Are the fact checkers telling us the truth about the Presidential candidates’ statements regarding proposed tax policies? Examining the details of the so-called fact checking sites making True or Pinocchio claims reveal the “True” and “Pinocchio” designations are themselves cloaked in rhetoric and word play. This layman’s term easy to read article reveals the truth behind our candidates’ tax policies and the fact checking scores reported by the media.
Tax policy is a hot 2016 election topic because of the economic strife plaguing American families for almost 20 years. Liberals typically propose higher taxes blaming the wealthy for the struggles of the poor. The liberal tax mantra claims higher taxes on the “billionaire class” will fund bigger government spending packages to help the poorer families gain education, health care, and other benefits that ultimately serve to bridge the income inequality gap. Conservatives typically propose lower taxes arguing that allowing people to keep more of their own hard earned money promotes market efficiency, shrinks the government influence over American citizens resulting in greater freedoms, and promotes individual savings and business investment that generates jobs, increases our nation’s gross domestic product, and strengthens the American economy.
Of course the liberals claim lower taxes are a tool for increasing the income inequality because the wealthy, keeping more if its hard earned money, become more wealthy and ultimately increases the inequality of wealth in America. Instead, making the billionaire class pay more leaves them with plenty while funding government programs making sure poorer families have food, housing, and opportunity for advancement through education. It is hard to argue the merit of such a plan if this were the case. However, conservatives argue that the liberal spending packages irresponsibly waste money by helping big business with side deals, giving billions to countries that hate America, and funding social programs that are abused resulting in the perpetuation of inner city problems instead of curing them. Can these views be reconciled?