By Brian Yates
Cut taxes, spur economy
A common complaint among liberals is that tax cuts cause a deficit and they fail to stimulate the economy. They say that we need more taxes because the government has to be able to perform its duties. That is partly true; some taxes are necessary for the government to function, but tax cuts do not “steal the surplus” and slow down the economy. A surplus is simply money that you have been overcharged. Therefore, when you hear about a $5 trillion surplus, you’re really hearing about $5 trillion that is rightfully yours. Which is why it makes sense to give it back to you. If you go into a store and are overcharged for your purchases, you’re going to want a partial refund aren’t you? Should your government be any different?
All through the 2000 campaign, Al Gore charged that the Bush tax cuts were for the rich – why should they get their money back? They don’t need any more money, right? Well, for one thing, the tax cuts were not simply for “the rich.” They were for everybody. Wealthy citizens received more money back than did people who paid less in taxes. Why? Because they paid more in taxes. Folks, the top 50% of Americans pay 96% of all federal income taxes. The top 10% pay 66.5% of all income taxes. And the top 1% of Americans pay 36.2% of all federal income taxes. In other words, the bottom 50% of Americans pay only 4% of the taxes. The bottom 75% pay only 16.5% of taxes. Poor Americans pay very little in taxes; nearly all the revenue is taken from people that earn much more money. So why shouldn’t they get some of their money back too? Charging that “giving the rich back their money is greedy” is simply class warfare on display. Not to mention, only the top 1% are really “the rich.” $150,000 a year is certainly comfortable, but it’s by no means “rich.” Rich refers to the people with millions upon millions of dollars.
Now, how do tax cuts stimulate the economy? Because when people get their rebate, they’re going to invest it. There are a variety of ways this is done. But it will be invested in the economy in some way, shape, or form, creating new jobs, and thereby stimulating the economy. Some of you may now be yelling: “But Yates, why not just let the government keep it and invest it itself?” Because when the government attempts to control different facets of the economy, things get screwed up. Look at rent control in New York. You had a huge housing shortage even though there were plenty of apartments to go around, but because the government made it their business to limit how much landlords could charge, many people had nowhere to live. When the rent control laws were repealed, the housing shortage vanished.
If the government really wanted to stimulate the economy, they would cut much of their spending. Rather than spend your tax dollars on things they really don’t need to, let them give it back to you to choose how to spend it. Rather than force me to give part of my weekly paycheck to the Social Security fund, let me plan for my own retirement. Rather than force me to give up part of my paycheck to pay for a prescription drug plan, let me buy my own medicine.
Folks, when you look throughout history at examples of capitalism at work, you see that private enterprise is much more profitable than government intervention. That means a stronger economy. Private enterprise is the best and only fix to a down economy.
