You have to wonder what the professors at Harvard, Yale and other high end colleges and universities are teaching about economics. Everytime we turn around we hear about how the Dems want to raise taxes on "the rich." Do they believe that the top income earners in the nation have a money tree that they can harvest at anytime. Do they believe that they can continually add more and more tax burdens without their being any detrimental effect on the economy at all?
Apparently, Harvard and Yale graduates believe just that. Those of us who went to more mainstream schools like the University of Maryland know better. We know that the more money the government confiscates from the private sector, the harder it is for jobs to be created and sustained. We know that there isn't a limitless supply of money and we understand that eventually, tax burdens will become so heavy that taxpayers will look for ways of minimizing the effect or simply move their means of income to a new location (e.g. off-shore).
The Dems are still trying to further wreck our economy by taxing away the means for employers to hire new employees. From Fox News:
| President Obama may have to raise taxes to pay for public health care and the growing deficit, an eventuality that administration officials touched lightly on Sunday as they promoted an economy emerging from recession. With an expected deficit next year of $1.8 trillion, and spending still being planned for a $1 trillion, 10-year health care reform, officials say something will have to be done to prevent further erosion of the economy. "We will not get this economy back on track, recovery will be not strong and sustained, unless we ... can convince the American people that we're going to have the will to bring these deficits down once recovery is firmly established," Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said on ABC's "This Week." Asked point blank whether it was right to suggest it is a matter of when, not if, taxes will be raised, Geithner responded, "It is absolutely right." |
What Obama and Geithner seem to be completely unable to understand is that continually piling on more taxes for those who earn over $500,000/year will soon mean that they will get less take-home pay than people earning less than $500,000/year. Thus, who would ever want to earn that much money if it means less take-home pay? Those people will simply find a way to bring their income down below that $500,000/year level. That means less tax revenue which in turn means that the government will have to begin taxing lower income people in order to make up the difference.
The health care reform bill which is supposed to be saving us money is getting more and more expensive.
Which makes this little tidbit very interesting:
| National Economic Council President Larry Summers said on CBS' "Face the Nation" that jobs are a lagging indicator and once output increases, job growth will start to pick up. "I think we have a ways to go. I want to emphasize the basic realities. Unemployment is still very high in this country," Summers said. He added that it's not a good idea to rule out future taxes. "There is a lot that can happen over time. ... But what the president has been completely clear on is that he is not going to pursue any of his priorities -- not health care, not energy, nothing -- in ways that are primarily burdening middle-class families. That is something that is not going to happen," Summers said. |
Except that is is going to happen, one way or the other. Either a direct tax increase on middle-class incomes, or indirect taxes on companies and corporations who will simply pass the tax along to the middle-class in the form of higher retail prices.
But what are the Harvard and Yale graduates in the government proposing? More taxes and more spending:
| While economists agree spending is required in a recession, [Rep. Mike] Pence said that money would be better spent by the American people, not the federal government. "Borrowing a trillion dollars from future generations of Americans and spreading it around the economy is going to have some catalytic effect in the economy in the short term, but again, it's no substitute for fiscal discipline in Washington, D.C.," he said. 'This piecemeal approach -- government handouts through a government bureaucracy -- is no substitute for broad-based tax relief and fiscal discipline in Washington, D.C." |
I find it amusing how the Dems are constantly saying that Republicans haven't had an original idea since Ronald Reagan. Given their idea of tax and spend, tax and spend, and then raise taxes again to make up for the overspending, the Dems have not had an original idea since Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
You can access the complete article on-line here:
Obama Officials Don't Dismiss Possibility Of New Taxes
Fox News
August 3, 2009
No comments:
Post a Comment