A recent headline in the liberal Mother Jones intoned that “The Republican Tax Bill Provides Huge Benefits to People Who Don’t Work. But Only if They’re Rich.”
Not exactly. What it does is cut taxes for people who pay taxes.
The headline insinuates that the poor will be punished by the tax bill. The reality is, the poor don’t pay federal income taxes. Indeed, almost half the country doesn’t pay federal income taxes.
So one has to ask: Why on Earth should a tax cut be expected to benefit people who don’t pay taxes?
And then there’s this bit of Mother Jones logic: One provision in the bill “would cost taxpayers nearly $600 billion over 10 years.” How, you ask? By cutting taxes by that amount.
How on Earth is cutting taxes supposed to “cost taxpayers”?
Is this the tax bill most of us would write? Probably not. But is it the end of the world?
Um, yes, according to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.
“It is the end of the world,” Pelosi said recently. “The debate on health care is life/death. This is Armageddon.”
But in fairness to Ms. Pelosi, even Fox News’ Leland Vittert made the tax cut bill sound like an absolute disaster in pummeling a Republican member of Congress in an interview over the weekend.
The anti-tax-cut hysteria from media and Democrats has been mindboggling. No, really -- it’s boggled minds. So much so that polls show they’ve convinced a majority of Americans their taxes won’t go down and the bill may even hurt them.
Even the liberal New York Times admits that the public’s perception of the bill “is at odds not only with the Republican talking points but also with the assessment of most economists who have studied the bill. The Tax Policy Center, a research group, recently found that under the Senate version of the plan, roughly three-quarters of American households would pay less in taxes next year. Last-minute changes made by a House-Senate conference committee could lead to a tax cut for even more Americans.”
Yet, media reports about the bill have resembled a field manual for class warfare.
But ask yourself: Isn’t it a good idea to let people of all stripes keep more of what they earn? And wouldn’t it likely stimulate economic growth, jobs and wages to make corporate taxes more competitive globally?
According to the nonprofit Tax Foundation, the “average top corporate income tax rate, across 188 countries and tax jurisdictions, is 22.5 percent” – close to what it would be under the tax bill.
Currently, “The United States has the third-highest general top marginal corporate income tax rate in the world, at 38.92 percent,” the foundation notes. “Due to the recent reduction in Chad’s corporate tax rate, the U.S. rate is exceeded only by the United Arab Emirates and Puerto Rico.”
As for “benefiting the wealthy,” ask yourself this: How are you supposed to lower tax rates, especially for job producers, without lowering taxes at the high end? Might be easier to make an omelet without breaking an egg: According to the nonpartisan National Taxpayers Union Foundation, the top 10 percent of earners pay more than 70 percent of all federal income taxes.
Why is the bias always in favor of the government’s taking of people’s money – and there’s nary a word about how much it really should be taking, or the effect on the economy?