05 May 2006
Soaking the Rich
According to Stephen Moore in the May 4, 2006, Wall Street Journal, the George Bush way to soak the rich, apparently, is to give credit for income growth in the last three years to “investment tax cuts” advocated by the Republican Administration and Congress. He counts the increased taxes paid by the beneficiaries of that growth as a “substantial” shift of the tax burden onto the backs of the wealthy.
If the tax cuts provided the incentive for economic growth, then the beneficiaries of that growth should naturally be liable for a larger share of the tax burden. If the George Bush tax rate cuts were “among the most successful policies to soak the rich in American history,” then economic growth for them must have been a serendipitous consequence. After all, “soaking the rich” is a policy that should at least improve the welfare of the rest of us. Having it both ways would certainly be a good definition of “success.”
Of course, it may not have been intended that economic growth over the last three years only improved the welfare of the top tier of taxpayers, increasing their share of the economic pie but not their numbers. Or was it?
According to Stephen Moore in the May 4, 2006, Wall Street Journal, the George Bush way to soak the rich, apparently, is to give credit for income growth in the last three years to “investment tax cuts” advocated by the Republican Administration and Congress. He counts the increased taxes paid by the beneficiaries of that growth as a “substantial” shift of the tax burden onto the backs of the wealthy.
If the tax cuts provided the incentive for economic growth, then the beneficiaries of that growth should naturally be liable for a larger share of the tax burden. If the George Bush tax rate cuts were “among the most successful policies to soak the rich in American history,” then economic growth for them must have been a serendipitous consequence. After all, “soaking the rich” is a policy that should at least improve the welfare of the rest of us. Having it both ways would certainly be a good definition of “success.”
Of course, it may not have been intended that economic growth over the last three years only improved the welfare of the top tier of taxpayers, increasing their share of the economic pie but not their numbers. Or was it?
Comments:
Post a Comment
