Tag Archives: Taxes

Which presidential candidate will simplify the tax code and create jobs?

How can we make the complicated tax code simpler?

Steve Forbes explains what would work, in Forbes magazine.

He writes:

NEXT TO THE UNSTABLE DOLLAR, the biggest deadweight today on the American economy is the horrific federal income tax code. It is past time we junked this incomprehensible, opportunity-killing and corrupting monstrosity and replaced it with a simple flat tax. The returns we, the people, must file by today (even if you file for an extension, you have to pay what you owe Uncle Sam by this date) should be the last time we have to suffer through this ordeal.

More than 40 countries and jurisdictions (such as Hong Kong) have variations of a flat tax, and those systems have worked well.

For those unfamiliar with the concept, a flat tax is a single-rate income tax system that has few or no deductions. You could literally fill out your return on a single sheet of paper or with a few keystrokes on your computer.

The most basic and profound argument for a flat tax is moral.

The IRS estimates we spend 6 billion hours a year filling out tax forms. Experts calculate we spend over $200 billion a year complying with the income tax code.

The nice thing about the flat tax is that you can already see what happens in countries that have adopted it, by looking at the change in GDP growth in the years before the flat tax was adopted compared to the years after the flat tax was adopted.

Here’s a comparison of 3 countries that adopted flat tax rates at different times:

Forget the rhetoric: what happens to GDP growth after enacting a flat tax policy?
Forget the rhetoric: what happens to GDP growth after enacting a flat tax policy?

(Source)

As you can see, when people waste less time filling in their taxes, they have more time for productive activities. And don’t let anyone fool you: a productive economy creates more jobs, and builds the resumes of the workers so that they can be resilient to layoffs and other challenges to their peace of mind and security.

So which candidate is going to give us a flat tax, and the economic growth that goes with it?

Ted and Heidi Cruz have a plan to simplify the tax code
Ted and Heidi Cruz have a plan to simplify the tax code

The centrist Forbes magazine summarizes Cruz’s flat tax plan:

Ted Cruz claims that his tax plan would supercharge economic growth, boosting GDP by as much as 5% a year for a decade or more. That’s, umm, an ambitious goal to be sure. However, there is actually good reason to believe that he’s right. As long as we’re careful about how we define GDP growth and also as long as we consider all the ways in which his plan will change the economy. This does mean being a little perverse in our assumptions: but also correct in our assumptions.

The basics of the plan are that income taxes will be cut for all. Also, that pretty much all business taxation will be replaced with a 16% flat tax. It is claimed (and Cruz has Art Laffer there claiming it with him) that such a relief from the burdens of taxation will produce an explosion of economic growth. This is not, I feel, entirely believable to put it mildly. While there may well be specific bottlenecks in the taxation system the total take, at 35 to 36% of GDP, isn’t large enough for it to be causing a general lack of economic growth. Not in my opinion at least and in the opinion of vanishingly few economists too.

Conservative economist Stephen Moore says this about the Cruz plan in The American Spectator:

Senator Ted Cruz has a flat tax plan borrowed from a blueprint in a book by Arthur Laffer and me called, Return to Prosperity.

[…]Conservatives should be excited about the Cruz flat tax. ‎It’s what tax filers have been waiting decades for:

First, the Cruz plan would give America the lowest tax rates since the income tax was ‎devised 100 years ago. For this reason, these plan are estimated by the Tax Foundation to grow the economy by a gigantic $2 trillion extra GDP per year after 10 years. That’s exactly the opposite effect of the Hillary and Bernie show plans.

Second, Cruz’s plan eliminates almost all deductions and credits — which is how they get the rate so low. The IRS could be dramatically shrunk in size. Don’t forget, when there are fewer deductions, there are fewer ways to cheat on your taxes. The lower the tax rate, the less incentive to cheat, which means greater voluntary compliance.

Third, because the Cruz plan is “border adjustable,” imports are taxed at the flat rate when they are brought into the U.S., but American products sold abroad are not taxed at all. This would level the global playing field for American manufacturers, tech firms, and drug companies and bring these jobs scampering back to the U.S. Blue collar union workers should love this.

[…]Some conservatives complain that the tax is too efficient and so it will raise too much money.

Moore works for the Heritage Foundation, the number one conservative think tank, which features conservative policy on social, fiscal and foreign policy issues. My favorite think tank.

And famous economist Art Laffer says this: (H/T Dad)

Art Laffer is a speaker for the American Enterprise Institute, which champions the free enterprise system that made America great.

If you are nervous about the economy, you need to vote for Ted Cruz and get this plan enacted. Imagine not having to worry about losing your job, losing work hours, and so on. I would like to get in on a stock market boom so that I can pay off my mortgage faster. If you all join me in voting for Ted Cruz, we can all stop worrying about money for the next 10 years. But we need people to get behind economic policies that work. Steve Forbes, Stephen Moore and Art Laffer are experts in tax policy. We need to listen to the experts, and we need to do what has been proven to work, not what sounds good.

Related posts

 

Which presidential candidate will simplify the tax code and create jobs?

How can we make the complicated tax code simpler?

Steve Forbes explains what would work, in Forbes magazine.

He writes:

NEXT TO THE UNSTABLE DOLLAR, the biggest deadweight today on the American economy is the horrific federal income tax code. It is past time we junked this incomprehensible, opportunity-killing and corrupting monstrosity and replaced it with a simple flat tax. The returns we, the people, must file by today (even if you file for an extension, you have to pay what you owe Uncle Sam by this date) should be the last time we have to suffer through this ordeal.

More than 40 countries and jurisdictions (such as Hong Kong) have variations of a flat tax, and those systems have worked well.

For those unfamiliar with the concept, a flat tax is a single-rate income tax system that has few or no deductions. You could literally fill out your return on a single sheet of paper or with a few keystrokes on your computer.

The most basic and profound argument for a flat tax is moral.

The IRS estimates we spend 6 billion hours a year filling out tax forms. Experts calculate we spend over $200 billion a year complying with the income tax code.

The nice thing about the flat tax is that you can already see what happens in countries that have adopted it, by looking at the change in GDP growth in the years before the flat tax was adopted compared to the years after the flat tax was adopted.

Here’s a comparison of 3 countries that adopted flat tax rates at different times:

Forget the rhetoric: what happens to GDP growth after enacting a flat tax policy?
Forget the rhetoric: what happens to GDP growth after enacting a flat tax policy?

(Source)

As you can see, when people waste less time filling in their taxes, they have more time for productive activities. And don’t let anyone fool you: a productive economy creates more jobs, and builds the resumes of the workers so that they can be resilient to layoffs and other challenges to their peace of mind and security.

So which candidate is going to give us a flat tax, and the economic growth that goes with it?

Ted and Heidi Cruz have a plan to simplify the tax code
Ted and Heidi Cruz have a plan to simplify the tax code

The centrist Forbes magazine summarizes Cruz’s flat tax plan:

Ted Cruz claims that his tax plan would supercharge economic growth, boosting GDP by as much as 5% a year for a decade or more. That’s, umm, an ambitious goal to be sure. However, there is actually good reason to believe that he’s right. As long as we’re careful about how we define GDP growth and also as long as we consider all the ways in which his plan will change the economy. This does mean being a little perverse in our assumptions: but also correct in our assumptions.

The basics of the plan are that income taxes will be cut for all. Also, that pretty much all business taxation will be replaced with a 16% flat tax. It is claimed (and Cruz has Art Laffer there claiming it with him) that such a relief from the burdens of taxation will produce an explosion of economic growth. This is not, I feel, entirely believable to put it mildly. While there may well be specific bottlenecks in the taxation system the total take, at 35 to 36% of GDP, isn’t large enough for it to be causing a general lack of economic growth. Not in my opinion at least and in the opinion of vanishingly few economists too.

Conservative economist Stephen Moore says this about the Cruz plan in The American Spectator:

Senator Ted Cruz has a flat tax plan borrowed from a blueprint in a book by Arthur Laffer and me called, Return to Prosperity.

[…]Conservatives should be excited about the Cruz flat tax. ‎It’s what tax filers have been waiting decades for:

First, the Cruz plan would give America the lowest tax rates since the income tax was ‎devised 100 years ago. For this reason, these plan are estimated by the Tax Foundation to grow the economy by a gigantic $2 trillion extra GDP per year after 10 years. That’s exactly the opposite effect of the Hillary and Bernie show plans.

Second, Cruz’s plan eliminates almost all deductions and credits — which is how they get the rate so low. The IRS could be dramatically shrunk in size. Don’t forget, when there are fewer deductions, there are fewer ways to cheat on your taxes. The lower the tax rate, the less incentive to cheat, which means greater voluntary compliance.

Third, because the Cruz plan is “border adjustable,” imports are taxed at the flat rate when they are brought into the U.S., but American products sold abroad are not taxed at all. This would level the global playing field for American manufacturers, tech firms, and drug companies and bring these jobs scampering back to the U.S. Blue collar union workers should love this.

[…]Some conservatives complain that the tax is too efficient and so it will raise too much money.

Moore works for the Heritage Foundation, the number one conservative think tank, which features conservative policy on social, fiscal and foreign policy issues. My favorite think tank.

And famous economist Art Laffer says this: (H/T Dad)

Art Laffer is a speaker for the American Enterprise Institute, which is a champion of the free enterprise system.

Forbes, Moore and Laffer are my three favorite authorities on tax policy and economic growth.

If you are nervous about the economy, you need to vote for Ted Cruz and get this plan enacted. Imagine not having to worry about losing your job, losing work hours, and so on. I would like to get in on a stock market boom so that I can pay off my mortgage faster. If you all join me in voting for Ted Cruz, we can all stop worrying about money for the next 10 years. But we need people to get behind economic policies that work. Steve Forbes, Stephen Moore and Art Laffer are experts in tax policy. We need to listen to the experts, and we need to do what has been proven to work, not what sounds good.

Ted Cruz discussing the plan on CNBC:

This is the United States of America – we are not some third world country that elects a charismatic socialist dictator who attacks job-creating businesses. Our country is founded on limited government, federalism, and low taxes. We need to vote for economic growth and free enterprise. If people want to punish the rich, they should move to Cuba, Venezuela, Argentina and North Korea, and get their income inequality there.

Ted Cruz’s plan to lower taxes and simplify the process for filing tax returns

How to get kissed: Heidi Cruz helping her husband
How to get kissed: Heidi Cruz helping her husband

Ted Cruz is very upset with the IRS for discriminating against conservative groups and Christian groups in order to get Barack Obama re-elected in 2012. So, he’s come up with a plan to drastically reduce their influence – and their cost to taxpayers.

Here he is talking about the plan with Megyn Kelly on Fox News.

And he has posted something about the plan on his web site:

Under the Simple Flat Tax, the current seven rates of personal income tax will collapse into a single low rate of 10 percent. For a family of four, the first $36,000 will be tax-free. The Child Tax Credit will remain in place, and the Simple Flat Tax Plan expands and modernizes the Earned Income Tax Credit with greater anti-fraud and pro-marriage reforms.

[…]The IRS will cease to exist as we know it, there will be zero targeting of individuals based on their faith or political beliefs, and there will be no way for thousands of agents to manipulate the system.

For businesses, the corporate income tax will be eliminated. It will be replaced by a simple Business Flat Tax at a single 16 percent rate. The current payroll tax system will be abolished, while maintaining full funding for Social Security and Medicare.

The convoluted tax code will be replaced with new rules of the game – so simple, in fact, that individuals and families could file their taxes on a postcard or phone app. The Death Tax will be eliminated. The Alternative Minimum Tax will be eliminated. The tax on profits earned abroad will be eliminated. And of course, the Obamacare taxes will be eliminated. Also gone will be the unending loopholes in the current code, the stacks of depreciation schedules for businesses, and the multi-tiered rates on income and investments. Under the Simple Flat Tax, the Internet remains free from taxes.

Simple.

The Tax Foundation, which is the leading non-partisan think tank that deals with the issue of taxation, scored Cruz’s plan.

They say:

  • Senator Cruz’s plan would cut taxes by $3.6 trillion over the next decade on a static basis. However, the plan would end up reducing tax revenues by $768 billion over the next decade when accounting for economic growth from increases in the supply of labor and capital and the much broader tax base due to the new value-added tax.

  • According to the Tax Foundation’s Taxes and Growth Model, the plan would significantly reduce marginal tax rates and the cost of capital, which would lead to a 13.9 percent higher GDP over the long term, provided that the tax cut could be appropriately financed.

  • The plan would also lead to a 43.9 percent larger capital stock, 12.2 percent higher wages, and 4.8 million more full-time equivalent jobs.

  • On a static basis, the plan would cut taxes by 9.2 percent, on average, for all taxpayers.

  • Accounting for economic growth, all taxpayers would see an increase in after-tax income of at least 14 percent at the end of the decade.

They conclude:

Senator Cruz’s tax plan would significantly alter the federal tax code. It would completely repeal the corporate income tax and all payroll taxes and enact a 10 percent income tax and a 16 percent “business transfer tax” or value-added tax. These changes to the tax code would increase the incentives to work and invest and would greatly increase the U.S. economy’s size in the long run, leading to higher incomes for taxpayers at all income levels. The plan would also be a large tax cut, which would increase the federal government’s deficit by over $3.6 trillion on a static basis. Accounting for the growth caused by the plan, federal revenues would decline by $768 billion over the next decade.

The non-partisan The Hill says that another major think thank for fiscal conservatism also likes Cruz’s plan:

Ted Cruz’s tax plan would cost less and stimulate the economy more than Donald Trump‘s, a recent analysis found.

“Of the two proposals that we have examined so far, those by Trump and Cruz, we find the Cruz proposal to be the better of the two,” said David Tuerck, executive director of the Beacon Hill Institute and senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis. The free-market groups released a report comparing the economic effects of the tax plans from the two Republican presidential candidates.

[…]Cruz’s plan would also increase business investment and personal income more than Trump’s plan would, the report found.

I want a higher personal income, and I want more money invested into the business that employs me – so I can keep my job, or maybe find a better one. It’s very important to my life plan that I be able to earn money, and keep what I earn. I have a use for that money, whether I marry or not. And that use is not to give it to the government so they can buy people condoms and abortions in exchange for their votes. I have a better plan for the money I earn than what a secular government wants to do with it.

Now, Ted Cruz will have to come up with $768 billion in revenue to balance his plan, but that’s why he has promised to abolish or significantly reduce FIVE government departments. Don’t worry, they aren’t the useful ones. We have too much government, and we can get rid of some, and return the money to the people.

Related posts

New study: Bernie Sanders’ budget would raise taxes $13.6 trillion over a decade

Democrats took control of government spending in 2007
Democrats took control of government spending in 2007

It’s very strange to me that young people seem to like Bernie Sanders’ rhetoric so much. Have they really considered what his budget would require?

Here’s an article from the Washington Free Beacon that talks about a non-partisan study from the Tax Foundation think tank.

Excerpt:

(I., Vt.) proposed tax plan would raise taxes by $13.6 trillion over the next decade and reduce the economy’s size by 9.5 percent, according to an analysis by the Tax Foundation.

While on the campaign trail, the senator has proposed $18 trillion in spending over the next decade. His plan includes $15 trillion for a government-run single-payer health care plan and trillions more for Social Security, roads and bridges, higher education, paid family and medical leave, and private pension funds, to name just a few.

Sanders’ proposed tax plan will increase marginal tax rates and the cost of capital, a move that will significantly reduce GDP, lower wages, and eliminate jobs.

According to the Tax Foundation, Sanders aims most of his tax provisions at high-income households, creating four new income tax brackets with rates of 37 percent, 43 percent, 48 percent, and 52 percent. Additionally, Sanders would tax capital gains and dividends for households with income over $250,000 and create a 2.2 percent income-based health care premium.

However, as Sanders has admitted, his plan also includes tax increases on the middle class. “We will raise taxes. Yes, we will,” Sanders said at the CNN town hall last weekend.

“A majority of the revenue raised by Sanders plan would come from a new 6.2 percent employer-side payroll tax, a new 2.2 percent broad-based income tax and the elimination of tax expenditures relating to healthcare,” the analysis explains.

According to a recent report from the Congressional Budget Office, even without Sanders’ tax plan the nation’s economy is projected to expand at a rate much lower than in recent decades. Sanders’ plan would lower the growth rate further, as its proposed marginal tax rate increases on labor and capital would reduce GDP by 9.5 percent in the long term.

“At the center of my campaign is how we’re going to raise wages,” Sanders said at the first Democratic debate. “Yes, of course, raise the minimum wage, but we have to do so much more, including finding ways so that companies share profits with the workers who helped to make them. And then we have to figure out how we’re going to make the tax system a fairer one.”

“And in my view what we need to do is create millions of jobs by rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure; raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour; pay equity for women workers; and our disastrous trade policies, which have cost us millions of jobs; and make every public college and university in this country tuition-free,” he said.

After accounting for reductions in economic growth, Sanders’ plan would lead to 12.84 percent lower after-tax incomes for all taxpayers, 6 million fewer full-time jobs, and an 18.6 percent smaller capital stock.

Let’s take a look at a few of these from the perspective of a non-clown.

Minimum wage

You know, you don’t have to be an economics genius to understand that this man is a fool – the equivalent of a clown trying to take control of a nuclear power plant. Just look at his position on minimum wage. Every economist understands that raising the minimum wage causes businesses to lay off workers. Why? Because they have to pay for the higher minimum wage somehow. Either they lay off workers and scale back their business, or they charge consumers more. When you charge consumers more, they buy less of what you’re selling. So, usually it means laying off workers.

This Daily Signal article explains what happened when liberal cities raised their minimum wage rates.

Payroll tax

Raising the rate o the employer payroll tax means that employers will basically have to pay more for the same labor. They X labor out of their employees now, and paying Y wages. After Sanders, they will be getting X labor still, but paying a higher Y in wages. What will they do? They will simply let go of their least productive employees and scale back their business, maybe expanding abroad and sending jobs to a country where they are taxed less.

This article from the Fraser Institute explains what happens when companies have to pay more to employ workers.

Tariffs

Bernie Sanders thinks that consumers should pay more for consumer goods. That’s what happens when you slap tariffs on goods manufactured in other countries. Consumers and businesses end up paying more for the same product, leaving less money for other things that you need for your family.

Here’s a post that explains why free trade is best for consumers.

Single payer health care

Single payer health care is supported by economic illiterates in the Democrat and Republican parties – both Sanders and Trump support it. What single payer does is allow government workers to take a cut of every transaction between you and your doctor, effectively imposing a tax on medical treatment without adding any value. It would be as if every transaction between you and Amazon.com were to be funneled through the government to see if you were allowed to buy what you wanted, and for how much. Obviously, we would have to hire government workers to make decisions about your Amazon purchases, to make you wait in line behind others who wanted the same items, and to process payments to Amazon.

Just read this Boston Globe article about the costs of Vermont’s (failed) proposal to have single-payer health care.

Public Works

Henry Hazlitt’s book “Economics in One Lesson” explains the problem with taxing the private sector to build public works.

Henry Hazlitt’s Economics in One Lesson, chapter 4, entitled “Public Works Mean Taxes”.

Excerpt:

Therefore, for every public job created by the bridge project a private job has been destroyed somewhere else. We can see the men employed on the bridge. We can watch them at work. The employment argument of the government spenders becomes vivid, and probably for most people convincing. But there are other things that we do not see, because, alas, they have never been permitted to come into existence. They are the jobs destroyed by the $10 million taken from the taxpayers. All that has happened, at best, is that there has been a diversion of jobs because of the project. More bridge builders; fewer automobile workers, television technicians, clothing workers, farmers.

And consider Chapter 5 as well, entitled “Taxes Discourage Production”.

In our modern world there is never the same percentage of income tax levied on everybody. The great burden of income taxes is imposed on a minor percentage of the nation’s income; and these income taxes have to be supplemented by taxes of other kinds. These taxes inevitably affect the actions and incentives of those from whom they are taken. When a corporation loses a hundred cents of every dollar it loses, and is permitted to keep only fifty-two cents of every dollar it gains, and when it cannot adequately offset its years of losses against its years of gains, its policies are affected. It does not expand its operations, or it expands only those attended with a minimum of risk. People who recognize this situation are deterred from starting new enterprises. Thus old employers do not give more employment, or not as much more as they might have; and others decide not to become employers at all. Improved machinery and better-equipped factories come into existence much more slowly than they otherwise would. The result in the long run is that consumers are prevented from getting better and cheaper products to the extent that they otherwise would, and that real wages are held down, compared with what they might have been.

There is a similar effect when personal incomes are taxed 50, 60 or 70 percent. People begin to ask themselves why they should work six, eight or nine months of the entire year for the government, and only six, four or three months for themselves and their families. If they lose the whole dollar when they lose, but can keep only a fraction of it when they win, they decide that it is foolish to take risks with their capital. In addition, the capital available for risk-taking itself shrinks enormously. It is being taxed away before it can be accumulated. In brief, capital to provide new private jobs is first prevented from coming into existence, and the part that does come into existence is then discouraged from starting new enterprises. The government spenders create the very problem of unemployment that they profess to solve.

Why anyone would consider a man who has never held a private sector job for any length of time is beyond me. That article explains that Sanders has only ever collected unemployment or worked in government jobs. My cashier at Chick-Fil-A understands more about economics than this fool.

Neil Cavuto explains basic economics to college student who wants free tuition

She has $280,000 in student loan debt for "Chinese medicine"
She has $280,000 in student loan debt for “Chinese medicine”

The video, which goes about 10 minutes. This is a must watch.

The description of the video explains the contents:

Keely Mullen, an organizer for the Million Student March movement, joined Fox Business Network anchor Neil Cavuto on the air Thursday to discuss the movement’s demands for free public college, student debt cancelation and a $15-an-hour minimum wage for student workers. In the awkward 9-minute interview, Cavuto repeatedly cited facts and figures that seemed to fluster the student.

When asked who would pick up the tab for the demands she listed, Mullen said, “The 1 percent of people who are hoarding the wealth and causing a catastrophe students are facing.”

“If the 1 percent just had their taxes raised a few years ago back to almost 40 percent then to pay for the healthcare law, they had them raised another few percentage points, then they had their deductions limited to raise another couple points — depending on the state or locality — they’re pushing over about 50 percent in taxes,” Cavuto told Mullen. “How much more do you think they should pay?”

Cavuto’s question, asked within the first two minutes of the interview, became the centerpiece of the entire discussion, as Mullen was unable to provide a clear answer.Mullen did say the rate should be raised to “enough until we have a system where not one in two families are threatened with poverty.” And when asked if she and her friends and family would pay more in taxes for her demands, she said “we already are.” However, according to Forbes, 45 percent of households pay no federal income taxes.

Cavuto asked Mullen where the money would come from should “these 1 percent hoarders” leave the country, and Mullen insisted there would always be wealthy people in the U.S. However, later in the interview, Cavuto told his guest that countries around the world, using Greece as an example, have run out of money because the top earners are fleeing.

When Cavuto asked her if she think the 1 percent could actually fund all her demands, Mullen said, “Absolutely.” However, Cavuot claimed taxing the 1 percent at 100 percent wouldn’t even fund Medicare for three years — let alone all of her demands for free services.

“They’ve done studies on this, Keeley, I don’t want to get boring here, but even if you were to take the 1 percent and take all of their money — tax it 100 percent — do you know that couldn’t keep Medicare, just Medicare, in this country going for three years?” Cavuto asked. “Did you know that?”

“Yeah, I don’t believe that,” Mullen said in response. “Yeah, I’m sorry, that just sounds completely ludicrous to me.”

Toward the end of the interview, Cavuto told Mullen taxing the 1 percent on 100 percent of their income would only yield “about one trillion” toward any entitlement program.

I took a look and found out that her father owns a million-dollar home. Also, she is studying two non-STEM subjects – political science and sociology. Both of these have some value, but they are also not the STEM areas that are in demand by employers.

By the way, Cavuto is not joking about how much money you can get by taking everything the 1% make.

The radically leftist New York Times explains how much you can get from “the rich” with a reasonably high tax rate:

To get the most accurate picture possible, throw in all the scraps of income, from the most obvious (like wages, interest and dividends) to the least (like employer contributions to health plans, overseas earnings and growth in retirement accounts). According to that measure — used by the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution — the top 1 percent includes about 1.13 million households earning an average income of $2.1 million.

Raising their total tax burden to, say, 40 percent would generate about $157 billion in revenue the first year. Increasing it to 45 percent brings in a whopping $276 billion.

The Wall Street Journal has computed the costs of Bernie Sanders’ spending plan, and it came out to $18 trillion. Getting rid of all the current outstanding student loan balances would cost $1.2 trillion alone. I’ve already talked about the consequences of raising the minimum wage for young, minority workers – they won’t be able to find the entry level jobs they need to get their careers started, so they can move up.

The real question that needs to be asked is the one that Cavuto asked – do you expect the wealthy to continue producing at the same level when you take half or all of what they make. On the student’s view, the rich would work just as hard even if you took all their money and gave it to students taking underwater basket weaving, medieval pottery and puppetry. This is the question that people on the left never ask – what are the consequences of these policies for ALL of the parties who will be affected. That’s a simple question, but apparently not something that leftist professors teach their students to ask. College is generally little narcissists learning from big narcissists, at least in non-STEM programs. It certainly is not the place to learn basic economics and basic civics.