Maybe its not $300

The NY Times looks at the numbers for the Bush Tax Cuts. As expected, the benefits are not even for the rich - only the super rich. Merely rich people are beneath the taliban. Of course, there is no news here. This is what every honest person reported would happen.

However, the idiots who continue to support the taliban continue to believe that these tax cuts in some way benefit them and are not completely and totally irresponsible. I am always amazed at the ability of the taliban to hide their lizard skin. Dudes making 40,000/year in Ohio will be voting GOP for these tax cuts so their kids can pay the crushing national debt and they themselves can see absolutely no benefit.

Yes, Virginia, the tax on work is higher than on investment income.

Now, the classic argument that not taxing investment income will increase jobs. I will admit that I am not an economist, but have yet to hear actual economists explain this. See, this is what I don't get: I earn 20,000 from working and I take that money and buy shoes, food, etc. That money then goes to the various businesses that I spend it at. They in turn hire more people, create jobs, investment, etc. Similarly, if I earn 20,000 from dividends, and then buy shoes, food, etc. How does that second bit of cash turn into any more economic development?

There is plenty of honest research on tax cuts/hikes: Kennedy, Reagan, BushI, BushII, Clinton. There is no clear evidence that tax cuts will grow the economy. And please don't refer to the growth of 2002-2006 and say that was caused by tax cuts. Much of that is the dead cat bounce from 2001.

This guy has a nice take on taxes.