ran 3.8 miles
From WashingtonExaminer.com, in an article written by Senior Political Analyst Michael Barone, he questions whether Barack Obama took Tax 1 in law school. Following Obama’s speech at George Washington University on April 13, which was coincidentally the day before Standard and Poor’s elected to reduce the government’s credit rating to “negative”, he seemed to be implying that he could acquire all the money we need to balance our budget by placing higher taxes on the rich.
Actually, according to the Wall Street Journal, if the government were to confiscate every dollar from those claiming a taxable income in excess of $1 million in 2008, that amount would not have reached the $1.3 trillion needed to close the current federal budget deficit.
Barone elaborated on a concept that he paid attention to when he was in Tax 1 in law school and that concept was the fact that when you reduce income tax rates, high earners have more taxable income and when you raise them they have less. As odd as that sounds at first glance, you can either go attend a semester of Tax 1 at a law school to fully understand it or accept the fact that there is a deliberate reason why federal tax revenues since World War II have gravitated to a solid 18 or 19 percent of gross domestic product, regardless of tax rates. The reason for this is, historically, higher rates tend to result in less taxable income.
If you need a breath of fresh air, check out Fairtax.org. It is the most effective and feasible solution to America’s economic woes. And future presidents and members of Congress would not be able to abuse this method of taxation as a deceitful tool to confuse and rob tens of millions of Americans. Barack Obama, for one, would have no leg to stand on or any arguably productive ideas to submit under the Fairtax. It says a lot about the role of Washington when a system as functional and as positive as the Fairtax is so difficult to pass in Congress.
1,397.4 miles to go.
From WashingtonExaminer.com, in an article written by Senior Political Analyst Michael Barone, he questions whether Barack Obama took Tax 1 in law school. Following Obama’s speech at George Washington University on April 13, which was coincidentally the day before Standard and Poor’s elected to reduce the government’s credit rating to “negative”, he seemed to be implying that he could acquire all the money we need to balance our budget by placing higher taxes on the rich.
Actually, according to the Wall Street Journal, if the government were to confiscate every dollar from those claiming a taxable income in excess of $1 million in 2008, that amount would not have reached the $1.3 trillion needed to close the current federal budget deficit.
Barone elaborated on a concept that he paid attention to when he was in Tax 1 in law school and that concept was the fact that when you reduce income tax rates, high earners have more taxable income and when you raise them they have less. As odd as that sounds at first glance, you can either go attend a semester of Tax 1 at a law school to fully understand it or accept the fact that there is a deliberate reason why federal tax revenues since World War II have gravitated to a solid 18 or 19 percent of gross domestic product, regardless of tax rates. The reason for this is, historically, higher rates tend to result in less taxable income.
If you need a breath of fresh air, check out Fairtax.org. It is the most effective and feasible solution to America’s economic woes. And future presidents and members of Congress would not be able to abuse this method of taxation as a deceitful tool to confuse and rob tens of millions of Americans. Barack Obama, for one, would have no leg to stand on or any arguably productive ideas to submit under the Fairtax. It says a lot about the role of Washington when a system as functional and as positive as the Fairtax is so difficult to pass in Congress.
1,397.4 miles to go.
