, which we definitely need today.
These are the facts. But facts do not 'speak for themselves.' In terms of facts, the Republicans have the stronger case. But that doesn’t matter, unless they make the case, which they show little sign of doing.
Democrats already understand the need for articulation. Robert Reich is only one of many articulate Democratic spokesmen. But where are the articulate Republicans? Do they even understand how crucial articulation is? The outcome of this lame duck session of Congress may answer that question."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Hey, you rightwingnuts want to hearwhat David Stockman, Ronnie Reagan's old budget wunderkind, thinks about the fallacy of tax cuts raising revenue?
"Interestingly, [Reagan budget director David] Stockman agreed with a little bit of Pence's underlying assumption that increases in taxes can inhibit economic growth. But he disagreed that tax revenues would decrease if the government raised taxes. "I just have to respectfully disagree," Stockman said. "You will have some loss of revenue because some activity or transactions won't happen, but if you raise taxes on paper by $100 billion, maybe you'll get $90 billion or $85 billion. But it's just common-sense fact that, when you raise the rates, you get more revenue. Normally, it's a bad thing to do. But we are in such dire shape that we have no choice but to accept the negative trade-off of some harm to the economy to start paying our bills."
The tax experts we spoke with agreed with Stockman. In this climate, raising the top tax rates from 35 to 39.6 percent would increase revenues. The effect Pence is talking about would not happen at this level of taxation, they said.
"There is some rate at which it would be true," said Roberton Williams of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. "But I don't think there are any established economists who would argue that we're near that."
"At current tax rates, most tax increases will increase revenues, at least in the short and medium run," said Brian Riedl of the conservative Heritage Foundation. "The caveat is that in a fragile economy, it can be unpredictable."
Funny how a slug who makes his living off tax money is always for taxing more. Just not from them.
Have you ever created a job numbnuts?
No, I don't create jobs. I create young adults ready to do a job, either before or after college.
If tax cuts to the rich create so many jobs... how come we have such unemployment even WITH these tax cuts for almost a decade?
To paraphrase Bushie: You're doing a helluva job on creating those jobs, Richie Rich. (And that doesn't mean you, JustaDumbass.) Since you blindly support those rich folks to your own detriment, JustaDumbass, do they let you lick their boots, too?
Post a Comment