“Allowing the tax breaks to expire will go some way toward returning the money to its rightful owners: the American public.”
Allowing the tax breaks to expire will go some way toward returning the money to its rightful owners: the American public.
So maintains a former community organizer for a Chicago NGO which has “……focused on preserving affordable housing opportunities for low-income Chicagoans. In reaction to citywide gentrification, JCUA is working with community groups to ensure affordable housing for displaced residents…”
Have a familiar ring?
Actually, no. The quote is from a piece this week in The Jewish Forward by Jill Jacobs, described by the paper as a Conservative rabbi. She has served as the Rabbi in Residence of Jewish Funds for Justice and as the Director of Outreach and Education for Jewish Council on Urban Affairs.
If extended, the tax cuts for the wealthiest will likely cost the United States close to $700 billion over the next 10 years. According to a report by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, most of that will benefit the wealthiest one-tenth of 1% of Americans. In the midst of an ongoing recession, the U.S. desperately needs this money to fund social services, create jobs and pay for public education. … Allowing the tax breaks to expire will go some way toward returning the money to its rightful owners: the American public.
Here is more on JCUA from Wikipedia
* Sponsors weeklong programs introducing Jewish youth to community workers and leaders involved in ‘social justice.’
* Organizes Muslim-Jewish programs;
* Sees itself at the forefront in working towards comprehensive immigration reform.
* Seeks to prevent negative effects of gentrification.
So nice to be lectured on economics by a left-wing activist with no apparent understanding of micro or macroeconomics.
Someone should give her a copy of the recent Thomas Sowell piece about tax rates and tax revenues:
The first big cut in income taxes came in the 1920s, at the urging of Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon. He argued that a reduction of the tax rates would increase the tax revenues. What actually happened?
In 1920, when the top tax rate was 73 percent, for people making over $100,000 a year, the federal government collected just over $700 million in income taxes– and 30 percent of that was paid by people making over $100,000. After a series of tax cuts brought the top rate down to 24 percent, the federal government collected more than a billion dollars in income tax revenue– and people making over $100,000 a year now paid 65 percent of the taxes.
How could that be? The answer is simple: People behave differently when tax rates are high as compared to when they are low. With low tax rates, they take their money out of tax shelters and put it to work in the economy, benefitting themselves, the economy and government, which collects more money in taxes because incomes rise.
She’d be about as willing to consider it as would the Community Activist in Chief.