Wednesday, October 31, 2007

On taxes....

Charlie Rangel wants to do away with the Alternative Minimum Tax.

Naturally, as it was not indexed for inflation and therefore has now encroached down into the upper middle class, where it was never intended. there are 20 million new AMT payers this year who are going to be VERY upset, and they are voters and people of influence. Nobody in congress wants to defend the AMT, and everyone wants credit for abolishing it.

But Rangel says there needs to be a way to "pay for it". In other words, to replace its revenue with new tax revenue, so the government doesn't lose.

First of all, if it's taxing people it was not meant to tax, can't it be said that the government shouldn't have that money? That they should just give it back, and find a way to make do without it? After all, it is 'ill gotten gains', isn't it? Aren't the newest AMT payers being victimized by it, overtaxed?


Logic says if its a tax that shouldn't be happening, then the government should be getting by without that money.

But Democrats never use logic, only class envy. The AMT was, after all, a "soak the rich" tax plan that got lots of publicity for that, back in the day.

One should also point out that the US government is on a roll, revenue wise. They've collected record amounts of money for several years in a row, and last year's was again an all time high.

Seems to me they're awash in money, and the reason is that Bush CUT taxes. So, rationally speaking, the more they cut, the higher their revenues.

So if they do away with the AMT, they'll collect even more money without having to institute any new taxes at all, right? OF COURSE.

But don't expect to hear this from the Dems. No new taxes means no new wealth redistribution, and without wealth redistribution they've got no way to pay for all the votes they buy.

Back in the early '60's, JFK cut taxes, and did so specifically to boost government revenue. It worked, as he publicly said it would.

Back in the '80's, Reagan cut taxes, on principle, because they were too high, punitively so.

Revenues tripled during his tenure as president.

Bush's tax cuts have grown government revenue as well, but the Dems want to roll them back AND add new taxes.

Folks, history proves that when taxes are cut, the government gets more money, because of increased economic activity and spending on all levels. More jobs, more expenditures, more growth, more government revenue, it all happens when taxes are cut.

And the opposite happens when they're raised. Fewer jobs, more people on welfare, less spending, shrinking business (which mean shrinking business tax revenues), etc.

If Charlie Rangel wants more money in government, he would not be proposing new taxes, PERIOD. He knows full well the history here.

And this proves that Dems do NOT want "more money", in general. What they want is more control of YOU, more of YOUR money, so they can make decisions on where it goes. If government gets less revenue because of it, if people lose jobs because of it (poor, minorities hardest hit, as the headlines go), well that's just the way she goes.

And this isn't just Rangel's plan. It's Hillary's plan, it's Obama's plan, its the Dem plan.

Hillary-- "I've got a million ideas, America can't afford them all!"

Note to Hillary-- we can't afford ANY of them.

No comments: