(D)eath and taxes

The election is over and Democrats won! Now ask yourself this question, "How much are my taxes going up?" Because if Democrats seize control of congress this November it’s not a question of whether or not taxes will go up, it’s a question of how much they will go up.

A similiar question was polled before the 2004 Presidential election between Bush and (the loser) Kerry. We all know what the Democrat's agenda is about: raising taxes. 'Your money is their money.' And something about how there just isn't enough 'sacrifice' in this country.

Suppose that John Kerry is elected this November. Will your own personal taxes go up, go down, or stay about the same? 
45% UP  |  15% DOWN  |  32% SAME
Survey of 1,000 Likely Voters October 17, 2004 
~rasmussenreports.com
The new speaker of the House, Nacy Pelosi, has said the tax cuts are a tragedy. One can only surmise that she is for reversing this tragedy as soon as possible.

"This tax cut is a tragedy. It does not create jobs and it does not grow the economy--the only thing it grows is the deficit.

"This tax cut is the unraveling of fiscal responsibility. By promoting his unnecessary, unfair, and fiscally unsound tax cut, President Bush created a tax cutting frenzy among Congressional Republicans. The result is a bill to put our children $1 trillion in debt. ~democraticleader.house.gov

There's just one tiny thing wrong with her propaganda (it's wrong). Even the ultra-liberal newspaper, the NY Times, acknowledges that the tax cuts have increased tax revenue. It's surprising to them only because they've had it wrong for so long.
Surprising Jump in Tax Revenues Is Curbing Deficit

WASHINGTON, July 8 — An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year, even though spending has climbed sharply because of the war in Iraq and the cost of hurricane relief. ~NYTimes
But I have no doubt that Pelosi will amend the "Six for 06"  plan to seize control of America (I call it the 666 plan) to include repealing all tax cuts and increasing taxes "only" (wink wink) on the evil-rich corporations and greedy CEO's who have been oppressing America's poor all these years.

The truth is that when you ask ordinary Americans about this issue they agree with Republicans and not the liberal elite like Nancy Pelosi:
What if taxes are increased next year? Will higher taxes help the economy, hurt the economy or have no impact on the economy?
20% HELP  |  61% HURT  |  19% NO IMPACT
Survey of 1,000 Likely Voters September 21, 2004
We already know the rest of the agenda that Democrats would afflict upon the nation as well. Some of it is spelled out in the 666 plan to seize control of America:
  1. "REAL SECURITY AT HOME AND OVERSEAS"
    Pull the troops out of Iraq to ensure our defeat there and blame Bush for it.

  2. "BETTER AMERICAN JOBS - BETTER PAY"
    Raise taxes and give everyone government checks and/or jobs.

  3. "COLLEGE ACCESS FOR ALL"
    Do for college education what's been done to public education. Free college! No standards! Liberal indoctrination!

  4. "ENERGY INDEPENDENCE - LOWER GAS PRICES"
    Outlaw the automobile and other 'environmental dangers' like air conditioning and ration fuel and energy so that everyone gets, 'their fair share'.

  5. "AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE - LIFE-SAVING SCIENCE"
    Socialized medicine for all! Yeah! Put a stop to 'the rich' and other wannabe's just getting whatever treatments they want. Rationed health care for all!

  6. "RETIREMENT SECURITY AND DIGNITY"
    Cradle to grave socialism. Yeah! Until we decide we can't afford to keep you alive or you can no longer vote anyway and then you get selected to, "die with dignity".
Take a look at page two of the 666 plan as well. The fear mongering is palpable.

There are only two things that are sure in this world. One is that you are safer with Republicans in power. And two is that whenever Democrats are in power those two things are death and taxes.

Posted by Eric Simonson at September 9, 2006 11:33 AM
Comments
Comment #180108

Eric:

While there is an immediate, short term increase, most of the economists that I have heard say it is not sustainable, and will go down.

How do you want to pay this huge deficit, hopefully before China et.al. call in their notes?

Posted by: womanmarine at September 9, 2006 2:55 PM
Comment #180115

So your saying the “republican way” is the way to go on taxes? Meaning we get a free ride and your childs money is our money?
for 15 years I leaned toward the right believing they believed in fisical responsibility, now after 6 years with them in control I can see they were blowing smoke up my butt.
Now I look at this election cycle : main spring issues it seems where flag burning /the pledge etc:
and I am really starting to wonder if the right does anything for the PEOPLE other than blow smoke up their butts
respectfully W.E.Savage

I must not fear.Fear is the mind killer.Fear is the little death that brings total obliteration.And when its gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.

Posted by: TheSavage at September 9, 2006 3:18 PM
Comment #180117

Well, lookie who wants the free ride: Mr. Eric Simonson. Another Republican who insists on getting their “free” government benefits without paying for them, just like the welfare bums that they spit at.

The children (born and unborn) of this country who you are saddling with this massive debt have a message for you. Pay your goddamn tab, Simonson. You want this idiotic war, then pay for it.

Posted by: Burt at September 9, 2006 3:25 PM
Comment #180118

And when is all that Iraqi oil money going to start paying off the hundreds of billions we spent on it, Mr. Wolfowitz?
Or was that more bad intel?
I have an idea, lets pay for it with oil profits, not taxes, but actually claim against the profits they made since March of 2003.

Sounds fair to me.

Posted by: Joe at September 9, 2006 3:30 PM
Comment #180119

By the way, Eric. It’s a nice touch now that you are not only linking to your own website for factual support but also “The Onion”.

I’ll expect a “Weekly World News” link in your next article.

Posted by: Burt at September 9, 2006 3:33 PM
Comment #180122

We have decided that socialized medicine will kick in 3 (three) months after the new Democratic Congress is sworn in.

From my notes here…yes, Simonson…your taxes will be increased 37%. If we hear anymore out of you, add another 10%.

We will be gunning for dead-beat corporations and investment corporatists that hide their ill-gotten gains off the backs of the workers in overseas shelters.

The days of (Republican) pork-laden laws written not only for, but by, corporate hacks, is over. We are giving free airline tickets to Washington to our Democratic corporate hacks across the country (they’re hacks, but, by golly, they’re our hacks)to begin writing our pork-laden legislation. Anybody caught giving money to Republican lobbyists will be shot, and their bodies will be air-freighted to Tom Delay in Houston…or Virginia, or wherever he is now. (Note—find out where TD is.)

We have decided to level the K Street section of Washington. Times and dates have not been decided—check your newspaper or radio/TV outlets for times and seating availability.

Socialism will be mandatory. Like Right-wing loonies have been insisting that Commie Socialist pinko queers need to clear out to France, you and your fascist brethern are welcome to vacate to Hong Kong, Singapore, or anywhere else you think your YOYO (Your on your own) club might ‘fit’ in.

We have decided that all electronic touch-screen voting devices made by closet Republican corporatists will be converted into ATMs—at least they leave a paper trail. We have opened up bidding to replace such machines with working, transparent machines that can’t be hacked inside of four minutes by Republican thugs with a associate’s degree in computer technology earned off the internet.

We will suspend any ‘negotiations’ with the Bush administration regarding, well, anything, until impeachment procedures are well under way. If you’d like to ameliorate some of the political consequences of an actual, real-life investigation into Republican corruption, have Dick Cheney’s head Fed-Exed to our offices by Monday morning, 8:30 sharp.

We are still debating among ourselves the efficacy of Left-wing death squads. Some of us feel just mentioning such entities might corral some of the more egregious Neo-con behavior. Others of us believe that real squads with real dead Republican neo-cons might have a more, shall we say, provocative effect. Imagine the Scalias,
the Kristols, the Addingtons, the Cheneys actually having to watch their backs. Since the Right is paranoid about everything, we feel it important to show them that their collective paranoia is not entirely unfounded.

As you can well imagine, we have decided to get the troops out of Iraq, and send them to Afghanistan. After we clean out the real nest of vipers, in solidarity to our working friends south of the border, we have decided to invade Mexico and clean the entrenched, elitist, Right-wing thugs that just stole the election down there and put them in the Halliburton detention centers that have been built for ‘special circumstances’.

Other plans to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable are in the works. Please check your local listings for dates and times.

Posted by: Tim Crow at September 9, 2006 3:49 PM
Comment #180130

Tim Crow:

Absolutely hilarious!!

Posted by: womanmarine at September 9, 2006 4:19 PM
Comment #180139

Eric,

You have no idea what you are talking about. Last years tax revenues was the first time in 5 years that the revenue was higher than Clintons last year in office. When you factor in inflation it still doesn’t match the tax revenue of Clintons last year. So to say that the tax cuts paid for themselves is completely wrong.

When the Dems take back Congress there will probably be a tax increase on the wealthiest people. Right now the highest federal tax is 35% on income over $326,450. This will probably be raised back to 39.6% like it was under Clinton. I expect the inheritance tax to be kept, and possibly the return of the dividend tax. I don’t expect the Dems to rely only on tax increases to improve the budget, they will probably reinstate PayGo, adjust the medicare drug plan to allow the government to negotiate prices with big pharma to get the costs down, and trim out the pork and unnecessary military expenses to get spending under control.

Posted by: bushflipflops at September 9, 2006 4:57 PM
Comment #180142

Tim Crow,
Funny!
Hmmm m m m … despite the gallant attempts to paint things rosy, some people don’t seem to be too happy here in the rose-colored-column these days. Well, they may be a little upset, but watch 85% to 90% of incumbents of both parties retain their cu$hy, coveted seats. Some voters are angry, but most slumbering voters have not yet experienced the coming consequences of years of ignoring corrupt government to motivate them to do anything vastly different. But, 2008 may be different, because things will worsen from 2006 to 2008, because grid-lock will keep any of our pressing problems from getting addressed, and grid-lock (slightly Democrat congress, and Republican executive branch) will allow our pressing problems to grow in number and severity.

So, the misery index is likely to grow worse by 2008. Then we may see some more irresponsible incumbents voted out. In the mean time, watch the corruption grow, because incumbent politicians don’t believe they’ll ever be ousted in large numbers. And why should they? The have a 90% re-election rate.

Posted by: d.a.n at September 9, 2006 5:01 PM
Comment #180162

Burt,

Well, lookie who wants the free ride: Mr. Eric Simonson. Another Republican who insists on getting their “free” government benefits without paying for them, just like the welfare bums that they spit at.

The children (born and unborn) of this country who you are saddling with this massive debt have a message for you. Pay your goddamn tab, Simonson. You want this idiotic war, then pay for it.

Is it the year of the angry liberal? Sounds very vitriolic. Bordering on hateful perhaps.

Well, we could ‘pay’ for more government with tax increases, but as we’ve seen over the years, government never gets smaller even under Republican administrations. One might well ask, why is that? Certainly, it is not in spite of the left demanding that Republicans cut anything. The argument can be made that the mistake that Republicans have made is capitulating to Democrats and the left on this issue.

I remember Bush inviting Ted Kennedy to the white house to help craft legislation that both sides could compromise on. So much for that.

Republicans run and hide when they are called heartless, cruel, and hateful because they propose to cut any part of the budget (besides defense of course). Because the left believes that true charity comes through the government; all others are illigitimate.

The government belongs to the people, Burt, not the people to the government. Tax cuts were not only the moral thing to do it was the logical thing to do.

Posted by: eric simonson at September 9, 2006 7:27 PM
Comment #180163

So the liberal/left thinks that the highest earners are going to get a tax increase? All those millionaires in the Congress are going to vote to pay a higher tax rate? Put some substance with that. Pelosi is in that $25 million worth catagory. Do you think she is going to initiate a tax increase on herself? Time for a reality check. A tax increase may be done but the middle earners will take the hit. That is the Democratic way they do it.

Posted by: tomh at September 9, 2006 7:27 PM
Comment #180167

Eric:

So the social programs are the only place in the budget where there is room for fiscal responsibility? You could have fooled me!!

Posted by: womanmarine at September 9, 2006 7:39 PM
Comment #180169

bushflipflops,

You have no idea what you are talking about. Last years tax revenues was the first time in 5 years that the revenue was higher than Clintons last year in office. When you factor in inflation it still doesn’t match the tax revenue of Clintons last year. So to say that the tax cuts paid for themselves is completely wrong.

Does it seem odd to you that revenue isn’t static? In contradiction to the flat earth theories of liberal economics, revenue is dynamic.

The argument that Clinton’s habitation of the oval office is the sole factor in higher federal revenue is lacking some details don’t you think? I mean besides the fact that the economy was headed down as he left office, and the dotcom bubble burst, and then a little thing like 9/11 etc. All things being equal, the economy is doing rather well.

Tax cuts pay for themselves because federal revenue comes from the people, not a government program.

Posted by: eric simonson at September 9, 2006 7:39 PM
Comment #180173

Eric,

I’m beginning to get the feeling that you don’t know what “Tax cuts pay for themselves” actually means. In theory it means that by cutting taxes you are going to create more money by what is known as the money multiplier, as the retained money cycles through the economy. The money multiplier will increase the total income of the country, then the taxes collected at a lower rate on the higher total income will be equivalent or greater than the taxes collected at the old rate on the lower total income. The facts are that the tax revenue of last year just exceeded the tax revenue of the final year under the old tax rates, but when you factor in inflation it is still lower than the tax revenue collected in the last year of the old rates. Therefore THE TAX CUTS HAVE NOT PAID FOR THEMSELVES, and since their implementation we have acrued massive amounts of debt.

Posted by: bushflipflops at September 9, 2006 8:18 PM
Comment #180184

Looking at the Dem plan #6 I can see that they plan to do NOTHING AT ALL to make social security secure. WOW! What a plan!

Posted by: Don at September 9, 2006 9:44 PM
Comment #180187

Looking at the Dem plan #2 I can see that they plan to FORCE employers to raise minimum wages. Do you like the government telling you what you MUST DO in order to stay in business? I will be for this (as an employer) when the government tells the employees what they MUST DO to earn that wage (aside from showing up not drunk).

Posted by: Don at September 9, 2006 9:49 PM
Comment #180198

Savage:

“I must not fear.Fear is the mind killer.Fear is the little death that brings total obliteration.And when its gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.” Frank Hebert Dune

At least give the guy his due,for pity’s sake, lest we think we have a budding superstar in our midst

Stephen Daughtery

The stock market crashed during Clinton’s presidency,…the economic condition of this country was recession-like….clearly heading there.

Methinks the Bush Tax cut issue is his strong point,plain and simple.


Eric

Need some help:

I am doing a piece on the Democratic plan on Iraq for a piece I am writing, and I wanted to run it by you before I post it. Here it is:

Plan:


Am I right?Did I get their plan correct? Thanks

Posted by: sicilianeasle at September 9, 2006 10:09 PM
Comment #180207

Eric,

You should title this: ” Us Republicans totally screwed things up and failed to pay for it, now blame and fear the Democrats because they are worse than us: Trust Us, we wouldn’t steer ya wrong, honest!!!”

Posted by: gergle at September 9, 2006 10:29 PM
Comment #180211

Democrats can cut spending very easily, effectively, in sums substantial for every person in the country.

The current spending matter costs $257 million dollars per day. For a population of, say, 300 million, this comes out to 85 cents per day, or roughly $312 dollars per year for every man, woman, and child in the country.

For my household of four, this equals @ $1450 per
year. How?

Withdraw from Iraq.

SE,
The NASDAQ fell under Clinton. The DJIA & S&P also declined, but to a lesser degree. These averages make up the large capitalization stocks.

Did 9/11 impact the economy? The answer, as heartless as it may sound, is “no.” The DJIA recovered almost all of its 9/11 losses within six weeks. Equity markets and economies are notoriously unsentimental.

Having said that, fear does play a psychological role in markets… fear and greed. The Clinton administration was notable for its aura of confidence. It is no coincidence markets performed so well while Clinton was at the helm. The relentless fearmongering of the Bush administration has played a role in suppressing markets, and most people recognize a “fear factor” built into oil prices of up to $20 bbl. Fear over the War on Terror- criminy, think about it, a “War on Terror”!- fear over Iraq, fear over Iran, fear, fear, fear. It is the calling card of this administration.

Don,
Republicans wanted to dismantle Social Security Insurance. It was a remarkably hare-brained, half-baked scheme, and I wonder if that debacle will affect votes in November.

A reasonable guess is that Democrats will improve the financial position by increasing the retirement age by a year.

PayGo by the Democrats is a given. Financial responsibility seems to have utterly escaped the grasp of Republicans and Bush. Increasing the minimum wage will also happen for sure. Count on outsourcing to finally be addressed, too.

If you strongly oppose the minimum wage, countries like Somalia and Aden are remarkably free of any government interference, regulation, or tax collection. People will work like slaves for next to nothing. Of course, their societies have not invested in education, but with human beings a dime a dozen instead of $7 bucks an hour, well, what the hey!

Posted by: phx8 at September 9, 2006 10:32 PM
Comment #180217

Don & Eric,
Gosh, I almost forgot to mention, and I am just absolutely positive Bush will not mention it either in his speech Monday, but really, you should know this-

Before moving to Somalia to practice unfettered, unregulated, joyously free capitalism, you might first want to convert to a radical sect of Islam.

You see, a compatriot of Osama bin Laden took over control of Somalia recently, a certain Sheikh Aweys. His Islamic Council Union resembles the Taliban to a great degree; indeed, the social structure of Somalia strongly resembles Afghanistan; clans and warlords control regions of a failed state, with urban areas lacking any international contact, with the exception of one urban center- Kabul in Afghanistan, Mogadishu in Somalia.

Ah, but perhaps the mountain air appeals to you! May I recommend another haven free of government interference, North Wajiristan? After getting its butt kicked in a series of battles, the government of Pakistan has negotitated a settlement with the Pushtun tribesmen. The central government of Pakistan will not interfere with the tribes. In return, the tribes will stay out of Afghanistan. (Does anyone believe that one for a moment?!).

But Don & Eric, the free & untaxed business life in North Wajiristan contains perils which can also become opportunities! With any luck, you might arrange a personal interview with Osama bin Laden or Dr Zawahiri!

Bon Voyage!

Posted by: phx8 at September 9, 2006 10:47 PM
Comment #180218

phx8 -
“Republicans wanted to dismantle Social Security Insurance.”

Did you read their plan? They wanted to DO SOMETHING to make it more secure for the future, and to make it more meaningful to the future generation of retirees. That doesn’t sound like dismantlement to me. The Dems have NO PLAN to repair the poor thing. Under the Dem plan there will be NO social security in a few years. I think I like the Repub plan better.

Posted by: Don at September 9, 2006 10:50 PM
Comment #180220

phx8 -
“If you strongly oppose the minimum wage”

No.
I don’t like government over-interference in business.

When was the last time you hired someone? Or are you only a consumer?

Posted by: Don at September 9, 2006 10:54 PM
Comment #180239

Don,
I would prefer to omit personal details, but I am employed, and understand your point about just how odious government regulation can be for business.

Moderation and compromise are necessary in order to achieve balance. Obvious, right? Too much regulation is obnoxious and counterproductive; not enough, and trouble follows just as surely.

As much as we polical junkies would like to see one ideology prevail, or another fail, real life rarely lends itself to such clear cut solutions. Mixing capitalism & socialism provides the most effcient, effective, and simultaneously compassionate answer.

Obviously neither Somalia nor the USSR offer workable approaches. Globalization & technology make offshoring outsourcing efficient from a purely economic perspective, but disastrous from a cultural and national perspective for the United States. Averaging the wages of American workers against the wages of Chinese workers is not desirable for us. While our system rewards some more than others, none can benefit without mutual cooperation.

Really, I do not understand why Republicans let things get so out of hand, to the point they wanted to tie raising the minimum wage with repeal of the estate tax.

Will the Democrats exercise financial responsibility? I hope so. In any case, the Republicans have proven completely unable to control themselves. The deficits and debts are just crazy, and worse, we have nothing- NOTHING- to show for it. Time for a change.


Posted by: phx8 at September 10, 2006 12:38 AM
Comment #180243

WOW, Eric, talking about framing the issue for party advantage. Not bad.

Let’s throw some facts in here shall we? If Republicans lose the majority, Democrats will attempt to roll back the tax cuts on the wealthiest. They will not attempt to roll back tax cuts for the poor, or for married couples, or for modestly middle class income folks.

That means that a few hundred thousand Americans may have to curtail some of their spending on at Gucci’s, or forego the complete renovation on their their summer cottage, or add one less Harley Davidson or Hummer to their collection. As for corporations, well, free market forces dictate that when profits get leaner, business gets more competitive out of survival instinct. That should be a good thing. And most Americans would agree that corporations should not be able to afford 450 million dollar retirement packages and 100 million a year in CEO compensation. That smacks of ripping the consumers and labor off for a fair share of the pie. That’s what most Americans polled have indicated.

So, the question is not whether they will raise taxes. Because, with this national debt Republicans are growing to over 11 trillion on the books already with legislation already passed, if Republicans remained in power, they too would have to raise taxes just to keep the bond rating on America’s borrowing attractive.

And if you look at revenues, one quarter or two, does not make a long term revenue forecast. Looking back at the history of discrepencies between revenue projections and actual receipts over the last 35 years shows a very large number of huge unpredicted discrepancies which never became sustained trends.

I will give one reason for the increased revenues. The IRS’s foregiving of up to 90% of passed taxes owed to business and wealthy folks if they would come forward and settle up. That policy is costing average wage earners 100’s of millions of dollars in forgiven taxes for business and wealthy delinquents the difference which, honest tax payers are having to make up. Curious Republican policy to forgive tax debt for those who owe $10,000 or more in back taxes, while not foregiving those who are bankrupt and owing several hundred to a thousand or two. Curious, but, very typical of Republicans.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 10, 2006 2:01 AM
Comment #180275

Eric,

I don’t hate you. You’re a funny guy. And I appreciate someone who can illustrate the contradictory and illogical positions of the Republican party as well as you can.

So you’re excuse for why government spending has increased so substantially during 6 years of complete Republican control is because Ted Kennedy visited the White House one time? Do you really believe the problem is that the GOP has compromised too much with Democrats? This position is absurd on it’s face, and anyone who is the slightest bit informed about politics for the last 6 years knows that it couldn’t possibly be more untrue.

Because the left believes that true charity comes through the government; all others are illigitimate.

This is also completely untrue, in fact the opposite of the truth, and you have absolutely no evidence to base that on except wishful thinking.

The government belongs to the people, Burt, not the people to the government. Tax cuts were not only the moral thing to do it was the logical thing to do.

After reading your posts for years, I can honestly say that they rarely take a true moral, let alone logical, position. And this one is no exception.

You can not find even one moonbat economist who can turn the laws of logic and physics upside down and declare that the massive ballooning deficits of the Bush administration will “pay for themselves”. Like religion, you simply have to take it on faith that tax cuts are always a good thing for the economy, no matter what evidence exists to the contrary.

It is telling that you can’t even begin to respond to the comment that you are desperately in favor of the war in Iraq, and continuing it indefinitely, yet you absolutely, flat-out refuse to pay for it. Your position is that you’d rather pass your debt onto your children and the children of others.

Personal responsibility indeed.

Posted by: Burt at September 10, 2006 9:38 AM
Comment #180276

SE-
You know something, when you’re deaf to suggestions, all the other side’s plans sound the same.

As far as social security goes, the medical maxim of first, do no harm seems to apply best. I think it’s better to have no plan, instead of one that wastes money trying to prove that playing in the stock-market is better than use of social security as insurance. It would cost us two trillion dollars, and by Bush’s own admission, would do nothing to bring solvency to Social security.

As far as the stock market goes, much of the downturn came as a result of laws that Clinton and the Republican Congress wrote and passed together. They deserve equal blame for what did drop the stock market: market dysfunction resulting from the excessive deregulation that was done. The limiting factor in growth and investment, is people’s ability to trust what the market says.

Our economy grew at record rates for the better part of a decade without the help of Bush’s tax cuts. Why did we need all that drop in revenue, all of a sudden?

Don-
Yes I wrote that, and crude is was, I meant it. The Club for Growth should go and make sweet, sweet love to itself off somewhere else. Because of all this debt at some point, the Club for Growth is going to make itself a contradiction in terms. You can’t build up all this debt and not deal with the consequences

I say cut spending if you can survive the political consequences of it. There should be enough there to cut if you get creative and disciplined about it. But once you run out of things Americans don’t want their government paying for, you should have the decency to ask for the money from them now, and not cost them more by debt financing it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 10, 2006 9:39 AM
Comment #180286

Stephen,

cursing has its legitimate place in debate, and you used it appropriately. It’s the dog whose tail was stepped on that yelps the loudest.

Posted by: Loren at September 10, 2006 10:28 AM
Comment #180295

From 1980 to 2006 Taxes on families earning under $100K have risen while taxes on the upper 1% have dropped in half.

The Big Republican Lie: Reagan and Bush lowered taxes. While the highest tax rate on the upper 1% dropped by 2/3, the Social Security tax (financing rehaul designed by Alan Greenspan in 1981) has doubled for those earning under $90K. the Social Security tax has more than wiped out any dropped in Federal Income tax on the middle class.

But why stop at Federal Taxes: Sales taxes have steadily gone up. Real Estate taxes are skyrocketing and in very Republican states like Texas and Florida.

In the meantime, the super wealthy, those earning over $5.0 million a year have never had it so good. Dividends taxed at 15%, Capital Gains now at 15% (both 50% less than just ten years ago) and just throw in the effort to repeal the estate tax for good measure. When was the last time you had a paycheck with only 15% withheld in taxes?

The average American, once you include ALL taxes (Federal, Social Security, Medicaire, State & Local income, sales, property tax, excise taxes, gas tax, etc.) is paying nearly 50% of their income in taxes.

That is the great Reagan tax cut. And Republicans cannot blame it on Democrats since they have controlle the house and Senate for nearly 15 years - and that is where tax legislation is written.

Oh, by the way, in the 1950s (a period of very good GNP growth and corporate profits) corporate taxes provided 2/3 of Federal tax revenues. Now it is below 1/3 and dropping. Guess who picked up the slack: the middle class!

So don’t go on about Democrats tax and spend. All politicians are doing it and this administration takes the cake, growing Federal payrolls and spending faster than at any time since WWII!! The question to ask is whom they are taxing (the middle class now) and where they are spending the money (DOD and DHS).

Posted by: Acetracy at September 10, 2006 11:18 AM
Comment #180336

Burt, 

By the way, Eric. It’s a nice touch now that you are not only linking to your own website for factual support but also “The Onion”.

I’ll expect a “Weekly World News” link in your next article.

If you read the Onion article you refer to you would see that while it is funny, it is plainly true. I believe the term is, “Fake but Accurate”. 

Posted by: eric simonson at September 10, 2006 1:48 PM
Comment #180340

 David,

Let’s throw some facts in here shall we? If Republicans lose the majority, Democrats will attempt to roll back the tax cuts on the wealthiest. They will not attempt to roll back tax cuts for the poor, or for married couples, or for modestly middle class income folks.

Really? Did they promise?

That means that a few hundred thousand Americans may have to curtail some of their spending on at Gucci’s, or forego the complete renovation on their their summer cottage, or add one less Harley Davidson or Hummer to their collection. As for corporations, well, free market forces dictate that when profits get leaner, business gets more competitive out of survival instinct. That should be a good thing.

David, the consumption of the rich, while seemingly incredible to you and I who are not wealthy, is miniscule. Liberal tax increases on the rich do not serve primarily to curtail ‘frivolous’ spending, the main effect of such tax increases would serve to limit the capital available for investment. Less investment means fewer businesses, fewer businesses means fewer jobs.

This is how the left’s fiscal policies destroy the economy. Raise taxes, destroy investment, businesses create fewer jobs, and then liberals declare that the market has failed and propose some massive government program to take over some sector of the economy.

Why do tax cuts spur the economy? They do because it puts money in the hands of people who invest it— businesses create jobs. The left doesn’t believe this, they believe that the government creates jobs. Hence higher taxes means healthier government who are then able to create jobs. But this is a fantasy.

Posted by: eric simonson at September 10, 2006 2:06 PM
Comment #180344

Eric,
“Raise taxes, destroy investment…”

Wrong. Raising taxes can spur investment if the revenues are targeted appropriately. Programs such as space exploration, programs involving R&D, programs involving the building of infrastruture- all of these programs required taxation, and all paid off big.

Government is the best possible investor. Why? First, because of economy of scale, the Federal government can direct larger investments than any other entity in the world. Second, because it invests to order to consciously benefit the national interest, the interest of “we the people,” is more likely to be advanced by government than businesses. Business investment is efficient, but not directed towards a conscious outcome other than profit.

The Bush policies towards tax cuts have been a miserable failure. Why? Why do the stock markets languish? The DJIA is up only @ 9% after 5.5 years. The yield curve for T-Bonds is deeply inverted, a reliable indicator of impending recession. Why has the Bush administration created only 2.8 non-farm payroll jobs in 5.5 years, when even Jimmy Carter- Jimmy Carter- created 10.8 million jobs in just four years? Why have these tax cuts failed so badly?

I agree that tax cuts are a form of fiscal policy which can spur the economy. However, the way the cuts are structured affects the way the economy is stimulated. Under Bush, tax cuts were not targeted towards working people; they were not targeted to stimulate spending (the concept of the velocity of money still has some validity) for people likely to spend the money in the first place.

Instead, the tax cuts went towards people more likely to invest the money. That might work, except there was no requirement for those people & businesses to invest in the US. The falling dollar, offshoring, outsourcing, these are all manifestations of what happened to the tax cut money. It did not go into US businesses, bonds, or equity markets. The rich became richer, just as you would expect with such enormous tax cuts. Corporations became very profitable. Deficits and debt skyrocketed. Unfortunately, very very few Americans benefited from these policies.

Posted by: phx8 at September 10, 2006 2:36 PM
Comment #180345

Eric, your black and white absolutism on raising taxes bad, cutting taxes good, is not credible to those who understand balancing a checkbook. Revenues must match spending, spending must match revenues if one is to avoid debt. When one’s debt reaches proportions in which multiple generations of earners are required to give up money to pay it down, and carry the interest burden, then debtor is out of control. That would be the Republicans, who have, based on the cost of legislation already passed, doubled Clinton’s national debt to over 11 trillion, and Republicans aren’t done deficit spending yet. In fact, they project deficit spending as far into the future as they can see. That is why at optimal best, all Bush can promise is cutting the deficit in half in his last year in office, despited the fact that he promised to cut it in half in his first term in office.

When the will to spend won’t be curtailed, the responsible action is to increas revenues. Clearly, Republicans haven’t the will to curtail spending, so, rationally, logically and responsibly, they have an obligation to raise revenues, i.e. taxes to prevent the inevitable bankrupting of future generations including my daughter through debt that chips away at our bond ratings efficacy year after year.

If we continue on this spiralling debt course, it will be the U.S. seeking debt relief from the IMF and unable to float loans in the international bond markets in a decade or two at most.

It is clearly passed time for a change in this course, and voters have awakened to it. Republicans are going to lose seats in Nov., lose the presidency in 2008, and lose both houses of Congress in 2008 or 2010 precisely because of their spend and borrow policies which have no limit or restraint.

Voters can see what Republicans are doing to their children’s earnings and work lives - indebting them to higher taxes than we now have to pay. Don’t mess with America’s children - or you will pay the price. And that is precisely what Republicans have done, and they are going to pay the price for bloating our children’s future earning’s taxes and quality of life in America to keep America afloat.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 10, 2006 2:42 PM
Comment #180365

The fantasy, Eric, is that cutting taxes always produces an economic rebound, that the rich simply invest what they are given. The reality is, the debt created by the insistence of the right on such spending is having a braking effect on the economy in the short term through economic uncertainty, and in the long run by interest rates and/or inflation. It’s almost like clockwork, everytime this experiment has taken place.

Of course, for true believers like yourself, history is not a problem, because you don’t get everything you want, and you interpret this to mean that if you just did, things would work out right. Well, five years into this, we still haven’t broken even. That ought to tell you something, if you’re paying attention.

Also, if you’re complaining about fewer businesses meaning fewer jobs, why aren’t you more opposed to corporate consolidation, and market share bullies like Wal-Mart?

Far from bringing balance, the Republicans have brought deep imbalances to the economy, which are wearing down on our productivity and competitiveness.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 10, 2006 5:49 PM
Comment #180367

One additional comment on the idea of using tax cuts as as stimulative fiscal policy. Stimulating the economy is a good idea. The Federal Reserve does the same with monetary policy, cutting interest rates to stimulate, and raising them to brake. The same must hold true for fiscal policy- raising tax rates to brake the economy is jus as necessary as the stimulating cuts. The concept is to dampen the oscillations of the ecnomic cycle.

Bush economic policy does not seem to view fiscal policy as a tool. Instead, it seems to be either the implementation of the discredited Laffer Curve, which no one seems to be suggesting; or, it is a purely political tool, with no regard for economic consequences. The latter seems likely.

In political terms, since everyone loves tax cuts, everyone loves services, and no one wants to pay for them, the politically popular move is to cut taxes & increase spending.

Unfortunately, it is a grossly irresponsible move. It is a little like watching a young person quit their job because they do not like working, and run up their credit cards because they definitely like the things money can buy.

In the national arena this kind of irresponsibility translates into an economic disaster. Recession is impending, and the current recovery has been very weak. This time the impending recession will be faced without a budget surplus at the outset, few jobs generated, @ 80% of all workers already facing losses in their real incomes over the past five years, sky high debt, large deficits for both budget & trade, and savings declining- a phenomenon which has occurred during the past two quarters for the first time since the Great Depression.

The say housing busts make for the worst recessions. Guess we will find out.

Posted by: phx8 at September 10, 2006 6:23 PM
Comment #180373

I think it’s funny (or sad) that we are being scared with taxes and terrorists in Iraq. Uhhmmm … is Osama Bin Laden in Iraq now?

Wouldn’t it be nice if we were scared with the threat of reduced pork-barrel, corruption, and common-sense reforms?

The Republicans (about to be the new “Out Party”) now seem to be exactly what they call the Democrats. The party with “no ideas”.

  • “Stay the course” in Iraq is nothing new.
  • Allowing the wealthy to keep their tax cuts and refusing to pass common-sense tax reform is nothing new.
  • Ignoring open borders and ports, and not searching checked luggage and ignoring illegal immigration is nothing new.
  • Continuing to plunder Social Security is nothing new.
  • Continuing to spend, borrow, print-money, grow debt, spend, borrow, print-money, … is nothing new.
  • Trying to scare voters to stay with what they know is nothing new.
  • More blunders is nothing new.
  • Refusing to pass any campaign finance reform, voting to protect gifts to congress persons, and resisting any common-sense reforms is nothing new.

No wonder Republicans are trying to distance themsevles from Bush. But, it won’t do them any good since they can’t distance themselves from themselves. : )

Well, here’s an idea.

Let’s vote out all of the irresponsible incumbent politicians.
How many would that be? 535 ? 530 ? 525 ?

Maybe it would be easier to ask for the number that ARE responsible and accountable.
How many would that be? 5 ? 10 ? 15 ?.

No wonder newcomers to congress can never get anything done.

No wonder it seems like newcomers to congress seem to be suddenly stricken with the jelly-brain disease, and can’t remember any of the promises they made.

Newcomers are always out-numbered by status-quo incumbents that like things just the way they have perverted them, with maximum opportunites for self gain, cu$hy perk$, and automatic rai$e$. Newcomers can’t do anything because they are threatened or seduced into accepting the status quo.

I dream of the day when voters have finally brought sufficient pain and misery upon themselves and finally decide to vote out all irresponsible incumbent politicians.

After all, were we ever supposed to vote for irresponsible incumbent politicians? Ever?

So, let’s keep the good politicians (if there is such a thing).
Do you know any?
Seriously. Do you know 10, 20, 50, 100, or even 268 (half of 535) in congress that are responsible and accountable? I don’t. Maybe 10. Hard to say. Most (if not all) vote on pork-barrel, graft, corporate welfare, peddle influence, troll for big money donors, pander, cater to those with vast wealth and power, and look the other way.

So, if Americans really want to fix our dysfunctional, corrupt government, just don’t re-elect irresponsible, bought-and-paid-for incumbent politicians, ever.

What could be more simple?
And, after that, watch things start to get solved. Watch reforms finally start to get passed. Watch things start to improve. Sooner would be better than later. If voters want to worried about somehthing, they should take a look at the astronomical spending, borrowing, debt, money printing, and overall fiscal and moral bankruptcy of government. There will eventually be consequences for so much irresponsible government.

Posted by: d.a.n at September 10, 2006 7:21 PM
Comment #180378

Playing the “tax” card is cheap. There is no evidence that Dems will raise taxes.

How about telling me what Reps will do, not what Dems might do.

Posted by: clearwaterconservative at September 10, 2006 8:20 PM
Comment #180389

Also, ask the question “How much will the deficit go down”?

Posted by: Charles Ross at September 10, 2006 9:25 PM
Comment #180394

clearwaterconservative, but that’s the point, isn’t it? We are not sure what Dem’s will do. They may raise taxes only on the wealthy, they may raise them for everyone but the poor. But, with Republicans, there is no doubt what they will do. Borrow from our children’s paychecks for their goodies today. Robbing the cradle in other words through doubling of the national debt and the interest payments on that debt which went from about 650 million dollars per day to well over 1 Billion dollars a day today, and still rising.

I would choose for the possibility of ending the deficits with Democrats rather than choose the certainty of borrowing from my daughter’s future for Republican’s fantasies of world and corporate hegemony today.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 10, 2006 10:03 PM
Comment #180397

Actually though,isn’t there quite a lot of historical evidence to show that the Democrats will both raise taxes AND spending?

Posted by: Pilsner at September 10, 2006 10:10 PM
Comment #180398

phx8, that is the point I have been making for years. Republicans are setting us up into a position where we have no borrowing resources with which to combat a recession, depression, or major catastrophic event. Your points are well made and your argument sound. We borrowed like there was no tomorrow to get out of this last recession which was global in nature, and since we did borrow like there was no tomorrow, there may not be, when the next global recession hits and investor’s view our bloated debt as a poor risk of repayment compared to other economies far better equipped for growth and withstanding the recession, like China, India, Japan (which is bouncing back now) or Malaysia, Taiwan, or some of the former Eastern Block countries of Europe whose economies are taking off.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 10, 2006 10:12 PM
Comment #180418

Eric
Speaking as a 17-year-old and someone who will have to pay to spend down Bush’s gargantuan deficit I cannot say Republicans are doing a great job of getting me to vote for them. I like to keep my money not pay taxes to pay down the massive deficit Reps are now building up through a dumb war and tax cuts. For some reason spending more and making less doesn’t make sense to me. Perhaps the great republican economists can explain how this works.

Sure your going to say that tax cuts pay for themselves…I refer you to Bushflipflops. You guys have now placed me in the interesting position of voting for you and shafting myself and my children by voting for you or voting for democrats and shafting myself worse but living my children mostly ok…

Posted by: Silima at September 11, 2006 12:35 AM
Comment #180419

oops leaving my children mostly ok…

Posted by: Silima at September 11, 2006 12:37 AM
Comment #180427

Silma, stop voting for parties. Start voting for results. Which means voting against incumbents regardless of party. When enough incumbents fail to be reelected, the parties will get their act together and say, “You know, we might have better luck getting our incumbents reelected if we represent the needs of the nation’s and the people’s future again.”

As opposed to what they do now, which is cater to the immediate demands of government contractors, corporations, wealthy lobbyists, and campaign donors. Not to mention their insider trading on the stock market based on legislation they see in Committee.

There is an industry beginning to build based on following the investments of Congressmen and women who know before anyone else, which corporations are going to benefit from their legislation and budgets.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 11, 2006 4:09 AM
Comment #180438

Eric,

The government belongs to the people, Burt, not the people to the government. Tax cuts were not only the moral thing to do it was the logical thing to do.

Nope, following your logic, tax total suppress will have.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at September 11, 2006 8:20 AM
Comment #180439

Eric,

The government belongs to the people, Burt, not the people to the government. Tax cuts were not only the moral thing to do it was the logical thing to do.

Nope, following your logic, tax total suppress will have. And government should seek funds alone instead.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at September 11, 2006 8:21 AM
Comment #180451

Tie budgets to the previous period’s GDP and not to revenue. Today’s 20% spending vs. GDP is outrageous by historical standards, but we can live with that as long as it is capped for good.

There is political resistance to raising taxes and the Democrats will feel it once they try that route.

There is finally some political resistance to deficit spending and the Republicans are about to feel that and from their own side.

Unless there is a firm cap on the span of government versus the overall economy things like the Balance Budget Amendment (GOP) and Pay/Go (Democrats) are just political talking points.

Posted by: George in SC at September 11, 2006 12:04 PM
Comment #180459
The stock market crashed during Clinton’s presidency,… Posted by: sicilianeasle at September 9, 2006 10:09 PM
$INDU 1/1993 $ 3200 appx

peaked at about $11500

$INDU 1/2001 $10000 appx

bottomed at about $ 7000

A real crash. Yup, ended only about 200% up. Gotta thank Bushie for all those tax cuts. Yup indeedie, really did help. Forget the microsoft suit to stop the run away in tech. Let’s ignore the $8 trillion dollars in debt to increase market cap by how much and killed how many US soldiers?. Now we’re back to about 1/01, and only a few trillion in the hole, wages down, wealth even more unequally distributed. Gotta really thank Bushie and the GOPer congress this November.

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at September 11, 2006 1:15 PM
Comment #180505

What we neocons have not figured out yet is that there is no free lunch.

We want to cut taxes for those who are rich, cut benefits for the poor, and get illegal immigrants to work in our factories.

These are the reasons that we republicans are going to get our butts handed to us in November.

Posted by: clearwaterconservative at September 11, 2006 4:51 PM
Comment #180507

Well, lets see who is the fiscal conservative here and how much is the deficit??? You have got to be kidding, does anybody buy this dumb*** rhetoric anymore? I would gladly pay more taxes toward something like healthcare as opposed to waging a senseless war based on lies-are you attacking Montana next, do they have oil? Can you read my lips: exercise fiscal control why dont you????

Posted by: logicaldog at September 11, 2006 5:03 PM
Comment #180559

Funny, Eric. I’m paying more in taxes now than when the Dems were in power, even though I make less. When I add it all up across fed, state, and local taxes, I’m taxed more. Too bad I’m not one of the lucky 1% whose total taxes have gone down preciptously under this “rich-boy” administration. I hope you are, Eric, I really do, because then someone I knew would be getting benefits from this wacko scheme.

Posted by: mental wimp at September 11, 2006 8:13 PM
Comment #180588

To all:

If and when the Dems take the house, it will not be terrible. Bush’s taxcuts will expire without being renewed. There is no way Democrats will vote to renew them.

Also, all of the Dems social spending plans are dead on arrival.

The result will probably be fiscally good for the country. We have had are spending ways because of the recession and war. Now the tide will shift to fiscal responsibilty. Both sides of congress will try to out do the other in looking “fiscally conservative”.

The war will get looked into. We will have some gridlock.

It wont be the end of the world.

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at September 11, 2006 10:02 PM
Comment #180617

Get ready for grid-lock (slightly Democrat majority in congress, and a Republican executive branch). Year 2008 will be more important, because our problems will grow in number and severity between 2006 and 2008. More Americans will feel the pain. Unfortunately, most people won’t pay attention until it is too late to avoid the pain and suffering. But, it is of their own making, so perhaps it is just as it should be?

Want change?
Stop pulling the party lever.
Stop wallowing in the petty partisan warfare.
Stop being manipulated by those that fuel the petty partisan warfare.
Stop re-electing irresponsible, bought-and-paid-for incumbent politicians.

That’s all.
No vast schemes or conspiracies.
Just a little common-sense.

Posted by: d.a.n at September 11, 2006 10:53 PM
Comment #180631

Craig Holmes, there can be no fiscal responsibility without solving the health care cost crisis and the deficits and debt which undermine the Social Security safety net a couple decades down the road. Gridlock will utterly and completely fail to address those issues of greatest importance to fiscal responsibility.

Fiscal responsibility is not something one exercises in a moment in time and walks away from confident in the future. Fiscal responsibility must anticipate future needs and address them.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 11, 2006 11:25 PM
Comment #180731

Wow, I can see I wasted my time with that MBA in Economics. I’ve got to stop reading this blog. Everytime I think there’s the slightest hope for our country, I read these words of wisdom and despair. One side is tax and spend, the other side is borrow and spend, yet both think their way is the best. It reminds me of the Star Trek episode where the black and white person is fighting another black and white person. One is fighting because he is black on the left side and he hates the people who are white on the left side. One consistent theme though seems to be this idea of tax the rich. How funny that people know so little about the very wealthy. It doesn’t matter who is in office. Our government is not smart enough to tax the rich. Do you really think they got rich by letting the government take their money? They got rich because the are good and making AND KEEPING their money. The Republicans lie about being fiscal converservatives, the Democrats lie about taxing the rich. Have you ever wondered how, with our inheritance and income tax laws, that powerful familes are able to keep billons of dollars for generations? Try reading: The Rich and the Super Rich by Ferdinand Lundberg. Just one story before I go. Remember when President Carter pushed through a luxury tax on yachts? The rich quit buying them and blue collar workers in the yacht industry got laid off. What about the foreign investment tax credit? Did you hear about the Bank of America leasing German sewers for hundreds of millions in tax credits? That was Congress helping US businesses to be competitive in Europe….except that Congress is smart enough to regulate business. George Orwell was right - I’d rather love big brother than face the truth. Send me to the Ministry of Love!

Posted by: Mike at September 12, 2006 9:42 AM
Comment #181003

Wow. It is clear that the tide has changed on the Republican myth that their party stands for lower taxes and fiscal responsibility. The comments I read above clearly show the revolt among the conservatives has already happened.

Why? Because the normal Joe Doe earning anything less than $250K a year has seen his taxes steadily go up over the past 20 years - the years that Republicans have supposed reduced their taxes. what happened? Social Security tax doubled. Most states’ sale tax rates of gone up, excise taxes pop up everywhere (phone bill, electric bill, cable bill). However the big wopper is the incredible rise in real estate taxes. Since 2000 real estate taxes on an average have increased 20%!!

So clearly, the only segment of the US population that has seen a tax savings is that upper 1%. That’s why it is soooo important for Congress to repeal the horrible death tax so that this 1% can keep their billions for generations to come.

Double taxation: We all face double taxation. Everytime I buy somthing, the sales tax is a double tax on income I already paid taxes on. However for this Congress what matters is only if the rich are double taxed, no you and I.

Now you see why conservatives are in revolt. Bush is growing the Federal governmment faster than any administation since WWII and who is paying for it? Not the rich, not corporate America, but you and I. But that doesn’t stop Congress for reducing taxes on the rich and try and eliminate the inheritance tax - even in the time of WAR!!

Posted by: Acetracy at September 13, 2006 8:49 AM
Comment #181345

This is the kind of article you get from people who put party above country.

Posted by: Trent at September 14, 2006 8:23 PM
Comment #181660

eric simonson

In contradiction to the flat earth theories of liberal economics, revenue is dynamic.

Tax cuts pay for themselves because federal revenue comes from the people, not a government program.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/05db07co.xls

Individual income taxes reached a record high of $1,178,209,880,000 for the fiscal year 2001, which ended 09/30/2001. The tax cuts of 2001 became effective 07/01/2001 for all but the bottom tax bracket so the cuts had little effect in 2001.

The individual income tax revenue for 2002 was $ 1,037,733,908,000 ($ 140,475,972,000 less than 2001).
The individual income tax revenue for 2003 was $ 987,208,878,000 ($ 191,001,002,000 less than 2001).
The individual income tax revenue for 2004 was $ 990,248,760,000 ($ 187,961,120,000 less than 2001).
The individual income tax revenue for 2005 was $ 1,107,500,994,000 ($ 70,708,886,000 less than 2001).

Dynamic analysis is not necessary to determine the changes between the years. Simple subtraction is all that is needed.

Posted by: Arm Hayseed at September 15, 2006 8:01 PM
Comment #181705

eric simonson

This is how the left’s fiscal policies destroy the economy. Raise taxes, destroy investment, businesses create fewer jobs, and then liberals declare that the market has failed and propose some massive government program to take over some sector of the economy.

A lot of history contradicts your theory.

The economy went into recession January of 1913.
The income tax was signed into law October of 1913, retroactively for last 10 months of 1913
The economy went into recovery December of 1914, only 14 months after the installation of the income tax.

Since that time there have been 17 recessions.
Twice tax rates were increased prior to recovery.
Eight times there were no changes to the tax rates prior to recovery.
Six times tax rates were reduced prior to recovery.
One time it was a mixed bag, some rates went up and others went down.

Looking at the changes in the tax rates two years prior to a recession:
Six times there were no changes to the tax rates and the economy went into a recession anyway.
Four times tax rates were increased and the economy went into a recession. (Which your theory apparently predicts.)
Seven times tax rates were reduced and the economy went into a recession anyway.

For every example that supports your theory there are more that contradicts it.

http://www.nber.org/cycles.html/
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/151.html

Posted by: Arm Hayseed at September 15, 2006 10:41 PM
Comment #181711

Pilsner

Actually though,isn’t there quite a lot of historical evidence to show that the Democrats will both raise taxes AND spending?

Democrats usually favor a more progressive tax schedule than Republicans. But aside from that the average wage generally trends upward during Democratic administrations and downward during Republican administrations.

If you take the increase in the national debt as an indicator of spending, the Republican administrations are far more irresponsible than Democratic administrations, particularly after adjusting for inflation.

The accusation that Democrats are big spenders is an untruth that has been repeated so often that some people just accept it as fact and do not even bother to check the records.

Posted by: Arm Hayseed at September 15, 2006 11:04 PM
Comment #181715

The simplest solution to income tax rates is to do away with them. The Fair Tax will support the current spending of the Federal Government. With a little fiscal responsability the debt could be lowered over time from surpluses.

Those not paying income taxes currently (illegal aliens, criminals, and assorted other tax cheats) would be forced to pay taxes when the buy new products.

The tax rate is still progressive, because of the rebate. I believe if everyone knew the details of the fair tax, they would support it.

It also replaces the payroll tax (Social Security and Medicare Taxes), as the fair tax will fund them both. Imagine receiving your entire paycheck!

Prices would drop due to basic supply and demand functions (companies would lower prices to achieve market share, forcing others to do the some just to compete).

Please look at the bill (HR 25) and judge for yourself.

Posted by: Jorge at September 15, 2006 11:19 PM
Post a comment