The Kerry Economy


iconCNN/Money, who sometimes takes advice from financial guru Billy Joel, takes a look at the impact of the planned Kerry/Edwards tax hikes and ask "how would that affect you?".

Kerry has promised to roll back some of the tax cuts passed in 2001, 2002 and 2003, cut government waste and push for Congressional rules to curb spending, among other things.

But he has also proposed a health-care plan, new tax cuts for individuals and businesses and other spending plans, making the accomplishment of his goal extremely difficult, according to some analysts.

Quoting unnamed "analysts", how definitive. I tend to think that anyone who quotes an "unnamed" source is full of shit.
But Kerry also wanted to keep the higher child tax credit, the lower marriage penalty and the new 10 percent bracket for lower-income families. He also called for new tax credits for health care and college tuition.
Talk about giveaways. How long before these tax credits are made refundable? And a refundable tax credit is the politically correct term for welfare.
But U.S. payrolls are still more than 1 million jobs lower than they were when Bush took office, and Kerry has promised to create 10 million jobs in his first term as president, with his hiring incentives and a plan to cut the corporate tax rate by 5 percent.
Keep in mind that corporations don't pay taxes, they collect them. The taxes are paid by people and those people include customers, employees, and the shareholders.
While still a candidate for the Democratic nomination, Edwards was equally bold, promising his plans would create 5 million jobs in two years.

Such promises could be risky gambits -- at various times, the Bush administration has promised its policies would add specific numbers of jobs, giving Democrats a handy talking point when such job growth failed to materialize.

This is an outright lie. Bush's promised job growth has appeared, as I've proven on this site.

Perhaps I'm being too critical, but for a magazine called "Money" they don't seem to know too much about it. I mean, they never even answered their title question of "how would that affect you?"



Comments (1)      top   link me

Comments

The marriage penalty is the result of progressive taxes, and it came into being in the 60s or 70s as a reform to eliminate the other horn of the dilemma, unfairness to singles. You can't have a progressive tax rate and both of these desireable features at once :

1. Married couples with the same total income pay the same total tax, and

2. Couples pay the same total tax whether married or single.

If in addition you want to tax the rich more, you only make it worse.

Posted by: Ron Hardin at July 9, 2004 4:57 AM

(c) Ravenwood and Associates, 1990 - 2014

About Ravenwood
Libertarianism
Libertarian Quiz
Secrets o' the Universe
Email Ravenwood

reading
<Blogroll Me>
/images/buttons/ru-button-r.gif

Bitch Girls
Bogie Blog
Countertop Chronicles
DC Thornton
Dean's World
Dumb Criminals
Dustbury
Gallery Clastic
Geek with a .45
Gut Rumbles
Hokie Pundit
Joanie
Lone Star Times
Other Side of Kim
Right Wing News
Say Uncle
Scrappleface
Silflay Hraka
Smallest Minority
The Command Post
Venomous Kate
VRWC


FemmeBloggers


archives

search the universe



rings etc

Gun Blogs


rss feeds
[All Versions]
[PDA Version]
[Non-CSS Version]
XML 0.91
RSS 1.0 (blurb)
RSS 2.0 (full feed)
 

credits
Design by:

Powered by: Movable Type 3.34
Encryption by: Deltus
Hosted by: Bluehost

Ravenwood's Universe:
Established 1990

Odometer

OdometerOdometerOdometerOdometer