Thursday, July 12, 2012
Anyone who wants to study the tricks of propaganda
rhetoric has a rich source of examples in the statements of President Barack
Obama. On Monday, July 9th, for example, he said that Republicans "believe
that prosperity comes from the top down, so that if we spend trillions more on
tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, that that will somehow unleash jobs and
economic growth."
Let us begin with the word "spend." Is the
government "spending" money on people whenever it does not tax them
as much as it can? Such convoluted reasoning would never pass muster if the
mainstream media were not so determined to see no evil, hear no evil and speak
no evil when it comes to Barack Obama.
Ironically, actual spending by the Obama administration
for the benefit of its political allies, such as the teachers' unions, is not
called spending but "investment." You can say anything if you have
your own private language.
But let's go back to the notion of "spending"
money on "the wealthiest Americans." The people he is talking about
are not the wealthiest Americans. Income is not wealth -- and the whole tax
controversy is about income taxes. Wealth is what you have accumulated, and
wealth is not taxed, except when you die and the government collects an
inheritance tax from your heirs.
People over 65 years of age have far more wealth than
people in their thirties and forties -- but lower incomes. If Obama wants to
talk about raising income taxes, let him talk about it, but claiming that he
wants to tax "the wealthiest Americans" is a lie and an emotional
distraction for propaganda purposes.
The really big lie -- and one that no amount of hard
evidence or logic seems to make a dent in -- is that those who oppose raising
taxes on higher incomes simply want people with higher incomes to have more
money, in hopes that some of their prosperity will "trickle down" to
the rest of the people.
Some years ago, a challenge was issued in this column to
name any economist, outside of an insane asylum, who had ever said any such
thing. Not one example has yet been received, whether among economists or
anyone else. Someone is always claiming that somebody else said it, but no one
has ever been able to name and quote that somebody else.
Once we have put aside the lies and the convoluted use of
words, what are we left with? Not much.
Obama is claiming that the government can get more tax
revenue by raising the tax rate on people with higher incomes. It sounds
plausible, and that may be enough for some people, but the hard facts make it a
very iffy proposition.
This issue has been fought out in the United States in
several administrations -- both Democratic and Republican. It has also been
fought out in other countries.
What is the real argument of those who want to prevent
taxes from rising above a certain percentage, even for people with high
incomes? It has nothing to do with making them more prosperous so that their
prosperity will "trickle down."
A Democratic president -- John F. Kennedy -- stated the
issue plainly. Under the existing tax rates, he explained, investors'
"efforts to avoid tax liabilities" made them put their money in tax
shelters, because existing tax laws made "certain types of less productive
activity more profitable than other more valuable undertakings" for the
country.
Ironically, the Obama campaign's attacks on Mitt Romney
for putting his money in the Cayman Islands substantiate the point that
President Kennedy and others have made, that higher tax rates can drive money
into tax shelters, whether tax-exempt municipal bonds or investments in other
countries.
In other words, raising tax rates does not automatically
raise tax revenues for the government. Higher tax rates have often led to lower
tax revenues for states, the federal government and other countries.
Conversely, lower tax rates have often led to higher tax revenues. It all
depends on the circumstances.
But none of this matters to Barack Obama. If class warfare rhetoric about taxes leads to more votes for him, that is his bottom line, whether the government gets a dime more revenue or not. So long as his lies go unchallenged, a second term will be the end result for him and a lasting calamity for the country.
No comments:
Post a Comment