Taxes Destroying Middle Class
Find a Conversation
Taxes Destroying Middle Class
| Mon, 10-11-2004 - 2:09pm |
Currently over 50% of everything my husband and I earn is paid in taxes: federal and state income, social security, property, gasoline, and sales taxes. John Kerry cannot keep all the promises he has made without raising taxes. The Democrats are determined to "kill the goose that laid the golden egg" - if Kerry wins, they will succeed! John Edwards complains about two America's, but he advocates for government that will result in two America's: the very rich like the Kerrys/Edwards/Kennedys/Hollywood movie stars who have made their fortunes and use tax loopholes to avoid taxes - and the rest of us who will be forced to depend on government programs because we do not have enough money after taxes to save for our own retirment and health plans.

Pages
Explain to me then, how BORROW and SPEND, passing the debt of that borrowing to my children is going to grow the econonmy.
In the mid/late 90's, The government worked like I have to: Pay as you go.
By growing the economy, reducing unemployment, thereby increasing the tax base-when there are larger numbers of people with better paying jobs, revenue increases without increasing tax rates. Despite that many will claim "Reaganomics" didn't work, the truth is the deficit was cut without raising taxes because of his policies.
http://www.ncpa.org/pi/taxes/pdtx64.html
Growth From Reagan Tax Cuts
Tax cuts do not create federal deficits; greater government spending does. That is the message tax-cut supporters must hammer home, according to political analysts and economists. Otherwise this truth will be drowned out in the media in a deluge of confusion.
Politicians are expected to repeat the mantra, "Reagan tax cuts were responsible for declining revenues and soaring deficits in the 1980s," but no such thing occurred, according to budget analysts.
* Receipts from individual income taxes rose to $446 billion in fiscal 1989 -- President Reagan's last budget -- from $286 billion in fiscal 1981, the year Reagan began to slash personal tax rates -- a 56 percent increase.
* Annualized, tax receipts grew faster than that period's 4 percent inflation.
* During the same period, federal spending rose from $678 billion to $1.143 trillion -- a 69 percent increase.
From 1981 to 1983, personal income tax receipts rose 1 percent -- while spending surged 19 percent. This was during a bad recession. After the recession, the Reagan tax cuts worked and revenues soared.
* From 1984 to 1989, growth in personal tax receipts outstripped growth in spending, 50 percent to 34 percent.
* And the deficit fell from 5 percent of gross domestic product to 2.9 percent.
* After 1989, the deficit ballooned again as revenues dried up following an increase in tax rates.
* From 1989 to 1993, personal tax receipts rose just 14 percent, while spending rose 23 percent
Then there is the evidence of the beneficial economic effects of President Kennedy's tax cuts.
* In 1964, the economy grew by 5.8 percent -- followed by 6.4 percent growth the following two years.
* The increasing tax revenues following from the surging economy led to a balanced budget by 1969 -- the last time that the government was able to balance its books.
But either sloppy thinking or purposeful confusion perpetuates the myth that tax cuts produce higher federal deficits.
Source: Editorial, "The Supply-Side Deficit Myth," Investor's Business Daily; and Donald Lambro, "Unstrung Tax-Cut Lamenters," Washington Times, August 12, 1996.
You're right-corporations DO have incentives to move operations offshore-those incentives are called "lower tax burdens". Not sure how raising taxes on corporations is going to encourage them to invest in America-it will actually have the opposite effect.
No, it was more like, "We have more of the people's money than we need! Let's figure out new ways to spend it!"
Renee ~~~
You're right-corporations DO have incentives to move operations offshore-those incentives are called "lower tax burdens". Not sure how raising taxes on corporations is going to encourage them to invest in America-it will actually have the opposite effect.
--
Are you referring to Kerry's intention to let the tax cuts for those earning over $200,000/year expire? And if so, you're believing what Cheney says about 900,000 small businesses getting 'hit' with this?
Pages