The Tax Rate Just Isn't That Big a Deal
- Details
- Category: Bryan Vinson
- Published on Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:08
- Written by Bryan Vinson
Tax increases, versus no new tax increases. This is the general impasse of the debt ceiling budget talks. For the first time in a long time both parties seem to realize and embrace some sort of reduction in spending in Washington DC. President Obama is looking, in the meantime, to get those tax rates raised on the wealthy that he missed out on at the end of 2010. Republicans are looking to not have a “read my lips” moment by allowing tax raises with them in control of the House. Four trillion in cuts over a decade isn’t a bad windfall in exchange for 700 billion in new taxes over a decade. It’s the principle that is at stake. It’s very important to liberals, and democrats, that the wealthy pay more in taxes.
The actual ability to deal with the spending problems of the federal government has long since overwhelmed the ability to tax the rich to fix the problem. That extra 700 billion over the next decade doesn’t even cover the current 1.6 trillion spending deficit, much less what were facing in the next ten years. While every penny helps, it could be pointed out that the desire to raise taxes on the wealthy is a moral stance, lacking in any other policy then that of “shared sacrifice” and the rich paying their “fair share.” It’s been stated many times that the top 10% of earners in this country contributed 70% of revenue raised through income taxes while the bottom 50% of earners contributed only 3%. (The top one percent paid out nearly 40% of what the government collected from income tax.)The concept of fair share seems entirely subjective. When Obama states that a wealthy person getting to keep their current tax rate while a needy person loses benefits because of spending cuts isn’t “right,” he misses the point that these two things are unrelated. The cuts aren’t being made because the rich don’t have a higher rate then they already have. They are being made because government spending is way more than what tax revenue from all income brackets can handle. Cuts will be needed whether we tax the wealthy more or not.
The main problem is spending, and maybe that’s why it’s difficult to accept tax raises on a small percentage of Americans as a serious solution to our debt problems. Is it a means to an end? Or is it the keeping of one man’s lost campaign promise of making the rich a little less rich? The ability of the government to dole out benefits and help is dwindling. We’re going to have to promote private sector job growth without artificially stimulating it through government spending, put our citizens on a path of self sufficiency instead of relying on this or that government program, and reform those programs that help those that truly need the help. In short, we’re going to have to return to the ideals that turned America into the nation of opportunity, and pay down our debt so that the government isn’t tied up when it does need to act. Tax increases are the most insignificant item on the negotiation table, yet provides the biggest stumbling block to raising the debt ceiling. If democrats get tax increases on the wealthy we're still facing the same debt problems. They had two years of complete control of Washingotn DC, and couldn't pull off raising taxes in that time. Now those tax raises become the one thing standing between our leaders and maintaining the full faith and credit of the United States Government.
