Skip to main content

HOLD ON TO YOUR WALLETS

Democrats are already scrambling for your tax dollars

It's only January 2019, and the 2020 election cycle is upon us. Who can tax the most?

A headline from the Washington Times

'Over 90 percent?' Liberals eyeing White House vie for title of highest tax raiser

The story goes on to read:
Democrats eyeing bids for the White House also are competing to see who is willing to go the highest in raising taxes.Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a New York liberal who is too young constitutionally to become president, nevertheless set a benchmark when she suggested in a “60 Minutes” interview Sunday that rates for the wealthy could top out at up to 70 percent.Julian Castro, an Obama administration Cabinet official who has announced a testing-the-waters presidential committee, quickly jumped on the bandwagon by telling ABC News that it’s time the wealthy be tapped for their “fair share.”“There was a time in this country where the top marginal tax rate was over 90 percent,” Mr. Castro said in praising Ms. Ocasio-Cortez’s vision. “Even during Reagan’s era in the 1980s, it was around 50 percent.”Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a Massachusetts Democrat, who also has formed a presidential exploratory committee, hasn’t committed to a high-water mark, but she too spoke approvingly of major rate hikes.“Look, there was a time in a very prosperous America — an America that was growing a middle class, an America in which working families were doing better generation after generation after generation — where the top marginal rate was well above 50 percent,” Ms. Warren said on CNBC in July. “Ninety percent sounds pretty shockingly high. But what I’m trying to get at is this is not about negotiating over specific numbers.”
And then from Townhall Finance:
Ocasio-Cortez’s Fiscal Plan Will Lead To Giant Tax Hikes On Middle-Class & Lower-Income Americans
You'll have to read it to believe it, because it refuses to acknowledge real-world economics from the Democrats, at least the far-left socialist variety.
Brian Riedl of the Manhattan Institute opines in National Review about AOC’s proposed tax hike on the rich. He starts with a very appropriate economic observation.
A common liberal retort is that the economy survived 91 percent income-tax rates under President Eisenhower and 70 percent tax rates through the 1970s. That does not mean those policies raised much revenue. Tax exclusions and high income thresholds shielded nearly everyone from these tax rates — to the degree that the richest 1 percent of earners paid lower effective income-tax rates in the 1950s than today. In 1960, only eight taxpayers paid the 91 percent rate. Overall, today’s 8.2 percent of GDP in federal income-tax revenues exceeds that of the 1950s (7.2 percent), 1960s (7.6 percent), and 1970s (7.9 percent). Those earlier decades were not a tax-the-rich utopia.
But chances are, Warren and Ocasio-Cortez won't make it even to the primaries. One can only hope. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What happened when a Trump Supporter Challenged Me About the Wall

Vicky Alvear Schecter wrote in Medium | Poltics on Dec. 27, 2018 using her headline above. I thought it was pretty well written -- at least she made an attempt to keep her liberal bias out of it -- regardless of a few illogical fallacies

But she does make an attempt, in an effort to avoid her liberal bias, as she ponders  "...in order not to be accused by bias, I explained that I would only use conservative sources to prove my point."

To me, that's bias to start out with that premise. And I believe her premise is that she is against the wall. That's her stance. But she makes some good points, but some are skewed, even though she attempt to take a "conservative" approach, even by citing some "conservative" sources in her footnotes.

Here's the first problem: if she wanted to avoid bias, why not just stick to the the historical facts as written (when you can find them without bias), and not concern oneself with bias. "I must reject that becau…

Weekly wrap for Nov 9

After Thursday and Friday, it might seem the markets are down, but the weekly numbers tell a different story, with the three major indices up for the week. The Nasdaq, with its tech exposure, had the smallest increase. The tech sector is obviously under recent pressure. 

IndexNov 2Nov 9+/-%S&P 5002,723.062,781.01+ 57.95+ 2.12%Nasdaq7,356.997,406.90+ 49.91+ 0.67%DOW 3025,270.8325,989.30+ 718.47+ 2.84%
Over the last 12 months, the Dow is up 10.77 percent, the SP 500 up 7.6 percent, and the Nasdaq up 9.7 percent.  

The weekly chart of the SPY still indicates a long position in the broader market. (The blue line is the 34-week moving average; the red is the 13-week moving average).

















While the U.S. economy still seems to be just fine from most reports, investors seemed to worry about a couple of things on Thursday and Friday: 1) The Eurozone, 2) trade with China, and 3) the Fed and interest rates. Another topic of interest has been oil. 

First, it seems that the Fed has really not indicated …

U.S. Top Oil Producer, Thanks to Obama

\ You read that right.

The U.S. is now the largest oil producer in the world, according to the EIA, producing some 15 million BOE per day, surpassing Russia and Saudi Arabia. (Remember back when Jimmy Carter said in 1979 the answer to our energy problems was to wear a warmer sweater...but you probably don't. He actually said this on national TV).

The United States is the top oil-producing country in the world, with an average of 14.86 million b/d, which accounts for 15.3% of the world's production. This is down from 15.12 million b/d in 2015, but it was enough to land the United States in the No. 1 spot, which it has held for the past four years running. (Source: Investopedia.)

Guess who takes credit for it? Granted, this increase in production began in 2012, but only because of private industry and the fact that the price of oil was at nearly all-time highs. And it dipped in 2016 because of Obama's anti-oil policies! 

But here he is again


Former President Barack Obama sure l…