A New Way Of Spinning Tax Cuts
A New Way Of Spinning Tax Cuts: If political rhetoric were a road, the phrase, “tax cuts for the wealthy” would be a waist deep rut because Democratic pols and pundits use it so often. It doesn’t matter whether you’re talking about getting rid of the marriage penalty, giving people a tax credit for having children, or even cutting the tax rates for the poor, there are always a gaggle of Democrats mindlessly repeating, “It’s a tax cut for the wealthy, it’s a tax cut for the wealthy, squawk, Tom Daschle wants a cracker! Squawk!” Ok..OK, I made up the parrot thing, but the Dems really do beat the whole “tax cuts for the wealthy” thing into the ground.
I find that to be interesting because at it’s heart, the ranting about “tax cuts for the wealthy” is really just a subtle way to stoke people’s envy to the point that people that they’ll act against their own best interests in order to hurt the rich. In effect, the message that the Democrats are trying to get across when they cry, “no tax cuts for the wealthy” is, “OK, we can’t snow you. You are going to get a tax cut. But, some rich jerk is going to get a tax cut too, one that’s even bigger than yours. Isn’t it worth it for you to forego your tax cut if you can stick it to old man moneybags at the same time?”
Let me show you some stats from the Washington Post about the Bush tax cuts that bear out what I’m saying. Because of the Bush tax cuts, the poorest among us will pay 10% less in taxes, the next quintile up will pay 12% less, the people between $45,000 and $337,000 will pay 7% less, and the richest 1% will see their taxes drop 15%.
This is the “Tax cut for the rich” that the Democrats have been complaining about….but what do you know, EVERY INCOME GROUP is going to see their taxes drop. Of course, the Washington post has no problem giving these numbers the old liberal spin…
“Three successive tax cuts pushed by President Bush will leave middle-income taxpayers paying a greater share of all federal taxes by the end of the decade, according to new analyses of the Bush administration’s tax policies.
…The result is that a broad swath of lower-middle, middle- and upper-middle-income people, as well as some rich Americans, will carry a greater share of the federal tax burden after the laws passed in the past three years are fully implemented. While taxes are scheduled to decline for all income groups, those earning more than $28,000 but less than $337,000 will end up paying a greater share of the taxes than they did before the changes.
The findings, by two groups that have been critical of the Bush administration’s tax policies, add a new wrinkle to the increasingly contentious debate over the fairness of Bush’s tax policies and which income groups would benefit most.”
So you see? The middle class should have risen up as a whole and
cut off their nose to spite their face rejected lower taxes because they’re going to be paying a, “greater share of all federal taxes by the end of the decade.” I tell you what, let Bush keep giving people back more of their own money and let the Democrats keep coming up with different ways to explain why that’s a bad thing and then let’s see what happens in 2004.
Folks gotta read this, “I Don’t Like Roger Ebert.” (Via Memeorandum.) I just tweeted @ CalebHowe the other day, so
Let’s be honest here: if your car is stolen by aliens, bigfoot molests you, or you think there’s a ghost
In his most vehement defense of the war in Iraq to date, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld told reporters