Art Cummings of the News-Times is a God-damned idiot, and I will cheer when his soul burns in hell
...the Bush tax cuts and Derek Jeter's contract.So tax cuts that affect all net taxpayers are not important? Really?
Neither one of those is an earth-shaking matter...
What happens to Jeter will not affect me in the least, but it does affect me when the government decides to rob me of even more of my property. What's more galling is the absurd claim, "Well, the law giving you a tax cut expired." After all, taxpayers are merely prey for government's leeches, and raising taxes (including revoking a previous "cut") is just giving a bigger bag limit to the predators.
Cummings' first idiocy is to ignore that the tax brackets are going up for everyone. They always were. Democrats' efforts were never serious: they knew that Republicans would take a hard line on keeping all the tax "cuts," so Democrats could use that as an excuse that they couldn't extend any tax cuts at all. It's necessary for both parties to increase taxes on everyone, because taxes on "the rich" are nowhere near enough to cover the surge in the federal deficit, a level that previously was only seen during WWII.
Even playing liberals' game, "Bush's tax cuts" only cut taxes for "the rich" by $700 billion. That's not per year, but total. Putting things in perspective, Obama's annual deficits are $1.4 trillion and $1.3 trillion. Taxes on "the rich" for several years wouldn't even come close to covering a single year of the new deficits.
But Cummings' true idiocy is to suggest that people are worse off when the top earners aren't paying the vast majority (and last year, income taxes paid by the top 1% first exceeded what was paid by the bottom 95%, approximately a third of the pot). Why would people be worse off when their neighbors aren't being robbed more? Because the government needs to rob everyone as much as possible to satisfy Obama's fiscal insanity, lest taxpayers in the future will have greater debt burdens?
If he suggests that people benefit from "soaking the rich" because they'll get back more than they pay in, I don't need a government to force a neighbor to pay for my consumption. And I already pay more than I get back.
Therein lies the truth: anyone "worse off" is like a mugger or burglar is "worse off" with fewer victims. Liberals in their innate hypocrisy openly despise "the rich," but inwardly they know that "the rich" are needed to pay the bulk of taxes.