know that the easiest way to win a debate in front of inexperienced
judges is to redefine your opponent's terms in order to undermine
his/her credibility. Technically, it's a fallacy - the straw man
fallacy - to make a "straw man" of your opponent's position in order
to make it easier to knock down.
BUSH: "I would
give a tax cut to all tax payers, proportional to their tax payments"
GORE: "My opponent
would give the biggest tax breaks to the richest one percent of
Americans. I, however, would give tax cuts only to those people
who met certain social and economic conditions, and continue to
'fight for working families'."
BUSH: "My opponent
would allow Washington to decide who is deserving of tax relief,
rather than simply relieving the tax burden."
If you believe
what any debater says about their opponent, well, there's a term
for people like you - "Fool". The truth is a little more slippery
- they're both right.
have been hog wild over the idea of "tax credits" for at least the
last ten years. Why? Because a tax credit is not an exemption from
being taxed - it's an increase in your refund, if you get one, or
a decrease in the amount of money figured into your tax bill, (assuming
you know about the tax credit and that you fit its parameters).
Most people don't know about tax credits, or aren't able to afford
the time to read through the tax code, or can't afford an accountant
who already has. Therefore, the tax credit is only exercised by
the rich, and the government keeps your money.
love this because it makes it sound like they're doing something
- addressing a social problem through the income tax code -- when
in all actuality, they're not, and it isn't costing the government
nearly as much as it could - or should. Notice: when a Democrat
brings up a new tax credit, he always tells you how many people
would "qualify" for it. And once it's in place, he talks about how
much money was "given" to those who took advantage of it.
He never tells
you how many people were qualified, but didn't take advantage of
the tax credit, and how much money the government should have returned.
the people in this category are the working poor, or the struggling
middle class. The rich hire tax attorneys to prepare their taxes,
the poor fill in the EZ form with a W2. It's the middle class, trying
desperately to save their money, who can't afford a tax attorney,
and can't take the time to read the whole code that get screwed
the worst. In the best of situations, when both parents of a family
are still together, more than likely both are working to pay off
debts and get ahead. Who has the time?
It's this struggle
the Dems depend upon for their "tax credits" to work. They absolutely
cannot afford to have the income tax reduced across the board, or
withdrawn entirely. They would be stuck without a platform.
income tax required a constitutional amendment. Democrats sold us
that amendment saying, "We'll only tax the rich". Of course, it
wasn't long before the income tax slid further down the economic
ladder. And now, we're all screwed. Nobody even doubts the morality
of an income tax anymore - we take it on faith that the government
is somehow allowed to take what we earn, we believe somehow that
Allow me to make
What if we were
to abolish the income tax entirely? What if we replaced it with
a 2% sales tax on securities? Wipe out the capital gains tax, the
estate tax and the income tax, and just do this - a 2% sales tax
on securities. Keep social security, keep Medicare, keep those withholdings,
fine - but replace the federal income tax with a 2% sales tax on
What would happen?
A significant portion of the tax would be levied on foreign investors,
the markets might gain some stability, and we would stop punishing
people every week for earning money. With the resulting influx of
dollars, savings would skyrocket, as would investment. Without capital
gains, succeeding on Wall Street would cost you nothing - nothing
but a minor entrance fee.
Of course, neither
party has brought this one up. And I doubt they ever will.