To tax (increase) or not to tax (increase)
The headlines contain nothing but news of this “compromise”. Maybe its good maybe its bad, but that is a subject for another post. My issue here is one of word games.
We are not talking about tax cuts, we are talking about a tax increase. If the cuts are not extended, what will have happened is taxes will have been increased by the expiring of a statute not the passing of a bill. It’s a technical difference, not an actual difference.
The other popular word game being played is that keeping the current tax rates will cost the government something. This is nonsense. It would be just as accurate to say that not raising taxes to cover 100% of GDP will cost the government 10 trillion dollars (based on 2009 GDP). Again, we are talking about a tax increase, not a decrease.
We currently tax away 28.2% of every dollar made in the US. Is that not enough? In Europe taxes as a portion of GDP are up around 40% or higher on the whole. They are having big problems also. Clearly no matter how much a government taxes, if you can’t control your spending than it doesn’t matter.
Again, the problem here is spending. It needs to be cut. We need to roll back entitlements and let people have more control over their own success or failure. Yes, those who can’t work, those who can’t feed themselves and their children, those who are homeless, etc, they need help. I don’t have a problem with helping them. I do, however, resent being told that anyone doesn’t pay enough taxes when the government is primarily involved with wasting my money.
You can tax the rich however much you want, but you have to remember that they have the means to do their business elsewhere. If you give them cause to do so than that tax revenue will be lost entirely.