In last night’s State of the Union address, President Obama
asked the question “But asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his
secretary in taxes?” Wouldn’t a better idea be to lower the secretary’s taxes
to pay the same as the billionaire? (Full
transcript here)
This is especially true when a few sentences later he also mentions how “We don’t begrudge financial success in this country. We admire it.” This raises the question, how is raising taxes on the successful not begrudging them of their financial success? When the President refers to raising the taxes on the top 2% of earners he is talking of raising the capital gains tax. While good in theory, he has not thought of the consequences of this action.
Click here to order this book from Amazon |
On the other side of the coin, if the President were to
lower the taxes on the secretary, she would then be able to purchase more
consumer goods, perhaps buy a new home or take a vacation. All these actions
would stimulate the economy, increasing employment, increasing wages and
causing an upward spiral for everyone. With increased employment, many of those
who are now living off the backs of others, could go back to work, decreasing
the tax burden.
Obama has shown repeatedly that he either doesn't understand the fundamentals of economics - or thinks that we don't. My favorite example was the Saturday radio speech he gave in which he complained about the high cost of gasoline and then proposed closing tax loopholes for oil companies.
ReplyDeleteI think it is a case of both. He doesn't understand the economy, although he thinks he does, and becasue he is a liberal he thinks he is smarter than we are so he knows more than we.
ReplyDelete