by Brian Johnson December 8, 2010
Landrieu and the Democrats are of the philosophy that we can reduce poverty by "redistributing" wealth through progressive taxation - imposing higher tax rates on higher income brackets, and through more government spending.
How do tax rates and government spending affect poverty and minorities?
During the eighties, with the tax rates on the wealthiest reduced from 70% to 28%, income among African-Americans jumped by 29%, a full 10% more than white Americans. The number of affluent black families doubled during the 1980's, with one in seven black families having incomes of $50,000 or more. In fact, the percentage of all ethnic groups moving out of poverty, or up in social status, increased during the same time period. The benefits of the Reagan era tax cuts cut across all socio-economic and ethnic groups.
How did tax rates affect poverty form 1990 to 2000?
A Goldwater Institute study in 2006 reported that general poverty during this period fell by 5.3%, and childhood poverty by 9.4%. States with the lowest tax rates enjoyed sizable decreases in poverty, while those with higher tax rates saw increases in their poverty rates. California, one of the high tax states, saw a jump of 13% in its poverty rate. Colorado, a low tax state, saw a decrease in its childhood poverty rate of almost 27%.
Economic Growth is stronger with lower tax rates.
Although Democrats like Landrieu, and the leftists want to use raising taxes on "the rich" as a wedge issue to convince voters that the Republicans are against blacks and the poor, and that pushing to maintain tax rates at their current levels will hurt those groups, the data does not bear that out. The data shows that lower tax burdens, along with lower government spending, results in stronger economic growth, more job creation, and higher per capita and median incomes.
If Mary Landrieu were really concerned about her constituents she would be fighting to significantly cut tax rates across the board, while working to slash the federal budget of waste and bloated bureaucracies. But she is not interested in improving the lives of her constituents. She is interested in pitting rich versus poor, white versus black, American versus American, in an attempt to hold on to her own power.
She may shore up her voter base in her home state of Louisiana with this type of tactic in time to win reelection in 2014. But those she claims to represent will be no better off. They'll still be struggling to make ends meet, unemployed, and dependent on a government which has no compassion for them or anyone else. And Mary Landrieu will still be sitting on her fenced-in porch at her Plantation-style Southern mansion, sipping on her mint julep, content in her delusion that she is for the little guy.
No comments:
Post a Comment