Tax Cuts For The Poor Under Bush?
It appears as though that is exactly what has happened:
Indeed.
There's a very easy rule of thumb to use when trying to determine if a particular economic policy is good or bad. Just ask yourself, "Does the policy in question strengthen someone or weaken someone?"
Increasing taxes on the rich is a bad policy because it weakens the most successful workers and businessmen in the country. Cutting taxes for the rich, or any demographic for that matter, is good policy because it strengthens citizens by letting them keep more of their own money, something that in turn results in those citizens spending that money to strengthen other businesses and citizens.
Is socialized health care (a/k/a single-payer health care or universal health care) good policy? No, because it weakens citizens by depriving them of the ability to choose their own health care providers and saddles them with additional burdensome taxes. Are health savings accounts good policy? Yes, because they empower citizens to be able to make their own choices regarding health care.
See how it works? Weakening the strong to strengthen the weak never works. It is not in our nation's best interests to take from those who have to give to those who do not. What we should strive for is a social and economic environment where citizens are as free as possible to earn and provide for themselves and their families.
One sure sign that the economy is doing well is when the left revives that old political warhorse, inequality. With GDP growth of nearly 4% for three years running and a jobless rate of 4.7%, it's their last economic resort in an election year. But when you look at the actual evidence, the inequality campaign also proves to be trumped up.
The Treasury Department will soon release the latest IRS data on who paid how much in taxes in America through 2004. We've had an early look at the numbers, and anyone who reads the front pages of our leading dailies may be surprised to learn that the Bush years compare very well by tax and income equality to the sainted Clinton era.
First, the new data show that the bottom 50% of Americans in income -- U.S. households with an income below the median of $44,389 -- paid a smaller share of total income taxes in 2004 (3.3%) than in Bill Clinton's last year in office (3.9%). That 3.3% is the lowest share of total income taxes paid by the bottom half of earners in at least 30 years, and probably ever. The majority of American families with an income below $40,000 pay no income tax at all today, and many of them also get a welfare subsidy from the Earned Income Tax Credit that effectively offsets much of what they pay in payroll taxes.
By contrast, Americans with an income in the top 1% paid 36.9% of all federal income taxes in 2004, down slightly from 37.4% at what was the height of the dot-com boom in 2000. But the top 5% and 10% of earners saw an increase in their tax share over that same period, with the top 5%'s share rising to 57.1% in 2004 from 56.5% in 2000. If this isn't the definition of a highly "progressive," aka redistributionist, tax code, we don't know what is. . . .
Democrats and their media pals dismiss all this by saying that the richest are paying more taxes because they're making out like bandits in the Bush years. Former Clinton economic adviser Gene Sperling grouses that the 1990s were "an era of shared prosperity," but that the Bush policies have produced "a disappointing decade on inequality."
[...]
The truth is that there has been a modest widening of the income gap in recent decades, regardless of which party is in power. That gap seems due largely to growing returns on education and skills in the global economy. Americans without a high-school diploma are losing ground against those who have college degrees. But this argues not for higher taxes on the rich, who already pay the vast bulk of U.S. taxes. It argues for reforming K-12 education so even the weakest and poorest students can compete against the world.
In any event, it's a mistake to put much stock in these class-envy statistics on income shares, gini quotients, and wealth gaps that Washington and the media like to stress. There's nothing that policy makers can do about them in the short run, and a preoccupation with inequality will do actual harm if it leads to policies such as higher tax rates that reduce economic growth. We'd suggest readers ignore the inequality fad that is intended for election-year consumption and keep their eyes on what really matters -- the policies that promote growth and prosperity for all Americans.
Indeed.
There's a very easy rule of thumb to use when trying to determine if a particular economic policy is good or bad. Just ask yourself, "Does the policy in question strengthen someone or weaken someone?"
Increasing taxes on the rich is a bad policy because it weakens the most successful workers and businessmen in the country. Cutting taxes for the rich, or any demographic for that matter, is good policy because it strengthens citizens by letting them keep more of their own money, something that in turn results in those citizens spending that money to strengthen other businesses and citizens.
Is socialized health care (a/k/a single-payer health care or universal health care) good policy? No, because it weakens citizens by depriving them of the ability to choose their own health care providers and saddles them with additional burdensome taxes. Are health savings accounts good policy? Yes, because they empower citizens to be able to make their own choices regarding health care.
See how it works? Weakening the strong to strengthen the weak never works. It is not in our nation's best interests to take from those who have to give to those who do not. What we should strive for is a social and economic environment where citizens are as free as possible to earn and provide for themselves and their families.
Proof
Sparkie Arbuckle
WhatTha?
ews48
realitybasedbob
Mickey
