When it comes to whether or not tax cuts should be “paid for” as stated in the debate by vice president and Congressman Ryan…
First of all, so far, the idea that tax cuts need to be “paid for” is silly. Historically, every time that taxes have been lowered, government income has risen. Every time.
This was true under Kennedy, Reagan and Bush (W.). In fact, President Obama wants to raise capital gains taxes from 10 to 15 percent… This will decrease government revenue – everyone knows this – and he was even asked if, knowing this, he would raise the tax rate anyway. His answer was in the affirmative… The question that should have been asked of the vice president is how do you plan on paying for the tax increases that the administration wants?
What has always bugged me about the tax debate between Republicans and Democrats is that the debate always centers around how much the government should take, and never about how low could taxes be to maximize government revenue… In other words, tax increases and the debate that surround them are illustrative of how Democrats will cut off their nose to spite their face.
Finally, if I had my wish, I would get rid of the breaks that allow almost 50% of Americans to escape paying income tax at all. Oh, I’d leave the bottom 20% alone at no income tax, but I’d cap it at twenty… Then, once the “fair share” lunacy was settled, I would tie the rates together… A tax hike for one is a tax hike for all, a tax cut for one, is a cut for all.
If you’d like another funny example of how this phenomenon works in reality, Democrats love to say that government revenue didn’t increase because of the Bush (W.) tax cuts. In fact, there are newspaper and magazine articles, written by liberal leaning publications of course, that try to show this to be true… There’s a trick to how they report the data: They cut the study off at 2004, just one year after the tax cuts took effect. In 2005, 2006 and 2007 government revenue increased to levels more than a half a trillion dollars more than the best that the Clinton administration ever took in. With the zeros, that’s $500,000,000,000. The reason for this is simple. The economy grows when taxes are lowered, when this happens, government revenue increases. It is not, despite what some would like to make it, rocket science.
In other words, President Obama has said that he wants to raise taxes on the wealthy. A press that pays attention would ask how he plans on paying for that increase.