Tax cuts for the rich are tax cuts for the poor

Here is a lot of useful information.

What you will note is that in 2008 some $1 trillion was paid in income taxes. Of this, the top 1% (some 1.5 million tax returns) paid nearly $400 billion, and the bottom 50% (nearly 70 million tax returns) paid not quite $30 billion.

The top 5% paid 60% of the income taxes.

Self evidently, our tax system is progressive. Self evidently, the rich pay most of the taxes. I get sick and tired of the demogoguing on this issue by stupid socialists. You know what happens when you radically increase the taxes on the top income brackets? Do you? You do know it has been tried, correct?

What happens is they start hiding income, move it to another country, or move it to non-tax revenue producing assets, like tax exempt bonds.

Back in the 20’s self made millionaire Andrew Mellon said that 25% was about the most you could realistically expect to get sustainably, but if that was all you asked, most rich people would willingly pay it, as that was less exhausting than trying to hide or move their income.

Consider this: By 1926 65% of the income tax revenue came from incomes $300,000 and higher, when five years prior, less than 20% did. During this same period, the overall tax burden on those that earned less than $10,000 dropped from $155 million to $32.5 million.

What are we to make of this? To my mind, the self evident conclusion is that low rates at the top of the income tax bracket is, paradoxically, conducive to TAX CUTS for the poorest Americans.

Fact one: our government needs revenue.

Fact two: when top income tax rates are too high, the taxes don’t get paid. This is not a question of morality, but empirical fact.

Fact three: if the money doesn’t come from the rich, and the government insists on spending the same amount of money, then logically it comes from everyone else.

Conclusion: if we want to decrease the tax burden on the economically less well-off, we need to avoid punitive taxation of the wealthy. 25% continues to seem like a good number.

I will add that socialism is a poorly considered moral creed consisting in resentment and aggression towards the rich. Liberalism–my creed–consists in actually caring about the poor.

Anyone who thinks Obama cares about the poor is smoking the good stuff. None of these socialists do. They like feeling high and mighty, and they like throwing their weight around. If you want to see economic ruination, though, just go look and see where they have been.

I offer Detroit and Washington, D.C. as Exhibits A and B.

I offer Britain as Exhibit C, and Greece as Exhibit D.

I offer China as Exhibit E (no national healthcare, by the way), and Cuba as Exhibit F.

History is irrefutable. Socialism is not a historical or economic doctrine. It is the creed of petulant and self-important fools, with neither common sense nor common decency.