The Clinton Tax Myth (Clinton raised taxes on the top earners and then gained 22 million jobs?)The American people -- for good reason -- did not buy Clinton's talk, as we see that he got only 43 percent of the popular vote, which is less than the poor 45.6% picked up by Michael Dukakis four years earlier. Clinton walked into the White House with a solidly recovered economy and a victorious United States (following the Soviet collapse and Gulf War One), which was the best plate handed over to any U.S. president in recent memory. Indeed, the smorgasbord was better than what Clinton left for his successor, George W. Bush, which included an economy one foot in a recession, a crashing stock market, corporate America cooking the books, and a corroding jobs market (read here all the numbers).
The article you referenced goes on to say that many will get money rather than pay money.
And it also stated that ….<That does not mean such households end up paying no taxes whatsoever. For instance, those in the group still pay other taxes such as state and local income taxes, as well as property and sales taxes.>which you evidently failed to notice.
But one thing that the article didn’t note was the workings poor don’t stop paying SS for the entire year, unlike the trust fund pool setters that pay 15% on their dividends.
Any guess who pays the most in overall tax, as a percentage of income?
The haggardness of poverty is everywhere seen contrasted with the sleekness of wealth, the exhorted labor of some compensating for the idleness of others, wretched hovels by the side of stately colonnades, the rags of indigence blended with the ensigns of opulence; in a word, the most useless profusion in the midst of the most urgent wants.Jean-Baptiste Say
“In politics, stupidity is not a handicap.” -Napoleon
I agree with your observation and I too am dead set opposed to rentseeking arrangements. That's the problem with big government - it's where all the action is and it's often more efficient to deploy resources to corrupt the rules and rulemakers than it is to become more competitive. Your conclusion is something I disagree with.The heaviest burden is on small businesses. Corporations are big enough to influence government policy in their favor. Reverse corporate personhood.
Damaging, most certainly. Just as damaging, not by a country mile. The neoconservative douches have had most influence in foreign policy and they've screwed us pretty good. Liberal damage to society has been far more pervasive and wide reaching.I believe that neo conservatism is just as damaging.
Because there is an overlapping dynamic - Right vs. Left is overlapped by elite versus non-elite. Politicians of the Right and the Left have more in common, as members of the elite, than they do to their respective bases.Both extreme views are being used by the elite to keep average Americans divided and bickering amongst themselves. Great strategy.
If you decrease the cost of living, and hold incomes constant, then this frees up resources which can be taxed and the quality of life does not suffer any diminishment.Rather than simply creating simpler tax codes, you propose the equivalent to squeezing water from a rock. So what kind of revenue can the government raise on the broken backs of the poor? The middle class American is already seeing a significant increase in cost of living. Higher taxes would crush an already weakened economic class.