Roger Wicker's voting record in the taxation arena shows one solid trend. Wicker will always vote in favor of the wealthy man and against the working man. Considering his down home Southern Baptist roots, it is hard to comprehend his votes that fly in the face of the working man. Rubber Stamp Roger votes the way his bosses (George and Dick) tell him to vote. He certainly does not vote in the interests of his constituency, who are mostly rural and mostly working class.
March 2008 - Voted NO on increasing tax rate for people earning over $1 million
April 2002 - Voted YES on making the Bush tax cuts permanent
December 2005 - Voted YES on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends
April 2001 - Voted YES on eliminating the Estate Tax
Good ole Rubber Stamp Roger...
I am certainly working class and have received great benefits from all of those EXCEPT for the one million dollar tax cut. Does "rich" simply mean "employed" to you?
ReplyDeleteI do hope that you realize that tax cuts raise revenues 100% of the time because taxes remove the money from the economy. At best, taxes are a zero sum gain.
I think we have two different definitions of "working class."
ReplyDeleteMine puts it below that of the middle class and in a place not particularly helped by tax cuts to those making well in excess of a couple hundred thousand dollars a year.
Your contention that tax cuts increase the treasury ignores reality. Raise taxes = Raised Revenue; Lower Taxes = Decreased Revenue.
That's the simplest of economics.
John, one glaring point that you fail to recognize, every single time that taxes are lowered, the revenue increases. The tax cuts on the richest people during the "Bush tax cuts," increased revenues by 4%. The point is that taxation removes money from the economy and is placed in the hands of people that do not pay taxes at all. Raising taxes DECREASES revenue to the government every single time.
ReplyDeleteAnother point that you ignore is that the median income is 48k, and poverty level is half of that. People making less than 24k do not pay taxes, but people making 24,001 dollars do. Working people are basically defined as those making more than half of the median income. Sorry.
There is a saying that if you repeat a lie often enough people will believe it, butthe lie still isn't true. George bush lowered revenue and as the data proves revenue, as expected, decreased.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what your numbers on poverty are supposed to prove.
Folks making the median didn't get much from the Bush tax cuts and the poor do work.
Before I address the linked article, I must say that I completely disappointed in the former Republican Congress because of their spending legislation since 2001, this is a HUGE point that really is never taken into account because some think that government spending is good. I am NOT one of those people. Spending has increased by over 40% since 2001. That is a monumental problem that has slowed economic growth to a virtual standstill, because the Fed does NOTHING to help the economy. Hopefully a recession is not in the future, but it does seem likely with the Democrats talking about additional gas taxes and the other really bad economic policies they hold dear.
ReplyDeleteJohn, the poor, while some do work, they do not pay taxes. They contribute very little to the economy. You tax people that do contribute to the economy and give that money to people that do not. And when you give government subsidies to the poor, you remove that money from the overall tax base, because the poor do not pay taxes and actually get EIC to even further remove money from the government revenue source. That is a very, very elementary economic truth. PLUS, you reward bad behavior. I think that everyone can agree on that. Our country's poor are the wealthiest poor people in the world by far.
The fun apart about this debate is that your article PROVES my point. According to your article, the "Bush Tax Cuts" have returned the revenue stream to the level that it was in March 2001, remember, at the end of the 1990's, we were in an economic slowdown, not unlike we are now. So, even they ignore their own research. You also must admit, if you are honest, that if you take into account the continuing expansion of the economy and very low unemployment, that there are even more taxpayers. This is all proven in the article that you linked.
If our government would secure the borders, deport all the illegal, criminal immigrants, abolish the minimum wage, and cut spending by trillions, while doing away with idiotic ideas like "windfall profit taxes," we would see growth never before seen. But, you will never see Democrats practice sound economic policy because "working" people do not vote for Democrats.
By the way, if tax cuts do not increase revenues, then how di the wealthiest get a cut, yet an increase in the proportional amount of the cost of government that they pay? Something doesn't add up. huh?
Check it.
Before you ask, the reason is that while the economy slowed, you are still using actual dollars rather than a percentage of the economy as your "reduction." That doesn't work and economists understand that.
ReplyDelete