|
|
| *Loan,banking and credit>>>income tax |
Should tax policy stick it to high income individuals, even if no benefit is thereby gained? |
Tax REVENUE is up - and it's rising at over 4 times CPI. There IS a Laffer Curve and we're NOT on the right side of it. So, neither the Treasury nor the beneficiaries of any government program have suffered because of the tax rate cuts - in fact, they've gained by them. "Where'd the deficit come from?" From the spending. Yes we need to cut that, and yes I blame Bush, but it has nothing to do with the tax cuts. So there is no reason not to make the tax cuts permanent other than sticking it to people with a high income in a given year - - SIMPLY FOR ITS OWN SAKE. The only two reasons to do this are (1) envy, typically misplaced given the degree of mobility in the US, and (2) the notion that it's important to maintain a large 'middle class' - - - even if that means keeping households in the middle class from becoming affluent. They're still there, they're still in the middle, but some now make 6-7X the poverty level rather than 3-4X. Why is that bad? NO ONE benefits from higher taxes, but it does make some feel better over their own fail er to secede. I can't believe I am the first to answer this question. I think you lost touch with reality with all the numbers you supposedly look at. Are you not on the T.V. on CBS? The middle class is a political expedient. No matter how well the group in the middle does the politicians will always say "poor you". This is were the vast number of votes are. As long as they believe they are average and a particular politician will raise them form that, then it will always be a group worth pandering to. It is irresponsible to spend hundreds of billions more per year, year over year, than we take in in Tax revenue. Bush choose tax cuts and a war. One or the other must be given up. If our security is dependent on continuing the war, then the tax cuts must go. That is the 'benefit'. "Tax revenue is up" is a fairly ambiguous statement. Kind of like "Home ownership is up"鈥?We should expect it to be "up", otherwise we'd have serious problems. The statements only state that the economy grows. Can anyone prove or even show evidence that revenue wouldn't have grown at, or near the same rate or even at a higher rate without the tax cuts? Perhaps we might have MAXIMIZED tax revenue which is the goal of the Laffer Curve theory. And we wouldn't have a deficit and wouldn't worry as much about cutting spending as we would about allocating needed money... Perhaps toward Katrina reconstruction, or port security, or infrastructure repair etc etc. Why should the wealthy be taxed more? They鈥檝e benefited more from the safeties and economic freedoms that the USA guarantees. It鈥檚 only fair that they owe a little more in percentage to continue those guarantees. No one is 鈥渟ticking it to the wealthy鈥?or punishing them for being 鈥渨ealthy鈥? Such reasoning is just a bunch of Republican Rhetoric, their oldest trick in the book. Tax policy should strike a balance, where it benefits the people who need government and doesn鈥檛 hurt those who need it less. And I argue that we struck that balance a hell of a lot better in the 90鈥檚. |
| Tags |
| tax software tax table tax tips tax year income tax business tax car tax child tax cigarette tax corporate tax |
SiteMap--Copyright/IP Policy--Contact Webmaster--Resource of HR For personal non-commercial use only. |