I’ve heard many liberals talk about how the U.S. economy was booming in the late 40’s and 50’s and that the tax rate was as high as 90%. They make this claim in an effort to raise current income tax brackets up to 80%. But this is an important point they conveniently leave out and that is our economy wasn’t booming because of an increase in taxes (which would be ridiculous), it was thriving because the rest of the industrialized world was flattened during the war and we were the “go to” country for practically everything manufactured. During this time in our history anyone who could possibly work (men and women), were working including many teenagers.
For liberals to talk about the good old days of a robust economy and high taxes is completely ludicrous because it doesn’t account for the boom our economy had due to manufacturing during and after the war. The question to ask is how great would the economy have been if more money stayed in the hands of the taxpayers? As other countries got up and running again our manufacturing slowed and our economy began to go south so taxes were reduced. Why aren’t liberals sharing this bit of truth?
This isn’t unlike when Democrats talk about how great the economy was under Bill Clinton but can’t cite anything he did policy wise that would’ve made the economy take off. He benefited from the dot.com boom and Bush got caught in it when it crashed. Clinton didn’t do anything to make the market boom and Bush didn’t put forth any economic policies that made the market crash. The problem was that the dot.com world was ahead of its time. It took more and better applications for both the private and public sector for it to take hold like it has now.
I truly don’t get the Left’s argument about higher taxes, why in the world would giving the Federal Government more money grow our economy more than keeping as much as possible of it in our hands to spend how we see fit? They make it sound like taxpayers would make worse decisions about where to spend their money than the Federal Government would; it’s crazy talk.
Let me put it in simple terms that even a Progressive could understand; if having a high-end tax rate of 80% is so great for our economy, why not make it a 100%? If the economic principle they’re selling is good at 80% then why wouldn’t it be even better at 100%? Needless to say, their argument is completely illogical. The bottom line is that redistributing wealth is immoral because you steal from one person to give to another.
Fair share actually means paying the same percentage of taxes. For example if we had a 25% flat tax rate with no deductions then a family making $50,000 would pay $12,500 in taxes and a family bringing in $100,000 would pay $25,000 in taxes. The more you make the more you pay but everyone would be paying the decided upon fair share of 25%.
Although liberals use the phrase “fair share” to create division among economic classes it isn’t what they really want; they want to punish people who have succeeded by making them pay more than their fair share because it’s a way to get votes. Democrats create the perception that the rich (which are a minority), are taking advantage of those less fortunate because it’s been an easy sell since the beginning of mankind. Is there a way we can officially change the name of the Democrat Party to the Division Party?
For liberals to talk about the good old days of a robust economy and high taxes is completely ludicrous because it doesn’t account for the boom our economy had due to manufacturing during and after the war. The question to ask is how great would the economy have been if more money stayed in the hands of the taxpayers? As other countries got up and running again our manufacturing slowed and our economy began to go south so taxes were reduced. Why aren’t liberals sharing this bit of truth?
This isn’t unlike when Democrats talk about how great the economy was under Bill Clinton but can’t cite anything he did policy wise that would’ve made the economy take off. He benefited from the dot.com boom and Bush got caught in it when it crashed. Clinton didn’t do anything to make the market boom and Bush didn’t put forth any economic policies that made the market crash. The problem was that the dot.com world was ahead of its time. It took more and better applications for both the private and public sector for it to take hold like it has now.
I truly don’t get the Left’s argument about higher taxes, why in the world would giving the Federal Government more money grow our economy more than keeping as much as possible of it in our hands to spend how we see fit? They make it sound like taxpayers would make worse decisions about where to spend their money than the Federal Government would; it’s crazy talk.
Let me put it in simple terms that even a Progressive could understand; if having a high-end tax rate of 80% is so great for our economy, why not make it a 100%? If the economic principle they’re selling is good at 80% then why wouldn’t it be even better at 100%? Needless to say, their argument is completely illogical. The bottom line is that redistributing wealth is immoral because you steal from one person to give to another.
Fair share actually means paying the same percentage of taxes. For example if we had a 25% flat tax rate with no deductions then a family making $50,000 would pay $12,500 in taxes and a family bringing in $100,000 would pay $25,000 in taxes. The more you make the more you pay but everyone would be paying the decided upon fair share of 25%.
Although liberals use the phrase “fair share” to create division among economic classes it isn’t what they really want; they want to punish people who have succeeded by making them pay more than their fair share because it’s a way to get votes. Democrats create the perception that the rich (which are a minority), are taking advantage of those less fortunate because it’s been an easy sell since the beginning of mankind. Is there a way we can officially change the name of the Democrat Party to the Division Party?
RSS Feed