Comments on: Why have the tax cuts been so bad?

By: Mike Devx

Mike Devx — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 11:30:44 +0000

“That government is best which governs least”
- Thomas Paine, or perhaps earlier by Thomas Jefferson

A corollary would be:
“That government which governs least requires the least taxes.”

That’s why a reduced government and reduced taxes almost inevitably leads to an economic boom.

By: stu

stu — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 01:02:59 +0000

One of my favorite examples of the effects of tax policy is the former sick sister of Europe, Ireland. Once they reduced their punitive tax regime to the most tax friendly in Europe, their economy exploded. It now remains the fastest growing economy in Europe with one of the highest standards of living and lowest rate of unemployment. This approach doesn/t work well with the democratic penchant of vote buying.

By: Francis W. Porretto

Francis W. Porretto — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 19:43:23 +0000

It’s been said, many times, that liberals don’t live in the same world as the rest of us. In this world, changes in the legal and social environment bring about changes in individuals’ behavior. But the notion that the changes in incentives resulting from changes in tax law are immune to Congressional displeasure is as unpleasant to the liberal mind as the proposition that someone who’s dead set on killing you should be struck down forcibly, rather than “negotiated with.”

By: Tap

Tap — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 18:06:05 +0000

Oh, and yes, raising taxes right now will inevitably decrease govt. revenue.

By: Tap

Tap — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 18:04:46 +0000

Of course they (Dems) aren’t actually worried about the deficit. I don’t think anyone believes that. While I agree with what you guys before me have said, I believe that the Democrats also have a more insidious purpose.

They want to take money out of individuals hands, and they want to put ever more people under government benefits, whether it’s welfare, education, healthcare or whatever. It doesn’t matter what. The goal is to decrease independence and increase the % of people dependent on them. It’s working, too.

By: Danny Lemieux

Danny Lemieux — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 16:44:44 +0000

To a Liberal/Lefty, money is only a necessary “evil”. Ask them to define “money” in economic terms (i.e., a “medium for the barter of value”) , they have no clue. They do know, however, that everybody else has too much of it and they don’t have enough of it. It just isn’t fair!

Conservatives see value as something that is created through human intellect and, therefore, a limitless commodity. Liberal/Lefties see value as part of a fixed pie. What one takes for themselves must necessarily be taken at the expense of someone else. Only the “government”, therefore, can be trusted to share that pie equally among its deserving subjects (conservatives need not apply).

By: Earl

Earl — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 16:17:31 +0000

If reason played a part, they would be citing a Democrat hero — JFK — who cut tax rates across the board, resulting in vastly increased revenues to the federal treasury.

I expect them to ignore RR, who did the same thing, and ignited the longest period of growth in the American economy ever seen…..

It’s a lot like the war — their rhetoric isn’t aimed at any results except immediate advantage in the election, and the devil take the hindmost. I guess they figure they’ll deal with whatever happens, later on….always blaming someone else for the bad stuff.

It’s the Iraqis or the U.S. citizenry who will pay the price.

By: Mahlon

Mahlon — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 15:24:53 +0000

Foolish mortal. The Democrats say “What is the government’s, is the government’s. What is yours is open to debate.” Or more appropriately, “What is yours is the government’s, until the government allows you to have some.”

If you apply reason, the wisdom of the tax cuts is clear. But the left doesn’t use reason; it uses emotion. “The rich need to pay their fair share!” This plays well to the voting masses who have been told, by the same liberal candidates, that the rich don’t deserve anything they have, and it has all come at the expense of the working class.

This is similar to the story recounted on talk radio yesterday about the luxury tax the Clinton administration implemented on the purchase of new yachts. The theory apparently was, if you can afford a $10 M yacht, you can afford higher taxes. After the tax was implemented, the yacht industry went into the tank. What happened, though, was that all the hourly employees who worked building yachts had incomes fall (if they kept their jobs at all). This, of course, shrinks that tax base and decreases tax revenues. All quite reasonable. But as I said, reason plays no part in liberal politics.