A Pet Peeve of Mine
It's a minor point in this Bloomberg article detailing a preliminary proposal set forth by a presidential commission to cut down on the nation's debt, but when are liberals going to cease with their "so and so wants to give millionaires more Bush tax cuts" malarkey? I'm sure it's been said before, but at this point these really aren't tax cuts anymore. And I hate to mention it, but Bush is no longer president; hence any change to the tax code cannot, by definition, be a "Bush tax cut" (or a Bush tax increase). The current marginal tax rates no longer represent tax cuts. Businesses and individuals have operated under them for over seven years (which, I might add is more time than folks my age have been out in the work force). If tax rates suddenly rise in 2011, they should be seen as, and termed, the "Obama tax increases."
Rant complete.
- Comment (7)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Oct '10
Re: A Pet Peeve of Mine
I want to know what is so awful about letting millionaire's keep more of their own money? Aside from having a money-fight or lighting cigars with $100 bills, pretty much anything a millionaire does with their millions is going to boost the economy.
If it's in the bank that is capital that can be lent to businesses so they can start up/expand. If it's being invested that helps a business hire more of us "regular people" or keep the ones it has. If it's spent on a ridiculous vacation then it contributes to the airlines/restaurants/hotels/etc and their employees. If it's spent on charity/philanthropy I trust charities to get considerably more bang for the buck than the fed does.
Millionaire's (the vast majority) either own or invest in companies. Companies need employees. Employees are...us. Everybody wins! Why is that so hard for Johnny Lib to understand?
Re: A Pet Peeve of Mine
Bravo, Diane. I've had precisely the same thoughts and you beat me to it. I hope I haven't destroyed your credibility now -- or that of your post. LOL.
Re: A Pet Peeve of Mine
ElevenX You are right, completely right. However, I think high marginal tax rates actually hit the would-be rich far harder than I've-already-made-my-fortune millionaires. Remember that we tax income; for some strange reason--perhaps Goldman Sachs keeps vetoing the idea-- leftists never propose taxing wealth. The truly rich can arrange their investments to throw off as much or little taxable income as desired. In fact, confiscatory tax rates can actually be a boon to trust-fund millionaires. A sluggish economy makes one richer, on a relative basis. It's ever so much easier to rent that prime oceanside bungalow at Thanksgiving when the gas station owner--one of Obama's "rich" $250,000 per year earners--is no longer able to afford a Hawaiian vacation.
Edited on Nov 10, 2010 at 7:43pmRe: A Pet Peeve of Mine
David Limbaugh: Bravo, Diane. I've had precisely the same thoughts and you beat me to it. I hope I haven't destroyed your credibility now -- or that of your post. LOL. · Nov 10 at 7:24pm
I have David Limbaugh on the record publicly affirming my words -- this is something to add to the resume and to my short list of life accomplishments!
Oct '10
Re: A Pet Peeve of Mine
George Savage
However, I think high marginal tax rates actually hit the would-be rich far harder than I've-already-made-my-fortune millionaires.
Edited on Nov 10 at 07:43 pm
I agree completely. But the argument about the upper-middle class (or lower upper-class?) being hurt the most is an argument that we can destroy the liberals on so thoroughly they won't have that argument at all - they prefer to fight on their own terms by framing it as a millionaire debate. So I think we need to start from your argument and then finish by arguing on their terms, saying "even if your worst case scenario is TRUE, you're still wrong and this is still better for America."
I am confident that the conservative side to every argument is strong enough that after laying out the conservative argument we can then proceed to accept the liberal framing of the argument and defeat them in those terms as well. At that point (typically) it will degenerate into some kind of ad hominem personal attack and (hopefully) that's when some people on their side decide they'd rather be on ours.
Oct '10
Re: A Pet Peeve of Mine
...and to get back on track with what was Diane's main point: I agree with either referring to them as "the Obama tax hikes" and opponents of the "Bush tax cuts" must then be in favor of restoring "the Clinton tax rates."
Nov '10
Re: A Pet Peeve of Mine
The problem there is that a lot of people would quickly point out that the economy under Clinton was quite robust. So calling them the "Clinton tax rates" would undermine the "tax hikes hurt the economy" argument.
On the larger issue, I'm in full agreement with NR's Kevin Williamson: We're going to need to (preferably temporarily) raise taxes eventually, but only after we've cut everything it is politically possible to cut (including the painful stuff.)
A tax hike is necessary, but will do no good if the Dems just go "Woohoo! More money to spend!" We need a serious commitment from them before we even discuss the idea.