Tax Cuts and the Economy

Lately both Clinton and Obama have charged up their campaigns by attacking the 'rich' and the dreaded 'evil' corporations. Playing on the economic ignorance and class divisionisim in this country (and by and large a product of the governmental school system). One of their main targets have been the Bush tax cuts which they claim were 'only a benifit to the rich'.

How in the heck are they defining 'rich'? I saw a benifit from the tax cuts and I am far from any reasonable definition of the word 'rich.' I would say that I'm firmly within the Middle Class ... but that begs the question 'what is the middle class' ... and so I found this report to the the Congress which places the Median annual household income at $46,326 and defines a narrow middle class as $36,000 to $57,000 with a broader 'middle class' as $19,100 to $91,700 ... all of which confirms my belief that I'm in the middle class but not what could be considered 'upper middle class'.

Neither Obama nor Clinton are stupid ... they know that these tax cuts have helped many middle class Americans. They are playing on the economic ignorance of the majority of the American people ... on the fact that most of them don't know what they paid in taxes THIS year, much less what they paid last year and what the difference was due to the tax cuts....

The repeal of these cuts within the context of the current economy, however, is asking for another round of middle class bankrupcies and foreclosures ... with the extra added benifit of taxes being non-dischargeable in bankrupcy. In addition to raising taxes on many middle class households it will (of course) raise taxes on small business (the largest 'employer' in the contry as something like 70% of all jobs in this country come from 'small' businesses rather than large corperations). This would, in turn, lower the funds available to those businesses to expand, hire new employees, or even give raises to exsisting employees.

I believe that it was Abraham Lincon that said "You cannot help the poor by hurting the rich." Meaning that by taxing the rich ... by punishing the drive to improve you don't help the poor ... you lessen the available jobs, the available pay, and ... ultimately ... their drive to better themselves.

This does not help them ... it hurts them. It changes nothing .... at best the government can, by re-disributing what they take from the 'rich', bring the 'poor' back up to where they would have been had the taxes not been levied against the rich to start with.

Realistically I've been over that point before, but it again underscores some of the economic ignorance in this country. People seem to fail to realize that 'stuff flows down hill' ... even if you only tax the 'rich' that tax ... that draw of funds ... is going to effect everyone down the economic structure even though the 'rich' (or corporations) are the only ones technically being taxed.

Pure socialisim as a whole fails for ultimately the same reason ... there is no incentive to work harder to achieve more because it is all collected by the government and distributed equally ... why am I going to work 10 hours when in the end I'm going to get the same as the guy in the next office that cut out after 8? Oh ... that's right ... for the good of the country that's it ... yeah ... right. The human animal doesn't work that way ... we ... and all animals really ... are programmed to do the minimum possible to achieve our goals; if working harder isn't going to get me more return then the additional energy is wasted effort. In the end any such enthusiasim will quickly errode and cease until finally everyone is doing the minimum allowed by law to collect their pay ... we already see this in a majority of welfare recipients in this country ... meanwhile supply will slow down to a minimum, but demand will continue to rise ...

But then Obama has been attending a church for the last 20 years that centers itself on 'economic parity' ... that's a fancy way of saying everyone is supposed to have the same amount of 'stuff'. (This is seperate from this issue from the racially divisive and anti-american statements that his mentor and pastor Rev. Wright has been saying in the pulpit ... but I think that has been covered fairly well by other sources.) Clinton has fairly much been open in her socialist views and goals with regard to leading this country ... so should we really be surprised that either of them want to increase the income re-distribution program in this country.... taking more from those who earn it in order to give it to those too lazy to earn it themselves.

Theodore Roosevelt, a progressive Republican and the author of the famous 'square deal' had this to say when asked about his 'square deal':

"When I say I believe in a square deal, I do not mean ... to give every man the best hand. If the cards do not come to any man, or if they do come, and he has not got the power to play them, that is his affair. All I mean is that there shall be no crookedness in the dealing."

Clinton and Obama, however, want to try to appeal to the masses by offering them, not 'no crookedness in the dealing', but rather 'to give every man the best hand' ... or at least ... the same hand.