If you are not going to give someone a tax cut, then they will be paying the same taxes, right? So if you are paying a lot more in taxes, isn't it really a tax increase? I don't understand the idea of a non-tax cut or tax non-cut, it smells like Washington mumbo jumbo to me. They are not giving money back as tax cuts because they aren't collecting the money in the first place! You can't give what you ain't got.
How can you put more money into the economy by asking people to not pay more in taxes? They have the same money today as they did yesterday. If I am still spending $100 at the grocery store this week just like I did last week, instead of spending $110, I don't have an extra $10 to go blow at Best Buy.
Let's be honest, what we are talking about here is a tax increase. It is a big increase for everyone making more than $250K per year. Half of the income generated by small business is also in this category. If you take revenue out of the hands of those businesses, they won't be hiring and they won't be making the capital investments which create jobs in other businesses. Probably the best thing successful businesses could do at this point is incorporate and quit getting penalized like some rich slacker.These folks get to pay twice the social security a working stiff does, get to pay all their insurance premiums and can't itemize them as deductions, in addition to assuming all the risk if their particular market segment tanks any given year. Obviously, they aren't paying their fair share so they should be paying your fair share as well (sarc/off).
The small business loan program and some targeted tax cuts - which are supposed to create more jobs - is the latest guilt trip/extortion attempt. So, the government proposes to take a big chunk of income from successful small businesses in order to pay for a loan program for less than successful small businesses - run by the government of course. Besides sounding like another business bail-out, why:
- would we trust the government to run another loan program? Might as well just throw the money out the window if their home loan programs and mortgage salvation programs are any indication.
- would we assume that the money borrowed from the government and spent by small business is more stimulative than money spent by small business without the government's interference? Do you think maybe the government is just grabbing some more of your tax dollars to - oh I don't even know what anymore, none of it goes where they are telling us anyway.
- would we not use the revenue to pay for some of the things this government has already bought? Like the $800+ billion stimulus program. Or the loss we are taking when the government gives --er sells at a significant discount -- GM stock to auto unions? Or the endless hundreds of $billions we keep giving to fannie and freddie so banks can continue to make a damn killing repossessing houses and taking a tax deduction for the original market value instead of the actual amount of the loan?
Furthermore, wasn't the idea to put money into the economy to get us out of the recession? How can they say on the one hand that those tax non-cuts are stimulative and don't cost much, but these tax non-cuts cost too much? If it doesn't produce much revenue, then it doesn't benefit the economy much either. And if the government takes an additional amount of money (in the form of tax increases) out of the economy, it is going to be the antithesis of stimulative (what is that recessive? Retarded?). They cannot say that all the money the government spent up to this point has done anything for the economy, or even saved the state and local jobs they claim. Pretty much it all just went to pay the bills, just like you and I would do.
And on a similar note, how can the president tell us with a straight face that some new spending program is paid for by not spending money we don't have on something else? I'm going to run down to the car dealer and buy a new Chevy and claim it's paid for because I'm not going to buy a new house I don't have the money for anyway? Never mind I have already signed a contract for that new house. Look, if my family has $50,000 per year and annual bills of $75K, we can't buy that $25K car and claim we are paying for it by not buying something else for $25K. We don't have $25K for anything, we don't even have $25K to cover the shortfall between income and bills.
How stupid do they think we are?