Wednesday, February 18, 2004
THERE THEY GO AGAIN...
Apparently, someone noticed the rant of the biased press from yesterday's post, because the local Post and Courier did a little better job on the story of Governor Sanford's tax cut plan. At least they have more than one source and a few economists included in the story...but it's still not good enough.
To recap: The Governor of South Carolina wants to lower income taxes across the board. From 7-percent to 4.75-percent over the next 10-years. All of these cuts would be made if AND ONLY IF revenues for the state are in excess of 2-percent each year. This is not hard to figure out for most people, but those that stand against any reduction of political power (the power to spend your money for you) are still scrambling to find anything to use against the basic logic of the plan. I'll do this one more time for you, so you get the message:
1. The Governor wants to lower the income tax by 2.25 percent over the next ten years (beginning in 2005). Less than 1/4 of 1-percent each year.
2. He would do this ONLY if revenues to the state are growing at more than 2-percent. Anything less than that, and there would be no tax cut for that year.
Let's say for the sake of argument, revenues ONLY grow 2.25-percent each year. The government would be able to increase spending by 2-percent each year, and give back the 1/4 of 1-percent left over. If revenues increase 4-percent, the government would be able to increase spending 3.75-percent, and give back the same 1/4 of 1-percent.
See? It's simple...effective, and logical. Perhaps that's why the usual emotionally challenged liberal socialists are fighting so hard against it?
So once again, the press is a willing accomplice to the liberal message. Some selected clips from the story:
"...the cuts he has in mind could damage the state's long-term fiscal well-being, a range of economists and policy experts say..."
--A RANGE of economists and policy experts, eh? See the recap above and try to figure out how ANYONE could be against what the Governor wants to do.
"...But according to the liberal-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, state income and other tax cuts between 1994 and 2001 resulted in an annual tax-revenue loss of $40 billion..."
--At least they admit their liberal-leaning. So we actually shouldn't pay attention to them because of what we know about liberals...they LIE and they're WRONG.
"...states were able to justify the tax cuts they made because their revenues were inflated to unprecedented levels by the booming Internet economy..."
--Whoops...maybe they didn't listen to the "liberal-leaning" economists from the previous statement. I thought they had a revenue loss? This section says the same states had revenues that were inflated by the booming economy. Hmmm.
Finally, there's this from the story:
"...Citadel accounting professor Wes Jones, however, said the annual tax savings 10 years from now for a family of four earning $40,000 would be about $500, or an extra $9.60 a week. A family of four with annual income of $100,000 would get a bigger break, about $2,000 annually, or $38 a week..."
Now, a lot of people are going to look at those numbers and pooh-pooh them as being not enough to "stimulate the economy"...and to some degree, they might be correct. Let's take the smallest number (because the libs will make sure you only hear about this one) of $9.60 a week. What would you do with an extra 10-bucks a week? Would it pay for a tank of gas? A pizza? A higher bus fare to keep CARTA alive? Sure...but what if you put that 10-bucks a week automatically into a 401K or other retirement plan?
10-dollars a week...40-dollars a month...matched by an employer if you have such a plan...COULD be 80-dollars a month. Figure at 5-percent compound interest over the next 30-years before you retire. Tax free, of course...that's about 130-thousand dollars provided you start with nothing. If you already have a 401K or IRA plan, it's even more. Of course, that's IF YOU DON'T SPEND IT. If you're able to pay your bills NOW on the income you earn, then I suggest you set it up so that any tax cut you get does exactly as I pointed out. Think about it...you're not really going to miss the money, are you? The libs will make sure you know you're not REALLY going to miss the money, believe me...
They want to convince you that it's no big deal and government would do a lot better if they never gave it back to you. But if you did JUST as I suggest, that $9.60 a week is more like $115,000 over the next 30-years.
Are you sure you don't want the tax cut?
Apparently, someone noticed the rant of the biased press from yesterday's post, because the local Post and Courier did a little better job on the story of Governor Sanford's tax cut plan. At least they have more than one source and a few economists included in the story...but it's still not good enough.
To recap: The Governor of South Carolina wants to lower income taxes across the board. From 7-percent to 4.75-percent over the next 10-years. All of these cuts would be made if AND ONLY IF revenues for the state are in excess of 2-percent each year. This is not hard to figure out for most people, but those that stand against any reduction of political power (the power to spend your money for you) are still scrambling to find anything to use against the basic logic of the plan. I'll do this one more time for you, so you get the message:
1. The Governor wants to lower the income tax by 2.25 percent over the next ten years (beginning in 2005). Less than 1/4 of 1-percent each year.
2. He would do this ONLY if revenues to the state are growing at more than 2-percent. Anything less than that, and there would be no tax cut for that year.
Let's say for the sake of argument, revenues ONLY grow 2.25-percent each year. The government would be able to increase spending by 2-percent each year, and give back the 1/4 of 1-percent left over. If revenues increase 4-percent, the government would be able to increase spending 3.75-percent, and give back the same 1/4 of 1-percent.
See? It's simple...effective, and logical. Perhaps that's why the usual emotionally challenged liberal socialists are fighting so hard against it?
So once again, the press is a willing accomplice to the liberal message. Some selected clips from the story:
"...the cuts he has in mind could damage the state's long-term fiscal well-being, a range of economists and policy experts say..."
--A RANGE of economists and policy experts, eh? See the recap above and try to figure out how ANYONE could be against what the Governor wants to do.
"...But according to the liberal-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, state income and other tax cuts between 1994 and 2001 resulted in an annual tax-revenue loss of $40 billion..."
--At least they admit their liberal-leaning. So we actually shouldn't pay attention to them because of what we know about liberals...they LIE and they're WRONG.
"...states were able to justify the tax cuts they made because their revenues were inflated to unprecedented levels by the booming Internet economy..."
--Whoops...maybe they didn't listen to the "liberal-leaning" economists from the previous statement. I thought they had a revenue loss? This section says the same states had revenues that were inflated by the booming economy. Hmmm.
Finally, there's this from the story:
"...Citadel accounting professor Wes Jones, however, said the annual tax savings 10 years from now for a family of four earning $40,000 would be about $500, or an extra $9.60 a week. A family of four with annual income of $100,000 would get a bigger break, about $2,000 annually, or $38 a week..."
Now, a lot of people are going to look at those numbers and pooh-pooh them as being not enough to "stimulate the economy"...and to some degree, they might be correct. Let's take the smallest number (because the libs will make sure you only hear about this one) of $9.60 a week. What would you do with an extra 10-bucks a week? Would it pay for a tank of gas? A pizza? A higher bus fare to keep CARTA alive? Sure...but what if you put that 10-bucks a week automatically into a 401K or other retirement plan?
10-dollars a week...40-dollars a month...matched by an employer if you have such a plan...COULD be 80-dollars a month. Figure at 5-percent compound interest over the next 30-years before you retire. Tax free, of course...that's about 130-thousand dollars provided you start with nothing. If you already have a 401K or IRA plan, it's even more. Of course, that's IF YOU DON'T SPEND IT. If you're able to pay your bills NOW on the income you earn, then I suggest you set it up so that any tax cut you get does exactly as I pointed out. Think about it...you're not really going to miss the money, are you? The libs will make sure you know you're not REALLY going to miss the money, believe me...
They want to convince you that it's no big deal and government would do a lot better if they never gave it back to you. But if you did JUST as I suggest, that $9.60 a week is more like $115,000 over the next 30-years.
Are you sure you don't want the tax cut?
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
