Study raw numbers, economics, history

This is in response to David Marzahl's Fence Post letter of Jan. 3. His argument simply does not hold water.

In the six quarters before the 2003 Bush tax cuts, the GDP grew at an annual rate of only 1.7 percent and 267,000 jobs were lost. In the six quarters after the cuts, it grew at a rate of 4.1 percent and 307,000 jobs were added.

The top 20 percent of earners pay about 70 percent of income taxes, whereas the bottom 20 percent pay an average of 0 percent (some actually get “refunds” for taxes they haven't even paid).

Mr. Marzahl says that we cannot afford to “subsidize” the wealthy while cutting spending on programs that “lift people out of poverty and thereby expand job opportunities.” I infer that the programs he refers to are unemployment-related benefits.

First of all, tax cuts are not subsidies. “Subsidy” is a blatently false and misleading label. A subsidy is essentially a reward or a hand-out. A tax cut is taking less of what someone rightfully earned. They have nothing in common.

Second, unemployment benefits do not expand job opportunities. Modest unemployment benefits are useful, but in extended or increased amounts, they reward economic non-production. Reducing taxes for the wealthy — who are the main job providers — promotes productive economic behavior — i.e. new hiring, research and development and entrepreneurship. Daily Herald readers, please don't buy into the emotional hype. Please, do your own research. Study the raw numbers. Study economics. Most of all, study history. We are in danger of repeating it.

Tyler Benjamin

West Chicago