For Michele Bachmann, Ignorance is Bliss

Gary Vincent _ Yes, "ignorance is bliss" as your hero Brad Bannon said...

How can people be so stupid ? You explain it SO WELL. How could I call it SIMPLTON STUPIDITY ???

_____

Gary wrote:

"If I am the government and I tax Mr. Murdoch on the $50,000,000.00 that his company gives him this year at a rate of 10%, the government will receive $5,000,000.00 in revenue. If instead, I tax him at a very reasonable 20%, the government will receive $10,000,000.00 in revenue and Mr. Murdoch will seem less like a criminal to honest people. This means that the government receives an additional $5,000,000.00 in revenue by raising his taxes "

Gary is a genius !!! How could I not see !!! Look at his proof !!!

1BUT, things don't work that way. Should be easy to find IRS records that what Gary says is true. By what Gary says the opposite must be true, reduces income rate on rich, revenue goes down. Not what President John F. Kennedy said. He was not as smart as Gary.

Gary said something like FDR way was tried and true. Our way is more so. Took less years too. And no need for World war:

1. "The tax cuts of the 1920s"

"The share of the tax burden paid by the rich rose dramatically as tax rates were reduced. The share of the tax burden borne by the rich (those making $50,000 and up in those days) climbed from 44.2 percent in 1921 to 78.4 percent in 1928."

"Tax rates were slashed dramatically during the 1920s, dropping from over 70 percent to less than 25 percent. What happened? Personal income tax revenues increased substantially during the 1920s, despite the reduction in rates. Revenues rose from $719 million in 1921 to $1164 million in 1928, an increase of more than 61 percent."

2. "Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now." JFK

"Just as happened in the 1920s, the share of the income tax burden borne by the rich increased following the tax cuts. Tax collections from those making over $50,000 per year climbed by 57 percent between 1963 and 1966, while tax collections from those earning below $50,000 rose 11 percent. As a result, the rich saw their portion of the income tax burden climb from 11.6 percent to 15.1 percent."

3. "The Reagan tax cuts"

"The share of income taxes paid by the top 10 percent of earners jumped significantly, climbing from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. The top 1 percent saw their share of the income tax bill climb even more dramatically, from 17.6 percent in 1981 to 27.5 percent in 1988."

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2003/08/The-Historical-Lessons-of-Lower-Tax-Rates

4. Clinton increased taxes while Newt reduced. More revenue when taxes reduced for rich plus reducing government spending (leaves more money for private sector):

"The 1993 Clinton Tax Increase Did Not Lead to the Budget Surpluses of the Late 1990s"

"Since the Clinton Administration’s own numbers reveal that the 1993 tax increase was a failure, we have to find a different reason to explain why the budget shifted to surplus in the late 1990s."

"Fortunately, there’s no need for an exhaustive investigation. The Historical Tables on OMB’s website reveal that good budget numbers were the result of genuine fiscal restraint. Total government spending increased by an average of just 2.9 percent over a four-year period in the mid-1990s. This is the reason why projections of $200 billion-plus deficits turned into the reality of big budget surpluses."

"Republicans say the credit belongs to the GOP Congress that took charge in early 1995. Democrats say it was because of Bill Clinton. But all that really matters is that the burden of federal spending grew very slowly. Not only was there spending restraint, but Congress and the White House agreed on a fairly substantial tax cut in 1997."

"To sum things up, it turns out that spending restraint and lower taxes are a recipe for good fiscal policy. This second chart (click to enlarge) modifies the first chart, showing actual deficits under this small-government approach compared to the OMB and CBO forecasts of what would have happened under Clinton’s tax-and-spend baseline."

http://biggovernment.com/dmitchell/2011/02/10/the-1993-clinton-tax-increase-did-not-lead-to-the-budget-surpluses-of-the-late-1990s/

__

Example of raising taxes _ Costing jobs and lowering government revenue:

"Falling Tax Would Lift All Yachts"

"The nation's luxury-boat builders, many clinging to their businesses after two years of plunging sales, finally got some good news last week."

"President Bush, in his budget proposals, asked Congress to repeal the 10 percent luxury tax on yachts priced at more than $100,000 (and also on private planes that cost more than $250,000). The repeal, which Congress is likely to approve, would be retroactive to Feb. 1."

"Since the tax took effect in January 1990, hundreds of builders of large and small boats have spoken of it as a stake driven into the heart of an industry already suffering from the recession, tighter bank rules on financing and fallout from the gulf war."

"In the last two years, about 100 builders of luxury boats -- recreational craft costing more than $100,000 -- cut their operations severely and laid off thousands of workers. Some builders filed for protection from creditors under Chapter 11 of the Federal Bankruptcy Code."

"Now, sales personnel and owners of marine companies are hoping they will be swamped by buyers who have held off in the expectation that the tax will be repealed."

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/02/07/business/falling-tax-would-lift-all-yachts.html

5. IRS collected revenue increased with Bush's tax cuts. Rich paid higher % of total revenue collected:

“According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Bush tax cuts actually shifted the total tax burden farther toward the rich so that in 2000-2004, total income tax paid by the top 40% of income-earners grew by 4.6% to 99.1% of the total.”

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/lying_about_bushs_tax_cuts.html

_____

Gary wrote “Mr. Hedges needs to refer to the main source of recovery information for the current economic situation. That is "The Great Depression". If you cannot acknowledge how and what was done to rectify this situation between 1930 and 1948”

Look how long it took to end Great Depression. Some say it took WW 2. How has obama plans worked out. No jobs in latest labor report. There is a much longer record that reducing taxes spurs economic growth than FDR's plan. Tax cuts gave us LONGEST BULL MARKET in our Nation’s history. Being stopped by Bill Clinton & obama's SOCIAL JUSTICE.

_____

Gary wrote “It's just a coincidence to you that it makes the rich, richer and more powerful and the poor, poorer and more inconsequential.”

What is ironic, poor were harmed more in the name of SOCIAL JUSTICE by Democrats. Poor are losing their homes, no jobs, programs for poor no longer sustainable. Bill Clinton, lawyer obama, and Acorn’s housing plan for poor to buy homes caused catastrophe.

obama’s way has keep private sector saving their money. Money not invested, which does not create JOBS...

Bill Hedges of MO 11:59PM September 04, 2011