-
RSS Subscribe
-
Books
Luis Palau
Don’t Let the Left (and their politicians) Lie to you
UPDATE 8/26/2007: I wanted to add that nobody “took the bait” at least not yet. That bait was the first sentence of this post “Which readers of NSL have believed that the 2003 “Bush” tax cuts were a tax cut for the rich and have not served the “non-rich” (I won’t say poor)? Now I know that M2 has been temporarily pulled away from this blog for the most part along with his particularly acerbic comments on my posts, comments and comments of some of NSL’s readers, but common I would have thought somebody would have jumped in and said “see you are like the rest of the “fat cat” Republicans in that you don’t “see” (such as Hillary often states) the poor in America. My response is, Oh yeah, I see them, they just aren’t particularly germane to this discussion.
The reason for this is because the poor in America (and a lot of others) don’t pay income taxes at all. What I do see and see as pandering nonsense is the lefts proclivity to discuss tax policy in the United States through a prism which they see as some type of un-just treatment of the poor. Not only do the poor not pay taxes at all, the “working poor” actually get a refund (and not a small one) of taxes that they didn’t even pay to begin with through the Earned Income Tax (EIT). You would think that basic civil honesty would at least force these politicians to recognize to the population as a whole that this is basically welfare on the federal level and not tax policy.
As I have stated in other posts that the spending priorities of the country should be debated in Congress and the EIT is one that should stand on the merits of its own debate apart from the tax policy of the United States. This is just another way that the left continues to “confuse” voters with the question of good tax policy. I’ll assure you that the next time the tax code takes front and center stage in the debate on the policy of the United States that they (the left) use the Tax Code and it shaping as a campaign tool to insure their continued re-election.
The Democrats in Congress will not even mention the facts of this recent WSJ article (summarized below) as they continue to debate the question as though the evidence is not in already. They are the one’s that said in 2003 that the tax cut of Bush would not cause a recovery in the economy which was in recession, but would do further damage to it. Hmmm……… :-)
I am considering offering a reward for the first reader that will remind NSL after the next tax debate if the whole process ensues with any tacit acknowledgement by the Democrats (left leaning Democrats) that the statistical results are in and have proven their sloganeering and campaigning rhetoric wrong again. This is not a matter of conservative opinion, but of recorded fact………..read on……..
ORIGINAL POST: Which readers of NSL have believed that the 2003 “Bush” tax cuts were a tax cut for the rich and have not served the “non-rich” (I won’t say poor)? As a result of these tax cuts the burden of tax revenue has intensified on the “rich.” According to the Wall Street Journal HERE the statistics for 2004 are in and the Richest 1% paid 35.7% of all taxes based on income and without the 2003 tax cuts they would have paid only 30.5%. Among the richest 5% of taxpayers (which includes the richest 1%) the actual taxes paid equaled 56.2% of all income taxes versus 50.2% had the tax rates not been changed in 2003. Preliminary data from 2005 shows more of the same. Taxpayers earning $1,000,000 or more paid $236,000,000,000 (that’s $236 Billion) in 2005 versus $132,000,000,000 ($132 Billion) in 2003. Once again the lower tax rate on Capital Gains and Corporate Dividends created a large increase in income to the U.S. Treasury. Before Reagan the highest marginal rate on Capital Gains, Dividends and Ordinary Income was 70%. The maximum rate today is 35% but during the 25 years following, tax payments by the riches Americans have risen in almost reverse proportion to tax rates. In 1980 the wealthiest 1% paid 19% of all federal income tax receipts compared to 35.7% today. The Wall Street Journal concluded that “The supply-side revenue effect on the rich are remarkable: Tax rates on higher incomes have been halved, but the federal tax share of the top 1% have nearly doubled and the Budget deficit has fallen.” Since 2003 the budget deficit has fallen to $158 Billion from $217 Billion. I have commented on this before, this is not voodoo economics; it is the dynamic effect of proper tax policy on affecting behavior of taxpayers in a free society. The left continues to tell you that tax cuts are only for the benefit of the rich, but if that were true and it helped the economy, it would be worthwhile, but it isn’t true because the burden of taxes has shifted further to the rich from the “not-so-rich.” Any other argument is simply the politics of envy and if those that practice such prevail the economy will suffer and all will pay the price for such factitiousness.
comments
15 Responses to “Don’t Let the Left (and their politicians) Lie to you”
Leave a Reply
Steve, thanks for the update. I love those stats. I’m going to link to this tom’w.
Neil…….thanks for the visit and link. I really wonder sometimes if the Left is so hateful of the sucessful that they are willing to let the country suffer economically and sacrifice themselves only to get their pound of flesh……..steve
Yes. Yes, they are willing to do that.
[…] much do the rich pay in taxes? More than you might think. See this update by Next Stop Lauderdale. Here’s a sample: “Among the richest 5% of taxpayers (which includes the richest 1%) […]
I don’t even know where to start?
M2……..You can start right HERE and we can move the issue of “tax cuts for the rich” to a mathematical discussion based on actual final data for 2004 and preliminary data for 2005.
……steve
Steve,
Great info. It needs to be published.
Interestingly, once I’m done with confiscatory taxes and student loan payments, I won’t be making much more as a lawyer than I did as an engineer, even though I will have had three more years of specialised schooling and will work longer hours. There is something wrong with a system which discourages people from working longer hours or in higher-paying professions (which have high entry costs) through the tax system.
Grrrr.
Bridget……..thanks, you are touching here on the axiomatic truth revealed by the much villified “Laffer Curve.” ….steve
Hi Steve,
While I find your analysis of the tax situation accurate and well researched, I would point out a problem with the title of the post. The only way to prevent the left and their political representatives from lying to you is to cover your ears at the first sign that their mouths are going to open, and run screaming from the room. Thus, while this is a minor personal point, I was disappointed upon reading past the title, as I was hoping you had found some technological means to force them into speaking the truth, an honesty ray if you will. Yes, I read entirely too much science fiction, but one must have dreams.
the Grit
Hi Grit…….. Disappointed you must remain. I have not, nor others I believe, been able to come up with some means, technologicial or otherwise that would force these politicans to set their political pandering for votes aside to realize what is good for the economic fiber of the country and what is not. As I told Neil above essentially, these votes are obviously more important to them than the health of the economy of the country which would adversly affect their “base” first and the most. So accordingly they must ignore the statistics of reality and perpetuate the “lie” in order to have a reason to exist.
While throughout history some men have given their lives for continuation and viability of the country, others are too willing to sacrifice the viability of the courntry for their own (political) lives. I’m not impressed. …steve
I disagree, the poor do pay taxes. It’s called the lottery. =)
Patrick……..I guess you’d be right about that, but most of the proceeds of that tax goes to turning a couple of the poor into “fat cats” presumably Republican (suddenly) and the rest of it might go to provide salary increases for tenured college professors that provide “proferssorship” services for about 4 to 5 hours per week with the balance of their pay coming from taxpayers and college students yet still having most of their classes taught by inexperienced and uninformed graduate students at still an additional cost to the students and taxpayers………steve
Patrick,
That’s a tax on people who can’t do math.
Bridget………where there is life there is hope, that is why they probably call this math the “new math.” ….steve
Re. the Laffer curve - hadn’t heard that phrase for some time! I did a speech on that in college and got a great grade on it. The principles are timeless: zero tax rates and 100% tax rates both yield zero tax revenue. The optimal rate is in between, but it ain’t 50%. The pols continually ignore that changing tax rates changes behavior. Cutting taxes usually increases tax revenues.
Neil….I have been assembling some data and prepared my own graphics with the idea of writing a post about the Laffer Curve, but haven’t finally decided to do it. Generally I am holding it off until the next “Knee Deep” Congressional debate on “tax reform” if I do it at all……..steve
Neil & Steve,
I think it’s called something like dynamic analysis or dynamic functioning, but the idea behind the Laffer Curve is that changing tax rates results in changed behaviour. Now, this is obvious to anyone who wants to give tax credits to people who educate themselves, insure themselves, or buy houses, but the Left seems to forget it when it comes to raising tax rates.
IMHO, there would be no “Leftism” if Atlas Shrugged were required reading. All rational actors “shrug” to some degree or another, refusing to put out more effort for the same (or diminished) returns.
Bridget………I pretty much am sure they call it (the Republicans because the Democrats don’t believe it - equivalent to the members of the Flat Earth Society) Dynamic Scoring in the Budget process………….steve
This is one of the issues that Fred Thompson is very strong on, along with national defense and national security.
Bob………..I think I like Thomposn, but I am not an authority on him. I seemed to be okay with him when he was in the Senate, maybe you can keep us updated on his platform as it unfolds………steve
I can’t think of an area in which Fred is not strong?
Has he officially announced that his going to officially anounce that he’ll soon announce yet?
M2………..whewwwww.. And to think I almost watched Jay Leno the other night when the rumor was that he was going to announce on that show………or was it letterman??????????? ……steve
M2 - yes, he’ll announce on Thursday!!!!
:) 
So…. Announce that he’ll announce?
Will he be on a white horse?
& you never made it over to “My Place” on Girard did you Bridget?
Shame on you…
Steve, I don’t think anyone is an authority on Fred Thompson?
That’s the beauty of his impending candidacy no?
He can figure out how to be whatever we need him to be…
Kinda pathetic that to a large degree the great unknown is more appealing than the current crop.
The republican party is in absolute disarray…
I’d save my money, wait for the dems to screw up the next four years & run in 2012.
M2…….could be the Devil You Know is better than the Devil You Don’t Know……….steve
M2,
Mea culpa! No, I didn’t. The last few weeks in Cali were insane - wrapping up work, packing, swimming, and a last-minute run to Vegas for a pre-law school caper.
In about 248 days (give or take), I can enjoy the bliss that is San Diego full-time. P