This would be a no-brainer to most people, but for David Leonhardt, business columnist for The New York Times, it’s a question that deserves deep thoughtful deliberation.
“There are big philosophical questions about taxes that facts alone can’t answer. How important is it to let people keep the money that they earn?” Leonhardt asked in the October 31 Times.
The answer seems fairly cut and dried, at least to someone who wouldn’t mind having the extra money in their wallet, but Leonhardt actually says having a lower tax burden is of no consequence.
“The obvious conclusion is that moderate shifts in taxes don’t dictate economic growth,” Leonhardt wrote. “Mr. Bush’s father and Bill Clinton raised taxes — and the economy grew for almost the entire decade of the 1990s. The current administration has cut taxes — and the economy has grown for almost all of this decade. So if short-term economic growth were the only thing to worry about, you could make a good argument either for cutting taxes or for raising them.”
Leonhardt makes the same mistake the media make over and over again. Referring to tax cuts as a “cost” to the government, which the media often do, assumes that all money is the government’s to begin with, which it’s not. Such an implication suggests the government generated the tax money, which it didn’t. (See more in the Business & Media Insitiute’s special report – Tax & Spin.)
Leonhardt used what happened during the prior Bush and Clinton administrations as reasoning to suggest higher taxes are important to reduce the budget deficit. But as Pete Du Pont wrote in the October 29 Wall Street Journal you can have lower taxes and reduce the budget deficit by increasing tax revenues.
“Tax rate reductions increase tax revenues,” Du Pont wrote. “This truth has been proved at both state and federal levels, including by President Bush's 2003 tax cuts on income, capital gains and dividends. Those reductions have raised federal tax receipts by $785 billion, the largest four-year revenue increase in U.S. history. In fiscal 2007, which ended last month, the government took in 6.7% more tax revenues than in 2006.”
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
TAXES
October 31, 2007 - 14:42 ET by bsmarjWell, tell you what David Leonhardt the government can let me keep my money and take all yours and then you can write a column on how important that money was when you had more of it. What a tool you are!
As I read that, I was
October 31, 2007 - 15:59 ET by CortillaenAs I read that, I was thinking let's simply raise taxes on print and broadcast media jobs to about 90%. Obviously, they won't object since refusing such a measure would hurt government funding. Oh, wait... what's good for the common people isn't necessarily good for the media elites. How could I forget?
http://www.rhjunior.... Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi
Agree
October 31, 2007 - 17:57 ET by celatorIndeed, you are onto something. Perhaps the entire paycheck of these leftist scum should be sent directly to the IRS, which then can then dole out, as the IRS sees fit, a few pennies a week to these knuckleheads.
David Leonhardt, as with
October 31, 2007 - 14:54 ET by dscottDavid Leonhardt, as with most shills for the Dem Party, are advancing a line of argument based on the false premise of correlation and causality. There is one thing about correlation to be wary of, coincidence does not imply cause. The rise in economic activity in spite of a tax hike does not indicate a tax hike caused the rise. All it means is Bush Sr and Clinton didn't hike taxes enough to stall economic growth.
If you dolts in the MSM, I'm talking to you Leonhardt, and especially those who claim to be business correspondents would actually read what John Maynard Keynes wrote on economics you would understand the function of taxation has essentially only one function in a modern capitalist economy: a brake upon economic activity to prevent run away growth and in turn inflation.
I never cease to be amazed at the absolute stupidity of the MSM and by extension the Dems. Only a fool makes assertions and prattles on about stuff they have no clue about.
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.
When does taxation become slavery?
October 31, 2007 - 14:55 ET by NBFIt's a question I'd like to ask leftists who pretend to abhor evil. The fact of the matter is that they don't mind oppressing others if it means they get what they want.
And if useless idiot moonbats buy into their socialism, all the better for their plans.
You Always Follow The Money
October 31, 2007 - 15:10 ET by BourbeauWhen a leftest/liberal starts to whine about the need to raise taxes and do more for the underprivileged in society, they're really talking about everyone but themselves. When you look at a politician, typically you see someone who is entrenched in the buraucracy, wealthy beyond their salary, and greedy beyond any one's reasonable imagination. And why is that? Because they have immuned themselves from the tax schemes they create thru the bogus campaign finance structure that effectively lets them 'live' off of their respective campaign war chests and create no show jobs for their family members; thru the hefty salary and benefits they award themselves; and the phoney political action organizations they create to house their hacks. In other words, wealth is something to be 'taken' from every one else, other than them. And what's really scarey is they have become more and more open and brazen about it.
This caught my eye "Others
October 31, 2007 - 15:09 ET by Dan The Man 2This caught my eye "Others will be less true" because it shows he cant be trusted. Anyone who cant talk in absolutes is a nutcase. Something is true or it is not, not less true or more true. Well I mean what is the meaning of is.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Ahhh, a new subtle
October 31, 2007 - 15:17 ET by Sonny LykosAhhh, a new subtle propaganda ploy newly initiated by the socialists in the media. Expect to see and hear more of this in the future. The "community" comes before the individual. Now where did I hear that?
Pumpkin Taxes
October 31, 2007 - 15:24 ET by m36b1Just ask some poor farmer trying to sell a pumpkin along some rural road in Iowa about taxes....
http://www.dmregiste...
Good 'ol bureaucrats creating a "jack-o-lantern" tax for those pesky capitalists, and right before Halloween. If you want a tax-exemption for buying a pumpkin in Iowa, you have to fill out a form declaring if you're going to eat the pumpkin or not! No Joke!
And if you look at the posts to the story, it fits liberal and socialist mind-set and debate pattern perfectly. Everyday people start out complaining about the tax, about the arrogance of government taxing every little thing, who to contact about the tax, how to protest the tax, etc.,, and all of the sudden a few libs show up with "It's Bush's Fault! It's the War! We have to pay for it somehow or our children's children's children will have to pay for it!" and then of course the dialogue degenerates to the usual "Republicans are all liars and evil morons". All from a story about government looking for more ways to squeeze taxes from somebody. What a joke.
The REAL question...
October 31, 2007 - 16:09 ET by c5thenShould government be allowed to take people's money in the form of taxes before those people even get it. That is a form of slavery.
If all the money "belongs" to the government, then why not just do away with money completely and allow people to just walk into all the government owned stores and take whatever it is that they want?
Obviously facts are not important to Leonhardt, because they will just serve to refute his socialist ideology.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Fred08.com
This all just proves that
October 31, 2007 - 16:59 ET by motherbeltThis guy is actually asking "How important is it to let people keep the money that they earn?”
This all just proves that to liberals, taxes aren't about raising money. Taxes are a means to punish those that have more than others, and to redistribute wealth.
Every time the discussion is tax rates, they talk about the "difference" between the wealthy and "working families" (no one wealthy actually works, you know).
And when asked how much the rich should actually pay in taxes, the answer is always "More."
Sheesh, permission to go
October 31, 2007 - 19:30 ET by bretzysdudeSheesh, permission to go lolcat on this guy!
Of course, I have a right to my own money!!! I EARNED it, bozo! What next, are you going to start advocating property crime, and say the robber who accosts me on the street has a right to my money as well?!? Get off the planet!
From each according to his
November 1, 2007 - 08:35 ET by dscottFrom each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. Karl Marx Since you have the ability to earn money, to the current crop of Socialists pretending to be Democrats, the thief is well within his rights to demand anything you have based on his not having it! This has nothing to do with his responsibility of getting an education or disciplining himself to work for what he wants. Since you work, he doesn't have to and shame on you for withholding material items that he lacks.
The thief is the victim here under the zero sum thinking of Socialists, the fact you have something means you deprived someone else in order to obtain it. That in a nutshell is the progressive tax system advocated by Socialists in their drive to redistribute wealth in the name of equality. So instead of the thief sticking a gun in your face saying hand it over to get something for nothing, the government does it for him under threat of jail if you don't comply. See how civilized thievery can be if only you will just go with the program? Enabling is a win/win proposition, the thief gets what he wants, the Socialists feel self righteous satisfaction and no one gets killed or injured in the process. Never mind you the individual got screwed in the process, in the game of winning and loosing, someone has to loose and it may as well be you for having the gall to take initiative in the first place, do as you are told and shut up. <sarcasm>
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.
Revisionist history alert
November 1, 2007 - 08:14 ET by KC Beach“The obvious conclusion is that moderate shifts in taxes don’t dictate economic growth,” Leonhardt wrote. “Mr. Bush’s father and Bill Clinton raised taxes — and the economy grew for almost the entire decade of the 1990s.
Seems like revisionist history to me. I seem to remember Clinton winning his first term based on the claim that we had the “worst economy in the last 50 years.” I also remember Clinton ushering in the Republican congress in 1992 after the biggest tax hike in our history. The Republicans then CUT TAXES, remember Clinton saying he cut taxes too much and that he didn’t even need the tax cut (but he took it anyway).
Seems to me the “obvious conclusion” is that liberals have never met a tax increase (on others) that they didn’t like.
THE NEW YORK SLIMES...
November 1, 2007 - 14:06 ET by danybhoyI will never spend anything to read the New York Slimes, they have not earned my buisiness. But this is just 1 more reason I should'nt be able to keep my money. Maybe David Leonhardt & his idiot fishwrap would feel differently if the Bush administration decided to take over the NYT & run it themselves. The hardline leftists who worship at the alter of the NYT would cry bloody murder. They would be right of course, but they should feel the same about the people as well.
"Some of us are wise, some of us are otherwise" Mark Levin