Liberals Think The Answer To Every Situation Is Higher Taxes

 How many times must liberals be shown that what they believe and try to force people to practice, via tax codes, is simply incorrect? Two recent occurrences got me thinking about this subject: (1) Obama’s appearance at the National Prayer Breakfast and his call for higher taxes, and (2) Obama’s call, in his State of the Union address (SOTU), the name of fairness, for corporations to pay more taxes.

President Barack Hussein Obama appeared on Thursday, February 2, 2012, at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington DC. Obama did not actually say that Jesus would back higher taxes. But he did say, “I’m willing to give something up as somebody who’s been extraordinarily blessed, and give up some of the tax breaks that I enjoy, I actually think that’s going to make economic sense. But for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’s teaching that “for unto whom much is given, much shall be required.” Does “give up some of the tax breaks” equate to increasing taxes? If the answer is “yes” (as this article contends) then an examine of tax increases and the resulting consequences is certainly in order.

In 2003, in “The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates,” Dr. Daniel Mitchell offered some historical incite into tax rates and revenue generation in the US. He says that when tax rates are reduced, the economy’s growth rate improves and living standards increase. But when higher tax rates are invoked, economic performance suffers and stagnant tax revenues occur. When lower tax rates are present, lower income citizens bear a lower share of the tax burden, a consequence that should lead class-warfare politicians (such as Obama) to support lower tax rates.

In the face of this historical evidence, why do liberals still call for higher taxes?

President Obama said, in his SOTU (at the 3:37 mark), “We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by. Or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules.” At the 11:48 mark, he said, “No American company should be able to avoid paying its fair share of taxes by moving jobs and profits overseas. From now on every multinational company should have to pay a basic minimum tax.”  [emphasis mine]  Before all of you liberals start screaming that I am “cherry picking,” or that I took his remarks “out of context,” let me continue. Obama wants to, through the tax code, force businesses to take actions that will reduce profits. If cheaper labor can be found overseas, corporate profits will increase. So he calls for a basic minimum tax to support those whose jobs were outsourced. Increased taxes reduce corporate profit.

The debate over the impact of tax increases currently focuses upon small businesses. Most small businesses use the individual, rather than corporate, tax process. If they make earnings of more than $200,000 or $250,000 a year, under the Obama proposal, their top marginal tax rate would go up. Liberals are calling for tax increases, primarily on upper-income taxpayers and businesses, including small businesses, the primary job creators in the country. Analysis by the National Federation of Independent Business shows that businesses that employ 20 to 250 people would be most affected.

And who can ever forget Obama’s call, in 2008, for raising capital gains tax? Obama acknowledged that raising the capital gains tax rate could reduce revenues, but he remained interested in raising the rate “for purposes of fairness.”

So liberals’ answer to every situation is to raise taxes. They call for increases in the name of fairness. They have no concern for the consequences of tax increases, particularly on jobs. They have no concern for business profits. They have no concern whatsoever for history. All they believe is that it is “fair” for the rich to pay increased taxes. They never seem to bother with history, to examine the consequences of their actions. Does the phrase, “There is none so blind as he who refuses to see” come to mind?