The Case for Low[er] Taxes
Today’s Michael Medved column supports my previously stated position on tax cuts in the comment section of this post: let everyone have one. In the aftermath of last November’s election, I wrote this:
“Do you remember the antics of the Democrat[-controlled congress of the late ‘80s and early ‘90s?] Lots of people don’t. So, when you tell them what it will be like for them and their family to live under the legislative yoke of Democrat tax increases to fund ever-expanding -- and ever-failing -- social programs, they have no concept of it. But they will get a glimpse soon.
The incoming Democratic house members have made no secret of their desire to not only sunset the Bush tax cuts, but to increase many fees and taxes on the working class for the “common good.” You will see a minimum wage fight, unions rise up and demand more from workers, and a rapid expansion of social programs. You will see calls for increasing Social Security (even though Dems campaigned on the high cost of the prescription drugs program added by Bush the-younger.) A renewed call for “universal health care” and enough global warming hot air to melt the polar ice cap. This is all good for the conservative cause.”
So writes Medved:
“It took Nancy Pelosi less than a week as Speaker of the House to begin talking seriously about tax hikes. On “Face the Nation” on CBS this weekend she raised the possibility of increasing the tax burden (by “repealing tax cuts”) for “those making over a certain amount of money, $500,000 a year.” She simultaneously promised tax cuts “for middle class families.”
The political calculation in this pitch is diabolically clever, of course. Nearly all Americans consider themselves “middle class,” no matter how much or how little they make, so her support for reduced taxes for “middle class families” sounds wonderful. Meanwhile, less than 2% of tax returns show income in excess of $500,000 a year so the Speaker is, in effect, inviting 98% of the public to improve their status at the expense of a tiny minority that’s already widely resented because of its “excessive” success.
If you’re nowhere near that $500,000 level where the Democrats say they’ll start punishing you, why should you care if Pelosi & Pals jack up the tax rates on the fortunate few who can afford to fund the rest of us?”
“Herewith” Medved follows up with “three reasons that even those who’ll never earn a half-million a year should oppose these tax hikes, followed by three powerful lessons from the current political situation.”
Hat Tip: Town Hall
Previously:
Who’s Controlling Spending Now?
Who’s Controlling Spending Now, Part II
“A Red Day, A Sore Day, And Then the Sun Rises!”
“Do you remember the antics of the Democrat[-controlled congress of the late ‘80s and early ‘90s?] Lots of people don’t. So, when you tell them what it will be like for them and their family to live under the legislative yoke of Democrat tax increases to fund ever-expanding -- and ever-failing -- social programs, they have no concept of it. But they will get a glimpse soon.
The incoming Democratic house members have made no secret of their desire to not only sunset the Bush tax cuts, but to increase many fees and taxes on the working class for the “common good.” You will see a minimum wage fight, unions rise up and demand more from workers, and a rapid expansion of social programs. You will see calls for increasing Social Security (even though Dems campaigned on the high cost of the prescription drugs program added by Bush the-younger.) A renewed call for “universal health care” and enough global warming hot air to melt the polar ice cap. This is all good for the conservative cause.”
So writes Medved:
“It took Nancy Pelosi less than a week as Speaker of the House to begin talking seriously about tax hikes. On “Face the Nation” on CBS this weekend she raised the possibility of increasing the tax burden (by “repealing tax cuts”) for “those making over a certain amount of money, $500,000 a year.” She simultaneously promised tax cuts “for middle class families.”
The political calculation in this pitch is diabolically clever, of course. Nearly all Americans consider themselves “middle class,” no matter how much or how little they make, so her support for reduced taxes for “middle class families” sounds wonderful. Meanwhile, less than 2% of tax returns show income in excess of $500,000 a year so the Speaker is, in effect, inviting 98% of the public to improve their status at the expense of a tiny minority that’s already widely resented because of its “excessive” success.
If you’re nowhere near that $500,000 level where the Democrats say they’ll start punishing you, why should you care if Pelosi & Pals jack up the tax rates on the fortunate few who can afford to fund the rest of us?”
“Herewith” Medved follows up with “three reasons that even those who’ll never earn a half-million a year should oppose these tax hikes, followed by three powerful lessons from the current political situation.”
Hat Tip: Town Hall
Previously:
Who’s Controlling Spending Now?
Who’s Controlling Spending Now, Part II
“A Red Day, A Sore Day, And Then the Sun Rises!”
Labels: democrat congress, taxation
posted by Alpheus at 9:06 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home