I just have to put my two cents in regarding the tax issue that is being debated in Washington. It drives me nuts that my side can’t make a coherent argument and just explain the facts in very simple terms. They let the left control the discussion and what terminology is used during the debate. It does not make sense to argue a viewpoint that is wrong by its very definition.
If you listen to the media and the politicians the arguments are centered on tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Do these blessed people in society deserve tax cuts? These cuts come at the expense of the rest of us working folk. Why the rich, those who earn over $250,000 per year have never worked for their money. It was just handed to them by the grace of the United States government. It would cost the government too much to give them a tax cut. (That is pretty much what you hear.)
If you are one of those people who believe the “rich” do not deserve a tax cut, I have a question for you. When you get a paycheck, whose money is it? Is it your money that you have earned or is it the governments’ money and they are kind enough to let you keep some of your wages? I thought so, it is your money. Now, since you feel that an individual who makes more than you should pay more in taxes, should we let someone who makes less than you decide how much you should pay? Seems only fair doesn’t it? Why not? You are pointing fingers at someone else, only seems right to have the finger pointed at you as well.
My point to this is how the left in our country views income and whose money it actually is when it is earned. How it is earned should not be the issue. (But, that is not really true because many of these rich people that you want taxed do not earn wages like you and me. This is a dirty little secret the liberals don’t want to tell you. Thus they pay different tax rates than high income people (there is a difference). Plus, we don’t tax wealth. We tax income.) I believe my income is mine. The Democrats and the media (because they are idiot lapdog leftists) believe my income (and your income) is their property. When you fall for the class warfare that the left always plays you become a part of the problem.
Next point to be made: they are not debating a tax cut, even though that is how they are making it sound. They are debating a tax increase. What we are hearing is how much these tax cuts will cost the government. Again, how can it cost the government any money if it were not theirs to begin with? (See my point from above – whose money is it? Ours or theirs?) The tax rates have been set since 2003. The rates in 2010 and 2003 were the same. That being the case; how can the tax rates staying the same cost the government revenue? Yet, this is what they say. Just listen to their words.
The left and the media control the definitions and thus the debate. My side has to get some kahonies (that’s right BALLS) and not discuss the issue on their terms. Don’t back down and just use the facts. We would win the argument hands down.
Here are the facts.
Since WWII there have been three major tax decreases. They were in 1964 Kennedy, 1981 Reagan and 2001/02/03 Bush (it was actually three tax bills that made up the Bush tax cuts). It has been argued that tax cuts cost the government money. (“How do we pay for these tax cuts?” – have you ever heard that? Of course you have, they control the definition and thus the debate.)
Well, let’s look at some numbers.
Kennedy 1964 tax receipts 112.6B — 1969 tax receipts 186.9B.
Reagan 1981 tax receipts 599.3B — 1986 tax receipts 769.2B. (And receipts took off from there.)
Bush 2003 tax receipts 1,782.3B — 2008 tax receipts 2,524B.
First off, notice there is not a revenue decrease in any of the cases. In fact, there are revenue increases. In all three examples the year after the tax decrease revenue increased to the treasury that following year. If this is the case, how come we hear questions on how the government will pay for the tax cuts?
Fact: tax decreases increase revenue. We don’t have a tax problem in this country, we have a spending problem.
I am going to add another 5 year example to make a point.
Clinton 1994 tax receipts 1,258.6B — 1999 tax receipts 1,827.5B.
Pelosi/Reid/and partial Obama (2009/2010) 2007 tax receipts 2,568B — 2010 tax receipts 2,165.1 (estimate).
In 1994 Clinton lost congress to the Republicans. All spending appropriations come through congress. From 1998 through 2001 there was a revenue surplus. Credit goes to the Republicans (and the American people for voting them in) for bringing Clinton over to our side on economics. The Republicans under Bush lost their way. They became no better than a typical Democrat. Bush became no better than a typical Democrat in signing the spending bills. Thus, they lost congress in the 2006 election.
Pelosi and Reid controlled the purse strings. They yielded great power and Bush did not control them. Spending increased greatly. Bush and the Republican got blamed for everything that had gone wrong. Because the Republican have no idea on how to battle the left and the media with the proper definitions of the debate, we are sitting here today in our own stool. Tax receipts have decreased drastically in this country because of the implementation of Keynesian economic policies that the Democrats hold so dear to their hearts.
We have a spending problem. The government spends too much of our money.
One more fact:
In 2001 the top 1% incomes paid 33.89% of all income tax revenues to the government and the top 5% paid 53.25%. After the “Bush tax cut for the rich,” in 2008 the top 1% paid 38.02% and the top 5% paid 58.72%. Sounds like the rich got screwed by Bush.
The bottom 50% in 2008 paid only 2.7% of all income tax revenue collected as opposed to 3.97% in 2001.
The left and the media make me sick. They are lying bastards when it comes to the tax issue.
My side, well they are either incapable of making an argument properly based on facts or they are simply cowards.
For more information, visit www.illusionsandrealities.com
