Defending Tax Cuts & Reagan

My good buddy Capt Sack responded to my last post, A Roaring Economy. It was a good post; I’m not going to lie. I commend Capt Sack on asking honest questions to promote serious debate. There is way to little of it going on. Most “debate” now consists of an obligatory cliché one liner followed by a character assassination. Here is what the Capt replied with:

The rich pay more money, but a lower percentage of their overall gross than the
middle-class or working-class does. $10,000 in taxes to a family of five making
$80,000 on Long Island means far more than $2,000,000 in taxes to someone making
$30,000,000 a year as a Wall Street hotshot. I know it's an extreme example, but
the rich do have far many more tax loopholes than the average joe does. Paying
the most doesn't necessarily mean paying your fair share.The truth is, the
solution is a flat tax. Without the complications of the tax code, everyone pays
their fair share. It would be a fairly low rate to be fair (for federal, well
under 20%, if not even under 10%, depending on the numbers). Then, there's no
bull. You want kids, a house, a fourth house for your yacht? No tax breaks,
period. It's all a fairer world, so no one can really complain about their tax
thresholds and tax bills. Ohh, and Reagan killed unions. He hurt blue-collar
America more than any other President.

First, as far as tax loopholes go, the rich certainly have more. There is no disagreement with that point. However, I would argue that the rich deserve those loopholes and the cuts they get. They are the ones helping in creating jobs and still contributing most to the system. One person’s achievement is not necessarily another’s loss; we do not operate under a zero-sum game. Onerous taxes have a direct correlation and deterrent affect on income and wealth of jobs. Taxation doesn’t create wealth and prosperity, but more money in the peoples pockets sure do.

“Paying the most doesn't necessarily mean paying your fair share.” And who decides that? What is a fair amount for a rich person to pay? It depends on your ideology I suppose. I believe the American people, in general, are overtaxed, not under taxed. Also, why does someone who works for their money, illustrates their excellence, and helps the economy owe the slackers, the ones who fall behind? The point I was trying to make is that the economy is great right now, and tax cuts and rate reductions and Bush do not get any credit for it.

Lastly, a point was made regarding the 80’s and death of the blue-collar worker. I must reiterate the 96 straight uninterrupted months of economic growth. 20 million long-term jobs were created, ranging from blue collar to white collar and service workers. Because of these newly created jobs the number of people living in poverty decreased by almost 4 million from 83-89. But most important, lets not forget about the Reagan Democrats, who were mostly white, socially conservative blue-collar workers from the Northeast who were attracted to Reagan's social conservatism on issues such as abortion, and to his hawkish foreign policy. In 80 and 84, this group was very important in establishing his landslide victories.

Stan Greenberg, a Democratic pollster, analyzed white, largely unionized autoworkers in suburban Macomb County, Michigan, just north of Detroit. The county voted 63 percent for Kennedy in 1960 and 66 percent for Reagan in 1984. He concluded that Reagan Democrats no longer saw Democrats as champions of their middle class aspirations, but instead saw it as being a party working primarily for the benefit of others, especially African Americans and the very poor. (last paragraph taken from wikipedia)