Mar09
Tax Rates, Not Taxes
on March 9, 2009 at 7:03 amEven Alec Baldwin gets it. So why doesn’t Barack Obama?
Well, as he revealed explicitly in the debate, to him, taxes are not about revenue. They are about “fairness” and “social justice.” Which is why his tax policies will be disastrous for the economy.
Now, now, Rand. Do you want to be accused of getting your history from comic books?
Considering the source, it’s hard to be very concerned about such foolish accusations.
Sure Rand. Look at how well low tax rates worked for the Bush government.
Look at how well low tax rates worked for the Bush government.
Was this comment supposed to make sense? What is your point? Is it your claim that our current problems are a result of low tax rates? If so, please make the case. It has to start, of course, with the false premise that Bush tax rates were low.
Godzillia is simply proving that while correlation may not equal causation, it certainly equals retardation as in dumb as a fvcking strawman retarded.
Because it is pointless to spend time debating these taxes. The taxes are hardly enough to be crippling, or even annoying, it is not even a Swedish personal income tax rate. Lowering the taxes at the time served much the same purpose as lowering the fed funds rate. It increased money flow in the economy, fueled risk-taking behavior, and a more short-term view of the market. People could not get a decent ROI and started funneling money into property they couldn’t afford and ponzi schemes. Which was all and good until the market imploded because of fundamental economic issues that were not taken care of by the free market system, and aggravated by flamboyant government spending.
W thought he could increase expenses and reduce taxes at the same time. He really believed supply side voodoonomics. But guess what, the relation between taxes and economic growth isn’t linear. The economy won’t have a stupendous boom because you lowered taxes by 3%, nor will it go into a deep recession if you increase taxes by 3%. Fact is, in the long term the stock market has a similar ROI as treasury bonds. WTF will buy treasury bonds from a country which can’t repay its debt and keeps sinking further into expense? What will happen to the corporations which are similarly indebted? Simple: they will be bought by the Chinese, Russians, and Arabs, much like the Japanese bought American corporations in the 80s. Think it won’t happen? It already is happening. Lenovo is one example. AMD spinned off its manufacturing facilities and sold a chunk of those to the Arabs. I guess real men don’t have fabs anymore.
If Obama thinks he should raise the rates back to the previous level to repay the debt, what’s the problem? One might argue about his investment programs, I do, but I think the taxes needed to be raised anyway if the USA is to pay back the debt. It is always easier and faster for a government to raise taxes than decrease expenses. Which should also be done of course. Heck, even Clinton did it, he closed down US military bases abroad.
What would I do? Stop corn fuel ethanol subsidies. Decrease taxation of foreign sugar cane. Increase personal income tax in the highest earning brackets. Decrease corporate income tax. Tax petroleum based fuels further. Tax vehicles by fuel consumption (even if using a related metric like engine displacement). Subsidize replacement of older, less fuel efficient, vehicles for new ones. Grant low-rate loans to nuclear and wind power plant construction. Build a national HVDC power grid. Spur DOE investment into electric storage technology.