Originally posted by Seekerof
"Watch Your Wallet"
Link:
weeklystandard.com...
Thanks Seek, I believe it says 'things which are true' in a very deceptive way (if that makes sense).
Right off the bat, I can't deny Dean wants to raise taxes. I've heard him say he'd repeal "Every last inch of Bush tax cuts." So that's pretty
clear to me. Whether or not that's a good thing or bad remains debatable. Not that I'm drawing a necessary correlation, but I'd gladly pay Clinton
taxes or more to have another 90's economic environment.
As for the misleading statement "Now all nine Democratic presidential candidates agree that increasing taxes must be a first resort," the article
goes on to clarify that some "would preserve the cuts for lower income brackets."
That little afterthought covers most Americans. I think the effort of this article is to paint broad emotional brush strokes of all the Democratic
candidates AND (again) erroneously link the middle class with the super rich.
[Glossing over the "parallel universe of Dems" and "tax hike mania"] Lieberman is "not content to restore the top rate for individual income, now
35 percent, to its Clinton-era level of 39.6 percent. He would raise it to 44.6 percent. So would General Wesley Clark. (I have heard Liberman and
even Gephardt speak on these lines, not sure on Clark). To which I say, GREAT!
Where I don't agree is that this would be "economically counterproductive". The article makes some assumptions about this top bracket that remain
disputable: "Call it trickle-down economics if you wish, but it's this 1percent of Americans who are counted on to save, invest, stir economic
growth, and create jobs."
Contary to what one's spam mail may lead him to believe it is not easy to screw Paris Hilton. I myself peaked very close to technically 'affluent'
a couple years in the 90's but I never was and will never be on the same planet as the top 1 percent of earners.
I employed people, along with millions of other middle class entrepreneurs that risked it all (and for the most part failed). To the best of my
research, the top 1% don't gamble on America like the rest of us...they are served by it, it's infrastructure, policies and military. And they are
served well.
If anything, the assertion "In truth, the top 1percent of earners paid 36.3 percent of income taxes in 2000, up from 19.75 percent in 1979" seems
low. Although I have struggled to find information on the elusive top earners, they remain obscured in mystery to me. That their earnings less than
doubled in the past 20 years of new multi-millionaires and billionaires (as this report of percent of income taxes would suggest) is insane. If
anything, it speaks to the loopholes, offshoreing and wanton disregard for playing by the same rules as the rest of us.
I make no bones about my disdain for the super rich being targeted by the "tax reform" Dems. I believe in large part, they contribute to the warping
of the entire fair taxation issue, and perversion of the American Dream to unattainable goals.
I appreciate the article, welcome your own insights, and remain in dire need of good links to illuminated US financial data.
[Edited on 10-1-2004 by RANT]