Thursday, November 1, 2012

Tax Cuts for the Rich

We interrupt our regularly scheduled programming for an interesting tidbit on the effect of tax cuts for the rich.

As you may know, the GOP has consistently favored tax cuts for the wealthy, saying it helps economic growth and creates jobs. Obama wants to restore the rates on those making over $250,000 to what they were in the Bill Clinton era, a modest rise of 3 to 4 per cent.

Anyway, the Congressional Research Service conducted a study on tax cuts for the wealthy and found, not surprisingly, that the effect is more money for the wealthy. They don't help economic growth and create jobs. Tax cuts for middle class help the economy more because those people tend to go out and spend money.

Well, the GOP didn't like this report and asked them to withdraw it but the N.Y. Times published it this week. Here's the link:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/01/congressional-research-service_n_2059156.html

That's why Tuesday's election is going to be important for the kind of country we have. The GOP has been very effective is convincing half the country that tax cuts for the top one per cent is good for the country. We will see if the voters give a mandate to that idea by electing Romney. 

Unfortunately, in this country, your vote only makes a difference if you live in a swing state like Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, Nevada, Colorado, Florida, New Hampshire and Virginia.

The person who gets the most votes doesn't get to be president as Al Gore found out in 2000. It all depends on which candidates wins which states and in about 40 of them, one party or the other is certain to win.  

We find out a lot of answers Tuesday or Wednesday morning unless there is a recount.

FD

9 comments:

  1. Dear FD,
    Florida was the eye of the storm in the Gore/W election, so I'm sure you know all about it. I live in MO, which was a bit of a swing state four years ago and is considered pink now. They did finally call MO for McCain several days after that election, but I'm not convinced they ever finished counting all the votes. Anyway, I'm with you and will cast my vote on Tuesday.

    Equally important to the Presidential vote is sending folks to Congress and the Senate who will be supportive. In my state it is extremely important that we re-elect Claire McCaskill to the Senate. Her opponent is Todd Akin... yeah, that guy. Women's rights have never been in more jeopardy.
    "Vote blue and vote often," is my motto. J/k
    Here's hoping,
    maryann

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, women's rights are certainly in jeopardy if the likes of men like Todd Akin get in office. Good luck on re-electing Claire McCaskill.

      FD

      Delete
  2. Thanks, FD. That's good information for people to have.

    aisha

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Happy to pass along that information. This is a critical election to the future of the country.

      FD

      Delete
  3. This makes so much sense. I can't see how people don't see it. If someone has a lot of money and gets a little more from a tax break, what do they do? They save it.
    If someone is just getting by, and gets a little money from a tax break, they run out and buy things they have been needing or wanting but couldn't afford. That creates jobs too, because someone has to sell them that stuff. If there were anything much being made in this country, that would create jobs too, but people like Mitt sending his companies overseas doesn't help.
    I live in a swing state and I will vote.

    ReplyDelete
  4. What you say makes so much sense and yet the GOP has success convincing citizens that the rich people are the job creators who create more jobs when they get tax breaks. As you pointed out, they actually tend to ship jobs overseas.

    Anyway, good to hear you are a swing state voter who tends to vote. I did the early voting thing.

    FD

    ReplyDelete
  5. This is a great point to make and one that I wish we could bring home to people over here too. Personally I find the idea that the rich need incentives in the form of tax cuts, whereas the disadvantaged and vulnerable need incentives in the form of benefit cuts, quite a paradox.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Very good point Alice. Doesn't seem to make sense to give the rich more and take away from the disadvantaged and vulnerable. Kind of Robin Hood in reverse. But the rich can fund candidates and think tanks to sponsor their views. The disadvantaged can't afford to do that.

    FD

    ReplyDelete