Taking Back America!
Former Reagan economic adviser had this to say in today's wsj:
Why Gingrich's Tax Plan Beats Romney's
Newt's flat tax would do a lot more to attract capital, spur growth and reduce compliance costs.
If you're thinking about voting for Romney or Santorum, but want to keep a larger portion of the money you earn, I would strongly suggest you vote for Newt. With an optional 15% tax on income, 0% tax on capital gains, and 12.5% tax on business, Newt's tax proposal is far better for creating jobs and increasing the amount of money we can keep, than Romney's (which are just about the same as Obama's) or Santorum's (which imposes an arbitrary 28% top tax rate). The amount of money the federal government takes from us is the most important issue in this election. The desire to raise taxes is at the heart of every decision Obama makes; from Obamacare, to taking over GM, to Solyndra. At the heart of his class warfare rhetoric is the desire to raise taxes and impose government fairness. We must vote for the candidate who will reduce the amount of money the government takes from us and is willing to defend the decision to do so. We must vote for the candidate who realizes the most successful and honest counterattack to Obama's class warfare nonsense is low taxes for everyone. You cannot combat Obama's misguided fairness doctrine if you propose a high top tax rate like Romney and Santorum do. Income inequality is not caused by high taxes. To quote Thomas Sowell:
Concern over poverty is often confused with concern over differences in income, as if the wealth of the wealthy derives from, and is the reason for, the poverty of the poor. But this is just one of the many forms of the zero-sum fallacy.
Obama wants Americans to believe that if you're struggling, it's because the person next to you (who is successful), isn't paying enough in taxes. This is ridiculous. Obama wants to frame the entire debate around the question, "Isn't it our responsibility as a rich nation to help those that need it?". But this question is absurd! Of course we should help those that need help, that's a given. The question is, "What is the most effective way to help those that need it?" Once you see the question in the correct form, you see that "government and higher taxes" can't possibly be the answer. We have extremely high taxes now (the top 4 rates range from 25% - 35%) and Obama has spent a record amount of money. Do we have less poverty? Of course not. The key to reducing poverty is to create jobs. You do so through lowering taxes for everyone. A candidate who proposes a high top tax rate (such as Mitt's 35% or Rick's 28%) falls into the class warfare trap and will ultimately lose to Obama. The reason they will lose is because by promoting high rates themselves, they imply that it is the government's role to ensure income equality at the cost of freedom. They imply that the best way to help those who need it or to create jobs is by taxing others at extremely high rates - all the while ignoring the negative effects of these high rates and perpetuating class warfare. Mitt Romney said in a debate (perhaps it was Iowa) that the reason he isn't proposing tax cuts is because "The rich are fine, we need to help the middle class". Well, this sounds an awful lot like something Obama would say. Has a Mitt supporter ever stopped and asked Mitt, "Who exactly is rich?" or "Which family earns too much money to be allowed to keep more of what they earn?" or "Is rich in NY (for example) the same as rich in say, North Dakota?". No, Mitt supporters ignore these questions and sheepishly accept that their candidate wants us all to pay up to 35% in taxes on our income unless we are lucky enough to have that income come in a form of capital gains. You can't win the class warfare debate if you are proposing high taxes and you can't create jobs with high taxes. Newt's tax plan is the only logical choice for battling back Obama's misguided social justice and unemployment.