AAL2:
A good opinion piece in "The Wall Street Journal"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123561551065378405.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
If you don't bother to read it yourself the basic point is raising the taxes of the wealthist 2% of filers will raise nowhere near enough to cover President Obama's budget. Even if the government were to confiscate every nickel the rich had it wouldn't cover it.
Do you know what this means?
It means we're going further in the deficits for which Pres. Obama criticized Pres. Bush. Otherwise, Obama's going to have to raise taxes on more than just the people above the OWL. Either way he's lied and he is going to hurt the economy.
True Observations (New CUB, defined below)....
As an occasional feature conservativeuncensored.com is going to develop a collection of observations to highlight flaws in liberal thought with conservative thinking.
Observation #1...
"Tax the rich" policies achieve nothing except satisfying the vengance that the bitter and jealous have toward our nations best producers.
conservativeuncensored.com RSS feeds
Posts
All Comments
Showing posts with label Taxes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Taxes. Show all posts
26 February 2009
03 November 2008
My closing argument against Barack Obama...
I know what most conservatives think of the reasons Obama supporters have. I think most think that they're simplistic and ill-informed. In part that's true, but I choose to give voters a little more credit either way. Of the reasons for supporting Obama, These are the two that I'll choose to dignify.
1) "Punish" the incumbent presidency
2) "Punish" the rich in tough times
If you fall in this category I want you to consider this piece from The Wall Street Journal last September.
If you don't read it, they key points are.
1) While the rich are making more money, they are paying even more in their share of the total taxes the IRS collects (in a sense still "soaking the rich" even with lower rates).
2) When taxes get cut across the board the goverment still takes in more money, just a smaller share of the overall larger GDP.
I've heard it eloquently put that the choice between McCain and Obama is the difference between trickle down economics, and trickle-up poverty. This about it, don't automatically assume the "rich can afford it." The truth is while the "rich can afford it" if profits get cut into that easily could mean one less job offered (and one less taxpayer). If dollars get taxed to a point where it's not worth the risk to expand, jobs will be created slower over and over again.
This is why this phenomenon of cutting taxes across the board grows the economy (and also expands the governments revenues as well!). And yes while it is true that the rich will get richer, the poor will as well. Whereas if we get into this 12-year-old-girl jealousy of hurting those just because we hate that they have more than us, will ultimatly lead to more jobs overseas, and more people looking for a welfare system they will soon bankrupt if we chase away the taxpayers at the top.
My Point is this, "spread the wealth" is a romantic notion, but does unfairly punish the job creators an economy needs. It's a romantic notion that if you're below the OWL you may not have to worry. However, that now may need to be redefined as low as $150K/yr (which would include, yes, "Joe the Plumber"). However the OWL is defined should Obama be elected, we may soon find our nation in a situation where the poor majority will vote to abuse a rich minority. How long before they look at losing 60% of their money and find a country where the labor is cheap and the taxes far friendlier. Europe is starting to get away from such policies at a time we seem to be heading there.
If you really think about "spread the wealth" it is a pretty childish thought, one you would have before you dad has to point out that "life isn't fair." When you're alone in the booth, don't fall into the jealousy trap, don't vote for the politics of rich versus poor. Vote for the thing that does all americans good, even those that don't "seem to need it," cause maybe someone needs the job that isn't there, because the goverment took it for themselves.
Anyway if you are thinking about voting for Obama because you think he's better on the economy I hope I've given you reason to re-think that, if you have other reasons, I don't think I can help you...
1) "Punish" the incumbent presidency
2) "Punish" the rich in tough times
If you fall in this category I want you to consider this piece from The Wall Street Journal last September.
If you don't read it, they key points are.
1) While the rich are making more money, they are paying even more in their share of the total taxes the IRS collects (in a sense still "soaking the rich" even with lower rates).
2) When taxes get cut across the board the goverment still takes in more money, just a smaller share of the overall larger GDP.
I've heard it eloquently put that the choice between McCain and Obama is the difference between trickle down economics, and trickle-up poverty. This about it, don't automatically assume the "rich can afford it." The truth is while the "rich can afford it" if profits get cut into that easily could mean one less job offered (and one less taxpayer). If dollars get taxed to a point where it's not worth the risk to expand, jobs will be created slower over and over again.
This is why this phenomenon of cutting taxes across the board grows the economy (and also expands the governments revenues as well!). And yes while it is true that the rich will get richer, the poor will as well. Whereas if we get into this 12-year-old-girl jealousy of hurting those just because we hate that they have more than us, will ultimatly lead to more jobs overseas, and more people looking for a welfare system they will soon bankrupt if we chase away the taxpayers at the top.
My Point is this, "spread the wealth" is a romantic notion, but does unfairly punish the job creators an economy needs. It's a romantic notion that if you're below the OWL you may not have to worry. However, that now may need to be redefined as low as $150K/yr (which would include, yes, "Joe the Plumber"). However the OWL is defined should Obama be elected, we may soon find our nation in a situation where the poor majority will vote to abuse a rich minority. How long before they look at losing 60% of their money and find a country where the labor is cheap and the taxes far friendlier. Europe is starting to get away from such policies at a time we seem to be heading there.
If you really think about "spread the wealth" it is a pretty childish thought, one you would have before you dad has to point out that "life isn't fair." When you're alone in the booth, don't fall into the jealousy trap, don't vote for the politics of rich versus poor. Vote for the thing that does all americans good, even those that don't "seem to need it," cause maybe someone needs the job that isn't there, because the goverment took it for themselves.
Anyway if you are thinking about voting for Obama because you think he's better on the economy I hope I've given you reason to re-think that, if you have other reasons, I don't think I can help you...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
