Letís take a closer look at tax rates and revenues
Iíve noticed that our politicians come up with some pretty fancy slogans, and these are often reported by so-called journalists and TV news anchors as fact. These slogans are usually short, understandable and quite believable. Maybe youíve heard this one: ěThe Bush tax cuts for the rich have cost this country trillions of dollars in lost revenue, and theyíve hurt the economy. We have to raise taxes back to where they were under Clinton.î But is this really true?
Letís set aside for now the fact that the ěBush tax cutsî helped the poor and middle class as well as the rich. It seems reasonable that raising taxes (especially on the rich) would bring in more revenue, and that cutting taxes would bring in less. So perhaps we should be asking, ěExactly how much revenue was lost as a result of Bushís tax cuts?î
If we compare the total revenue during Clintonís eight-year term with the previous eight yearsí total, we find that Clintonís term brought in more; $10 trillion more. Thatís a pretty good increase. Then Bush became president, and he drastically lowered taxes. You might be surprised to learn that total revenue didnít go down; it went up. In fact, it went up by an additional $10 trillion (in spite of the dot.com bubble financial crisis and the 9/11 attacks, which together caused the markets to lose an estimated $5 trillion during Bushís first two years).
Bushís tax cuts didnít result in a loss of revenue; instead, they doubled the gains that Clintonís tax-hikes achieved. Yet in spite of the fact that lowering taxes brought in twice the revenue gains that raising them did, President Obama still insists that we should be jealous of the rich and raise taxes. To me, this kind of rhetoric isnít leadership; itís simply avoiding the real issues.
ó Steve Pender
Rockwell
Too much information
Salisbury is no longer the sleepy little town where you can leave your doors unlocked and trust everyone. People are mean, hungry and looking for an easy dollar.
I had never paid attention before, but the Salisbury Post really should stop publishing the addresses of people you report on. Itís a matter of peoplesí safety. Not only does publishing addresses allow people to know where to rob, it sometimes tells them when no one is home.
The Charlotte Observer does not put addresses in articles. Neither does Statesville Record and Landmark. Also, including addresses allows for hate mail to be sent when people do not know all the facts. A person can get a phone number with only the address and make calls based on what you report in the paper.
Please consider taking the addresses out of articles for the safety of the people you are reporting on.
ó Elizabeth D. Swaenepoel
Statesville