Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Not Stealing Is Giving
Gene Sperling, Hillary Clinton's chief economic advisor, recently said, "The question is, should we be giving an extra $120 billion to people in the top 1 percent?" What? Is there some new plan to give money to the richest in the country? Is there some new subsidy afoot that will benefit everyone in the top 1%? No, as it turns out, he was refering to cutting taxes. Now, last I heard, when you tax someone, you are taking money away from them; when you cut taxes, you are taking less money from them. Only a Democrat could think stealing less from someone is giving them something.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Of course I agree, but I can't imagine why a government that issues a fiat currency needs to levy any taxes at all. The only political candidate who shows any sign of understanding this is Dave Barry.
Because someone in the 80's listened to Milton Friedman about not just printing all the money you wanted to pay for stuff, like the U.S., Britain, and all of South America did (and we see what happened in S.A., where they didn't learn as quickly as did the U.S. and U.K.).
Besides, for the Demorats, taxes have nothing to do with income and everything to do with social engineering.
I suspect that social engineering is the primary purpose of the income tax. We have the Federal Reserve to control the money supply, hypothetically.
Post a Comment