In today’s New York Times it is reported that President Obama, “Obama Proposes Deal Over Taxes and Jobs”, proposes “a cut in corporate tax rates in return for a pledge from Republicans to invest in more programs to generate middle class jobs.” Reducing the top corporate tax rate from 35% to 28%, for example, balanced by tightening tax deductions and loopholes, would raise additional revenue on a one time basis as companies switch from one tax system to another. It is this new one time revenue which would be spent on the president’s priorities.
The President’s proposal has given a boost to Senator Max Baucus and Representative David Camp, the chairs of Congress’s tax writing panels, “Lonely Bipartisan Push to Overhaul Tax Code Finally Gets Noticed”, who are working together to construct a broad based, pro-growth, plan to reform the entire tax code, for both individuals and corporations.
Which is the better way to proceed? What is the best way to boost the economy? Revamping only the corporate tax structure to raise new tax revenue for public spending projects? Or by eliminating as many deductions and loopholes as possible over all in order to enact the lowest possible tax rates for both individuals and corporations?
To me the answer is obvious. It is investment, risk taking and entrepreneurship which create the most jobs for the long term. The best way to stimulate the private economy is with the lowest possible tax rates for all. It is unfortunate that the President will not accept this basic economic truth and work with Congress in a bipartisan manner to move the economy forward and create more jobs.
In order for things to get better one must endure the hardships in life. All of this false growth creates a false sense of security and doesn’t help people in the long run.
A parent who truly loves their child will not run to their rescue at every turn. For the child to learn, they need to have experiences to learn from to gain essential life skills to survive. So should the government let the economy be to grow strong and true. Not to have a house built on a sandy foundation that
You’ve said it much better than I did!