UNL Student Government Passes SJP-Backed Israel Divestment Resolution
How Long Can America Go on Like This?
Intrusive Bankers and Government Overreach
Trump’s America First Dealmaking on AI Export Controls
Washington Post Layoffs Mark Long-Awaited Decline of Regime Media
Biology and Common Sense Triumph Over Radical Transgender Ideology
Respect the Badge. Enforce the Law but Fix the System.
In the Super Bowl of Drug Ads, Trump’s FDA Plays the Long Game...
From Open Borders to Ruinous Powderkegs
New Musical Remakes Anne Frank As a Genderqueer Hip-Hop Star
Toledo Man Indicted for Threatening to Kill Vice President JD Vance During Ohio...
Fort Lauderdale Financial Advisor Sentenced to 20 Years for $94M International Ponzi Schem...
FCC Is Reportedly Investigating The View
Illegal Immigrant Allegedly Used Stolen Identity to Vote and Collect $400K in Federal...
$26 Billion Gone: Stellantis Joins Automakers Retreating From EVs
Tipsheet

Why "Soaking the Rich" Doesn't Work

In the Wall Street Journal, Alan Reynolds has a must-read: "Why 70% tax rates won't work."

In essence, the piece illustrates, chapter and verse, the history that reveals that more money actually flows to the Treasury when there are lower tax rates -- no doubt because of the growth and entrepreneurship spurred by people being allowed to keep more of what they themselves have made.
Advertisement

One would think that would be enough to convince Democrats that raising taxes on "the rich" isn't going to solve any of America's problems.  It proves that lower tax rates produce higher revenues (at least to a point of diminishing returns).  But don't expect these facts to change Democrats' minds about the desirability of raising taxes.  

That's because -- for a lot of them -- taxation isn't just about filling the government's coffers.  It's about collectivism and imposing the left-wing view of "equality," otherwise known as "social leveling." True believers iinclude the President, who once advocated maintaining a higher capital gains rate -- even if it resulted in less money to the Treasury -- "for purposes of fairness," as he put it.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement