FReepmail to be added to the Congress Watch Ping List.
Posted on 11/19/2007 5:43:37 AM PST by .cnI redruM
Charles Rangel has offered up his prescription for tax reform. He refers to it as “The Mother of All Tax Bills.” He claims that his bill restores tax fairness and makes the wealthy pay “their fair share.” This congressional balloon juice is not only disingenuous, it is also wrong.
What Charlie Rangel proposes is the Mother of all unjustified pay cuts. By repealing the tax cuts passed by George W. Bush, Charles Rangel takes thousands of dollars out of the pockets of the average American wage earner. In the State of Virginia, Rangle’s Bill will cost the average family $2,487. It doesn’t get better elsewhere.
Not only does Charles Rangel hammer the working American family, he also utterly fails to tax the really rich. Is he repealing the S-Corporation exemption from Medicare taxes? Negative. Making the income from municipal bonds taxable? Survey says. “Bwank! Thanks for playin’.”
Charlie Rangel could give a Tinker’s Dam about taxing the rich. He’s aiming to tax the successful instead. When Charlie Rangel talks about how his bill "would reform the tax code to provide a greater sense of equity and fairness," what he really proposes is that the Congress should use it to prevent anyone from enjoying the rewards of hard work too much.
Many people feel affluent right now and aren’t too worried about the coming $2,500 pay cut thanks to Democratic governance. I wish I could be one of them as well. I also believe they aren’t exactly focused on the big picture. The Heritage Foundation analyzed the projected macro effects of repealing the 2001 and 2003 tax reductions.
The output of the economy as measured by the gross domestic product (GDP), after subtracting inflation, would fall by an average of $60 billion per year;
More than one million jobs would be lost in 2013, and an average of 600,000 would be lost annually over the next 10 years (most of which would be after 2011);
Disposable income of households (after inflation is subtracted) would fall short of potential by nearly $200 billion per year; and
Household savings would shrink, investment would decline, and the general pace of economic life would subside.
As I examine the list above, by comparison, I don’t feel so bad about just losing $2,500 a year. It hurts, but it’s not the welfare line that a lot of non-Federal Employees will end up standing in as a result of Charlie Rangel’s so-called tax fairness.
And this is just a SWAG on my part, but those people losing their jobs over the next decade probably aren’t managing hedge funds, don’t fly their private jets to anti-Global Warming concerts and generally fart through cotton; not silk. The people that will wind up getting kept in line by Rangel-nomics are the very working-class stalwarts that Charlie Robin Hood claims he wants to defend from the evil rich.
People that think this election is just about Iraq just don’t see the whole game. This election is about how we want our society to see itself. Do we admire our industrial achievers, or think they are just thieves who need to be punished by the IRS?
If we send Charlie Rangel to fix their little red wagon and feel better because they pay “their fair share” we only rip ourselves off in the end. That extra few thousand The Gold Man just got made to send to DC; that was your paycheck, dude. To bowdlerize a famous U2 lyric off the album Rattle and Hum.
I don't believe in Goldman - his type like a curse Instant karma's gonna get him, but it f----- your paycheck first!
This sort of beggar-thy-neighbor populism is precisely how liberals control us and keep us divided. They rule us via this hatred and destroy the capability of our economy to produce more wealth and greater freedom. It’s just part of the coming pay cut we have to look forward to, if we really let the Democrats win in 2008.
Let all those read this who threaten to stay home if their pet candidate doesn’t get the nomination.
Free Republic has become a nest for the perpetually disenchanted, those who tote big chips on their shoulders, often of the one-issue variety.
They’re going to look back on the booming GWBush economy with longing if they don’t wake up and unite to keep folks like Rangel out of power.
Just a warning.
FReepmail to be added to the Congress Watch Ping List.
bttt for later
It’s economic mobility the Democrats don’t like, not “the rich” - that’s why their tax schemes always punish the successful. Upwardly mobile people can get uppity, and fail to remember that they are supposed to be voting to let Democrats have more power over them. Best that every one stay in the caste into which they were born, to minimize the paperwork. ;)
Income tax hikes are just the tip of the Democrat’s tax iceberg. Watch for higher gasoline taxes at the pump and in higher prices for everything you buy that is moved by truck. Your Internet service bill will resemble your phone bill with a slew of new special excise taxes and fees. If the so-called “carbon taxes” are imposed watch for higher prices on just about everything, plus higher unemployment as small businesses close or move operations overseas. Your inheritance will of course be taxed and Social Security taxes will be extended to apply to every dollar anyone makes. Smokers, drinkers and those who eat at fast food restaurants will get taxed “for their own good”. Welcome to tax hell.
“The Democrats want your wallet. We cannot let them win in 2008.”
I’ll tell you a secret: This is pure propaganda of the “if you think I’m bad, look at HIM” variety. The Republicans want your wallet, too.
It’s the spending, not the taxing that kills us all in the long run, and Republicans have been no slouches at growing government and increasing spending.
Then allow me to give “just a warning” to the GOP. If you nominate a RINO, a gun-grabber, a pro-abortion, a pro-gay candidate, do not expect my vote. Just about anything else I can hold my nose and vote, but those issues are nonnegotiable.
I second that motion!
how about a 50% pay cut for all federal govt officials.
So you want Charlie to stick it to the man? The Man better not be signing your paycheck.
The GOP may waste money, but at least they let you keep more of yours. If you really want to lose power over your life, just let the government eat your disposable income.
A big AMEN!
To use a well-know quote, "Nobody ever taxed their way to prosperity". Tax increases merely feed the seed corn to the populace this year.
Correction: The second link should read Americans For Fair Taxation.
No problem. 97.3736% of stupid America does not care. Not long as they get free stuff. That is America today, Free Stuff USA.
So if we elect Republicans are they going to stop spending like Democrats? This obscene government spending is nothing more than a tax hike delayed.
As most have mentioned on FR, middle class people get a tax refund at the end of the year and that is what they care most about. As long as they get that nice check then taxes really don’t mean much to them. Yes this could mean instead of 7,000 dollars they might get 4,500 dollars but I don’t think it is enough to understand what a tax increase means. This has been discussed many times on FR.
Or maybe pay them for what they actually do! In many months that would be a 100% reduction in pay.
In the State of Virginia, Rangle’s Bill will cost the average family $2,487. It doesn’t get better elsewhere.
________________________________
Great. That’s a new couch and interior paint job. It’s also what we pay for our 3 year olds pre-school for 2 days a week so that my wife gets a few days, including me taking our daughter out on Saturday, where my wife can work out and run errands free of the baby. These Democrats just don’t get it.
The counter argument is that the economy would've rebounded anyway without the tax-cuts. IMHO, that sounds like the guy at the party who plays his bongo drums right when everyone was leaving anyway.
--but I'm a nice guy and I'll agree that tax-cuts don't make any difference, and that means if we vote for Republicans to make the Bush cuts permanent, then there's no harm done...
If you really want to lose power over your life, just let the government eat your disposable income.
__________________
In the Old Testament era they Jews had an effective 23% tithe, but this in reality included the cost of government as well as the operation of their synagogues and temples. I remember in a Will Durant history of the orient, he mentioned that when taxes rose above 10% there tended to be revolutions and civil war and chaos in ancient China. My point is that modern civilization is experimenting with tax rates that gut the institutions of civil society that are not directly government related (primarily family and church) . . . and everywhere that this has run it’s full course, Russia, Europe, China, and we see that it has advanced far in the USA, the society has ultimately broken down.
I did read it, and I'm still not voting for Rudy should he get the nomination. Rudy is not electable next November, so the Rudymites might as well support someone else.
By the way, check the tagline: I am anything but a "one issue" voter.
I’d love the idea of them only getting a compensatory salary and having to work in the REAL world they make laws for.
Let’s get rid of the headaches!
Let’s get rid of the Fed. income tax!
Translation: (Dems to America) Just give us everything in your wallet, your bank account, your savings, your home and all of its furnishings - IOW everything you earn and own and we will spend for you to purchase what we think you should have.
(The remainder will provide for our dachas in the Poconos and other self-indulgent things we crave)
It’s also lack of control (ie, liberty) that Democrats don’t like.
And controlling your financial liberty is but one facet of this.
To borrow a phrase used by General Robert E. Lee when referring to yankees:
We have to get "those people" out of Washington.
As someone unfortunate enough to live and work in the DC area, I heartily sympathize with the old Rebel General on that one.
And I heartily sympathize with your circumstances. I just hope you're making a boat load of money to offset the living/working environment and also, that Rangel and the other socialists in congress will not be allowed to get one more penny than they're already taking from us at gunpoint.
“You had better go back to school and study economics, my fellow engineer. The tax cuts have always resulted in increased tax revenues due to the increase economic successes.”
We agree on taxes, but it’s the spending that matters. Nobody ever spent their way to prosperity - at least not in the long term.
What do you think happens to every single dime of the increased revenues from tax cuts? As you know, it was spent. So tax cuts that fuel increased spending drive bigger government.
I’m no economic genius, to be sure, but I do know cause and effect from observing both Democrats and Republicans alike.....more revenue means more spending. It is an immutable law of government.
I think we are in violent agreement, but I would hope we can agree that the chances of any tax cut by the RAT Party is virtually non-existent.
“We need to unite.”
Absolutely. That’s exactly what I was suggesting.
Now, can you please convince some of the my-way-or-the-freeway FReepers?
I agree 100%!
You had better go back to school and study economics, my fellow engineer. The tax cuts have always resulted in increased tax revenues due to the increase economic successes.
In fact, income tax cuts have always result in DECREASED tax revenues due to something called math. The following graph shows various categories of federal receipts and tax rates since 1940:
The actual numbers and sources are at http://home.att.net/~rdavis2/recsrc.html. The graph shows that, as a percentage of GDP, individual income tax revenues dropped sharply after the 1981 and 2001 tax cuts. The largest increase since World War II occurred after the 1993 tax HIKE.
When I heard about the touted rise in revenues after the Reagan tax cut, I went and looked at the numbers myself. After all of the bragging that I'd heard from supply-siders, I really expected to find something. Instead, the numbers were pretty much what one would expect (see the analysis at http://home.att.net/~rdavis2/taxcuts.html). When taxes are cut, revenues go through a quick drop and then continue to grow with the GDP as before, just at their new lower level. Hence, tax cuts are not a free lunch. They require us the weigh their benefits versus their costs, just like most things in the real world.
After 6 years of Republicans, there's little or nothing left. Maybe I can interest them in some used furniture in lieu of an empty wallet? Of course they'll have to pickup and haul it away. No money for fuel.
Okay. I guess we just need to elect liberals and let them tax us to prosperity, right?
Oops, I forgot. The government really does own our paycheck. Who are we to want that money for ourselves?
“The graph shows that, as a percentage of GDP, individual income tax revenues dropped sharply after the 1981 and 2001 tax cuts.”
Your statistics are misleading, and your conclusions, with the data you present are likely dubious.
You are measuring as a “percentage of GDP” which is not relevant to “increased revenues”. You need to compare absolute GDP and and absolute receipts versus tax rates if you wish to draw the conclusions you have drawn.
In reference to your point. The US GDP grew by a little over 8% a year on average between 1946 to 1981. It grew by over 16% a year between 1981-1989. As the denominator of any fractional ratio rapidly expands, it’s value will have a tendency to decrease as well.
LOL!! --Hey Rem, why is it that whenever we're having fun that some number-geek guy spoils everything with all this data and stuff!!!
But seriously now (wipes tears from eyes), what's happening is you're hiding behind a time frame there. Sure the farmer's kids will complain that setting aside seed corn means less cornmeal on the table, but the farmer knows that it wouldn't be for long. It's the same thing for thinking high taxes can mean high revenue --it won't. High revenue is only possible with economic growth, and tax-cuts make economic growth.
Europe is finally getting back up on its financial feet in part because of its corporate tax-cuts --which are now drawing US businesses overseas. Americans are having to make a choice, and for the sake of the free world they'd better pick lower taxes.
"Fair share" my @ss.
The TRULY wealthy, like John Kerry, do not need to work or, as a hobby, can choose to work for relatively little pay and can therefore end up paying very little income tax in relation to their net wealth.
In the year he ran for President, I paid more Federal income taxes than Kerry, a man that who, thanks to his wife, has access to something over $1 billion, making him by far the richest man ever to run on a national ticket.
“Americans are having to make a choice, and for the sake of the free world they’d better pick lower taxes.”
My central point is irrespective of tax rates, it’s the spending that matters. We’re not in disagreement, because as spending growth moderates (in my fictional world, not reality) then taxes will go down.
Concentrating on the spending is the big picture - all the promise of America can live or die based on government spending and our ability or inability to rein it in.
Neither Republicans nor Democrats have made a case for anything but increased government spending. Therefore it is a specious argument to say that Democrats are any better/worse over the long term when they both grow government in unsustainable fashion.
Really?
So the 'Rats are trying to rip us all off again.
No way in hell is anyone going to convince me that there's no difference between the parties on spending
OK, Hillary wants more health spending and Thompson wants more defense spending but that's a different point. GW Bush just vetoed a huge spending bill that got overrode because of all the democrats elected to teach GW a 'lesson' on spending back in '06 --the bill included a "Dashel Learning Center", a "Tip O'Neal University Yacht"...
IMHO this "parties-the-same-on-spending" talk is being passed around by DU flunkies and anyone they can dupe. It won't wash.
Who ya gonna believe? me or your lyin’ eyes?
(Note the steeper slope starting right around 2000.)
You can make a good argument (using facts), based on GWB’s tenure that Republicans are far worse on federal spending than democrats.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/charts_S/s1.cfm
you can fool yourself into thinking that it’s a horserace between Republicans and Democrats, when in reality it’s a one horse race, and the winner is always bigger government.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.