A review of history shows that smaller government and lower tax rates consistently prove more fiscally sound and achieve greater success at stimulating economies than do the big government, big spending policies of the current administration and fellow “progressive” Democrats.
The White House’s agenda is disastrous for economic growth and stability. Much of what the Oval Office occupier calls “tax cuts” are rewards for participating in an unproven, inefficient, unreliable “green energy” fairy tale. To a large degree “green energy” has proven to be nothing more than a thinly veiled means of redistributing wealth from taxpayers to the administration’s “progressive” political cronies.
Despite misinformation coming from the White House, faithfully parroted by their willfully complicit co-conspirators within the “progressive” Party Pravda, a one-time annual tax credit of $5,000 to hire an employee that will cost a business far more in salary and benefits is not a tax cut.
When “properly” spun by the misleader in chief, reductions in the payroll tax for working people sound good, but in reality are further defunding the nearly bankrupt Social Security Ponzi scheme.
The government loaned hundreds of billions of dollars to banks. In exchange for those billions the government received preferred shares of stock in those banks. Holders of preferred stock are first in line for any dividends paid to shareholders. Since the banks must pay the government back, holders of common stock will be receiving no dividends. Everyday investors will not buy stock in those banks; instead they will sell their shares in order to use that capital on investments that pay a dividend. This is de facto nationalization of the banking system.
Stress testing banks requires them to maintain balance sheets that are deemed “acceptable” by unelected, unaccountable government regulatory bureaucrats. In order to maintain those balances, banks are reluctant to lend money to small businesses, many of which are dependent on small loans from local banks to compensate for periodic income shortfalls experienced during normal business cycles.
If re-elected, the current White House occupant will continue to use class warfare as an excuse to reduce and eliminate taxes on political groups inclined to elect proponents of nanny state big government programs. As envisioned by “progressives”, eventually a majority of Americans will no longer pay any taxes. Meanwhile, the administration will increase the tax burden on successful businesses and individuals; the rich who do not pay “their fair share”. The majority of people will not care how high tax rates rise. Since they will no longer be paying taxes, higher tax rates will not affect them. As businesses fail under the added tax burdens, more people will be laid off and require government assistance. This will create a huge underclass of Americans dependent upon government for survival who will exist under government control. This is not coincidental.
Corporations don’t pay taxes. They pass the cost of those taxes on to consumers. The elimination of corporate taxes will lower the cost of goods to consumers and incentivize investments by individuals and investment groups. It will also eliminate the need for corporations to finance Congressional lobbying in pursuit of more favorable tax structures or the creation of additional tax loopholes.
A cut in business tax rates will leave more money in the hands of businesses that succeed, and help those businesses grow through the reinvestment of profit. A growing business has a need to hire new employees. Growing companies that are hiring workers instead of letting people go make employees more secure in their own economic future and thus more likely to engage in consumer spending.
A cut in personal income tax rates will help stimulate consumer spending, thus improving the demand side of the economic equation without cumbersome, inefficient, wasteful government spending that requires borrowing with interest or printing money, which fuels inflation.
It is abundantly clear which direction should be taken by the United States. Will America recover by electing a successful businessman? Or will the U.S. continue lurching “forward” in fits and starts until it collapses under the “stewardship” of an unqualified community organizer with a sketchy, predominantly hidden past who’s only business experience prior to seizing power was one real estate deal between himself and a convicted felon?