October 14, 2004
Subject: I'm confused
I got this e-mail from a friend of mine, thought it put some things in perspective.
This was passed to me, but I can't understand it. Maybe you can. I'm trying to get all this political stuff straightened out in my head so I'll know how to vote come November. Right now, we have one guy saying one thing. Then the other guy says something else. Who to believe. Lemme see, have I got this straight?
Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia - good...
Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq - bad...
Clinton spends 77 billion on war in Serbia - good...
Bush spends 87 billion in Iraq - bad...
Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia - good...
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...
Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists- good...
Bush liberates 25 million from a genocidal dictator - bad...
Clinton bombs Chinese embassy - good...
Bush bombs terrorist camps - bad...
Clinton commits felonies while in office - good...
Bush lands on aircraft carrier in jumpsuit - bad...
No mass graves found in Serbia - good...
No WMD found Iraq - bad...
Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton - good...
Economy on upswing under Bush - bad...
Clinton refuses to take custody of Bin Laden - good...
World Trade Centers fall under Bush - bad...
Clinton says Saddam has nukes - good...
Bush says Saddam has nukes - bad...
Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq - good...
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...
Terrorist training in Afghanistan under Clinton - good...
Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan - bad...
Milosevic not yet convicted - good...
Saddam turned over for trial - bad...
Ahh, it's so confusing!
Every year an independent tax watchdog group analyzes the average tax burden
on Americans, and then calculates the "Tax Freedom Day". This is the day
after which the money you earn goes to you, not the government. This year, tax
freedom day was April 11th. That's the earliest it has been since 1991. It's
latest day ever was May 2nd, which occurred in 2000. Notice anything special
about those dates?
Recently, John Kerry gave a speech in which he claimed Americans are
actually paying more taxes under Bush, despite the tax cuts. He gave
no explanation and provided no data for this claim.
Another interesting fact: Both George Bush and John Kerry are wealthy men.
Bush owns only one home, his ranch in Texas. Kerry owns 4 mansions,
all worth sever al million dollars. (His ski resort home in Idaho is an old barn
brought over from Europe in pieces. Not your average A-frame).
Bush paid $250,000 in taxes this year; Kerry paid $90,000. Does that
sound right? The man who wants to raise your taxes obviously has figured out
a way to avoid paying his own.
So perfectly said.
Thank you.
One comment: I think what Kerry said about more taxes being paid is, in fact, true. If more people are working (but paying taxes at a lower rate), it can offset the revenue "loss" of lowering taxes. And that's actually one of the big problems with the way the tax-increase/ tax-decrease in revenue is defined; politicians claiming that raising a tax will bring in enough money to fund XYZ program are assuming that nothing will change when they levy that tax -- an assumption which is manifestly WRONG. Now at the lowest end (say an increase between a 1% and a 1.15% flat income tax rate), this may very well lead to an increase in funding, as the increase in the number of people who would look for tax breaks or be put out of work would be made up for by the people who would pay more tax. Past a certain point (where IMO we are now), a decrease in the tax rate can very well help put people to work and lessen the number of people who look for tax shelters or write-offs. And the OBM knows this very well, and they don't use modeling tools available to them for reasons I don't well understand....
there's a reason i'm not a politician...
It's true...every time there has been a tax decrease; the federal government has seen an increase in revenue.
Thats the flaw in the DemocRats "soak the rich" class warfare tax statements. If you increase the tax rate, there is no incentive to invest money and earn more, and every incentive to use tax shelters, etc. In the long run it slows down the economy, and the government ends up losing revenue. And it's the middle and lower classes
who end up losing the most.
Too bad they don't teach basic economics in school anymore, or the Dems class warfare rot wouldn't fly anymore. The average voter doesn't realize that the economy ISN'T a zero sum game as the Dems would have them believe.