Taxes
Guess what? Democrats are deficit hawks!
So, I guess there should have been a warning. Since you are reading, I assume that you have been treated for shock and have been revived.
The President proposed some bold action regarding taxes. Not nearly as strong as I would have done, but very significant. He did not offer any offsets to "pay" for them. They will be partially paid for by increased growth in the economy. Here is my question. Who's money is it? Maybe it would take a large reduction in revenue to spur the spending cuts that are needed, regardless of whether we cut taxes or not.
When Congress raised taxes, did they ask whether or not WE could afford it? No, and it is because the government doesn't think it is your money. All Democrats in Congress as well as many Republicans all seem to look at it that way. So here is the test, to see if your politician is posturing. Also, the same test can be applied to any media, whether the face on television, or as a position by that outlet.
How did they act when President Obama ran 4 years of $1,000,000,000,000.00 deficits each year? If they were cheering it along, then they are not really concerned about the deficit, or debt now. If they were against it then, but not now, some tough questions need to be asked. I believe that they can answer in a way that is acceptable, but the reason they support now matters.
As a personal example, let me use... me. I had been working until last December, when I retired. On the face of it, I took over a 50% cut in pay. So, could I keep on living how I was before? Well, I suppose I could max out the cards, like the Federal government did in the 90s, and say, see? Money in, money out. No big thing. Maybe for a year I could do that, because I can't raise my own limits. Or maybe, I cut back on spending. Or I could go get a job. Do you want fries with that? I got a $15,000 savings right off the bat by moving back from Twin. That was a huge chunk right there.
A term is being used out there. "Revenue Neutral". This means that for there to be any tax change, in particular, reductions, there needs to be an offset somewhere else to "pay" for it. So here is a question. If a "Tax Cut" is "Revenue Neutral", is is really a tax cut? If my taxes are cut, but someone has to pay more, then the answer would be NO.
Don't give me that the rich don't pay their share. I know, Warren Buffett said that his secretary pays more than he does. BS. No way is that true. Truth is, the rich pay far more than their fair share. The top 1% earn 19.2% of the income in this country yet pay 28.2% of the taxes. The top 20% earn 55.5% yet pay 69.1% of all taxes. Maybe they are right, and they don't pay their fair share. They pay too much. Here is the link to the article with the charts. All from IRS,gov.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2017/04/28/do-the-rich-not-pay-their-fair-share-in-taxes-n2319837
Let the pols in DC figure out how to reduce spending. There are literally 100s of billions in waste and fraud in the federal government, that could be eliminated by streamlining and enforcement. And that is no lie.
So, I guess there should have been a warning. Since you are reading, I assume that you have been treated for shock and have been revived.
The President proposed some bold action regarding taxes. Not nearly as strong as I would have done, but very significant. He did not offer any offsets to "pay" for them. They will be partially paid for by increased growth in the economy. Here is my question. Who's money is it? Maybe it would take a large reduction in revenue to spur the spending cuts that are needed, regardless of whether we cut taxes or not.
When Congress raised taxes, did they ask whether or not WE could afford it? No, and it is because the government doesn't think it is your money. All Democrats in Congress as well as many Republicans all seem to look at it that way. So here is the test, to see if your politician is posturing. Also, the same test can be applied to any media, whether the face on television, or as a position by that outlet.
How did they act when President Obama ran 4 years of $1,000,000,000,000.00 deficits each year? If they were cheering it along, then they are not really concerned about the deficit, or debt now. If they were against it then, but not now, some tough questions need to be asked. I believe that they can answer in a way that is acceptable, but the reason they support now matters.
A term is being used out there. "Revenue Neutral". This means that for there to be any tax change, in particular, reductions, there needs to be an offset somewhere else to "pay" for it. So here is a question. If a "Tax Cut" is "Revenue Neutral", is is really a tax cut? If my taxes are cut, but someone has to pay more, then the answer would be NO.
Don't give me that the rich don't pay their share. I know, Warren Buffett said that his secretary pays more than he does. BS. No way is that true. Truth is, the rich pay far more than their fair share. The top 1% earn 19.2% of the income in this country yet pay 28.2% of the taxes. The top 20% earn 55.5% yet pay 69.1% of all taxes. Maybe they are right, and they don't pay their fair share. They pay too much. Here is the link to the article with the charts. All from IRS,gov.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2017/04/28/do-the-rich-not-pay-their-fair-share-in-taxes-n2319837
Let the pols in DC figure out how to reduce spending. There are literally 100s of billions in waste and fraud in the federal government, that could be eliminated by streamlining and enforcement. And that is no lie.
Comments
Post a Comment