Darrell Kirkland: Liberals want to punish the wealthy
Published: Thursday, January 29, 2009 at 9:33 a.m.
Last Modified: Thursday, January 29, 2009 at 9:33 a.m.
I just love liberal logic, responding is like shooting deer at the zoo.
Here is a little update to Charles Rock's revisionist history (Voice, 1-18).
There were three major tax rate decreases in the 20th century for the top 1 percent of income earners. The first was Calvin Coolidge, who cut taxes from 73 percent to 24 percent. The economy responded by growing from $719 billion in 1921 to $1.1 trillion in 1929.
The second tax cut, by John Kennedy in 1961, cut taxes from 91 percent to 70 percent, and the economy responded by growing 42 percent from 1961 to 1965.
The third tax cut was from Ronald Reagan in 1981, when the tax rate went from 70 percent to 28 percent. Again, the economy grew by government tax revenues increasing from 1980 at $500 billion to $1.1 trillion in 1990.
Each time the tax rate decreased for the top 1 percent of income earners, their total tax liability paid to the federal government increased. That is every time, get it?
Another fact that Rock probably doesn't want to hear, because most liberals believe achievers in this country should be punished, is that the top 1 percent of income earners in this country pays almost 4 percent of all income revenue collected. The top 50 percent of wage earnings in this country pay 96 percent of all income taxes collected. This includes the proverbial "middle class," That only leaves 4 percent of total taxes collected for the bottom 50 percent of wage earners to pay.
Another fact here that I think is relevant is the graduated tax system that punishes high achievers in this country. The graduated tax system is part of a communistic dictatorship style of government which is intended to limit ones freedom and redistribute wealth from the achievers to the non-achievers.
For Rock to jump ship in his logical approach that higher taxes will keep criminals from committing crimes, is infantile at best or delusional at worst. White collar crimes have always existed, and will exist in any from of government or tax system. To imply that increasing taxes will inhibit white collar crimes is inane. What about increasing sentences and enforcing minimum sentencing guidelines?
The way government appropriates tax dollar spending has nothing to do with the amount of tax revenue collected. The government can choose to spend that money on infrastructure or welfare entitlement programs, the money still comes from the same pot.
Finally, Rock, it is not your job to save the rich "from themselves" or from anyone else for that matter. White collar crimes wouldn't cost the taxpayer any money if the government would stop bailing out the companies that the criminals ran into to ground. As an American it is your job to keep your eyes on your own finances and leave your fellow citizens' finances alone.
Reader comments posted to this article may be published in our print edition. All rights reserved. This copyrighted material may not be re-published without permission. Links are encouraged.
Comments are currently unavailable on this article