Defining ‘Fair’ in Obama’s ‘Paying a Fair Share’ Rhetoric
The ink was not even dry on the emergency debt-ceiling bill Congress passed last month and President Obama was back in front of the teleprompter wordsmithing an appeal to reform the tax code so that the “wealthiest” Americans and biggest corporations pay their “fair share” of taxes.
It also means reforming our tax code so the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations pay their fair share and it means getting rid of taxpayer subsidies to oil and gas companies and tax loopholes that help billionaires pay a lower tax rate than teachers and nurses.
What could be more reasonable than this? I mean, everybody should pay their “fair share,” right? And who wants billionaires to have tax loopholes at their disposal? The word “loophole” alone suggests something illicit and dishonest.
Unfortunately for America, millions nod approvingly at these specious words, feeling informed as they return to their union jobs, university tenure, or government employment. We need a “balanced” approach to our national debt crisis, he says. Fewer “harsh” spending cuts and more revenue increases. The words are carefully chosen. The logic is compelling; soothing even.
President Obama’s biggest political strength is a keen understanding of human nature. He knows that if he says something over and over that sounds good, the vast majority of his supporters who vote for a living but pay little or no taxes and even less attention to the issues will walk into the voting booth a year from now with a radically skewed perception of political reality. He’s betting on it. Sadly, it’s not a bad bet.
One thing you will never hear our president explain is precisely what he means when he uses the word “fair.” The word actually means “free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice.” What Obama means, however, is something quite different. What he is saying is that it is not fair that somebody earns more than another, owns more than another, or has more wealth than another. And he intends to make it “fair.”
Take for example two hypothetical neighbors — the Williamses and the Joneses — living in neighboring houses, with the same number of cars, the same number of children attending community schools, and the same demand for public services. The Williamses have a household pre-tax income of $500,000 while the Joneses earn only $50,000. The Williamses pay $100,000 in annual federal and state income taxes while the Joneses pay no income taxes after deductions, child tax credits, and an earned income tax credit. Is this situation fair?
Some would argue that it is not fair because the Williamses pay a lot of federal income taxes while the Joneses pay none at all. Others would argue that it is not fair for a completely different reason: The Williamses earn so much and could pay a lot more in taxes than they do. Our president looks at things this way.
He has been taught and truly believes that the higher wage-earning neighbor has “no skin in the game” and is not paying his “fair share.” He has announced that he will not balance the budget on the back of the Jones family and he has not hidden the fact that he intends to make life more “fair” by confiscating more of what the Williamses earn and giving it to the Joneses — either directly, as he has done through tax credits, or through social services, free health care, a “stimulus,” Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, “affordable” housing programs, tax credits, or other entitlements.
It is true, and redistributionists like our president often counter, that federal income taxes are just a small part of the overall tax picture. There are still property taxes, state income taxes, payroll taxes, sales taxes and excise taxes, hotel taxes, rental car taxes, airport taxes, etc., just to name a few. But let’s be frank: whatever the Joneses pay in these other forms of taxes, surcharges, and fees, the Williamses pay ten times that amount. Is that fair?
Let’s assume that the father in the Jones family works for a small business owned by the father in the Williams family. It is true, as redistributionists claim, that about half of those who do not pay income tax are still paying the so-called FICA 7.65% payroll tax. But not so fast. Under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act, 12.4% of earned income up to an annual limit must be paid into Social Security, and an additional 2.9% must be paid into Medicare. Who pays it? Jones pays only half of his FICA bill (6.2% for Social Security plus 1.45% for Medicare), and that half is automatically withheld by Williams, who invests the time and manpower necessary to pay it to the government on Jones’ behalf.
Williams is forced to personally pay the other half of Jones’ FICA bill. Williams withholds 7.65% of Jones’ paycheck and then is required to personally pay another 7.65% on behalf of Jones. And to top it off, Williams, a small businessman, is required to pay both halves of his own FICA obligation. Is that fair?
Let’s establish a sad fact which many redistributionists love to try and discredit. Nearly half of all Americans pay no federal income tax. Forty-seven percent of people either have such a low income that they are exempt from the federal income tax, or they qualify for enough tax credits that they get more back than they pay in. It’s not conservative hyperbole or Glenn Beck fear-mongering. It’s a fact. Only after that astonishing and dismal fact is digested can we have a frank and intelligent discussion about who is paying their fair share and who truly has “skin in the game.”
According to the National Taxpayers Union, the top 10% of wage-earners — families and small business owners who make over $113,799 — pay an incredibly unfair 70% of all federal income taxes. The top 50% of wage-earners pay nearly all federal income taxes. Is that fair? It seems that our president is not going to allow the half of Americans who pay no taxes to bear the burden of the other half who aren’t paying their fair share. This is why the vast majority of the half who don’t pay any taxes continue to vote for Barack Obama.
Despite the number of times Obama talks about a “balanced” approach to our national debt crisis, two words you will never hear him utter are “balanced budget.” He will talk about a balanced approach, revenue enhancement, shared sacrifice, and whatever else scrolls onto the teleprompter, but you will not hear those two simple words. After raising spending 25% during his brief but destructive tenure in the Oval Office, our president has no intention of balancing our budget. He sees no need for it. He believes it is a way of “ducking responsibilities” rather than facing problems.
The president’s proposed budget last February not only proposed an astonishing $8.7 trillion in new spending, according to the Senate Budget Committee, but was shot down in flames even by his own party, 97 to 0. From that day to this, our president has delivered a stark, divisive, populist message: It’s time for the top 50% to lighten the load on the bottom 50%. But what load?
“Throughout our history, the United States has grown and prospered when all Americans have shared in the opportunities created by our economy,” President Obama slowly reads during one of his 1000+ forensic exercises. Pitting those who contribute to society against those who do not, our president has begun to sound a lot like the father of modern socialism himself. It was Karl Marx who in 1847 said:
A house may be large or small; as long as the neighboring houses are likewise small, it satisfies all social requirements for a residence. But let there arise next to the little house a palace, and the little house shrinks to a hut. The little house now makes it clear that its inmate has no social position at all to maintain, or but a very insignificant one; and however high it may shoot up in the course of civilization, if the neighboring palace rises in equal or even in greater measure, the occupant of the relatively little house will always find himself more uncomfortable, more dissatisfied, more cramped within his four walls.
This sounds a lot like our own president when he told Joe the Plumber that we need to spread the wealth around a little bit. He continues to criticize “millionaires and billionaires” and the “wealthy,” which he mysteriously describes as “those making more than $250,000 per year.” Even if our president confiscated all of the wealth of the Forbes 400, it wouldn’t even eliminate the deficit this year alone — yet alone make a dent in the national debt.
Precisely what our president means by “fair” remains unclear — clouded in social envy, class warfare, and populist rhetoric. But one thing is certain. The so-called wealthy are paying a disproportionately higher amount of taxes even when compared to their share of the income — far more than their “fair share.”
I think if you’re going to talk about the percentage of federal income taxes paid by the upper income earners, it is important to also compare that to their share of total income earned. In BOTH cases the rich pay more in income taxes AND a higher percentage of the income taxes collected than their share of total income.
That’s true.
But the whole point of this “fair share” class warfare rhetoric is to please Obozo’s voting base, who are unproductive (or live off tax dollars through government jobs, but I repeat myself), and are not terribly worried about the effect of taxes on the economy.
The word “fair” should be used for an event at which ribbons are given to prize hogs. Other than that, there has never been anything “fair” in the world, nor will there ever be. The word deserves to carry no moral weight.
Fairness is kicking illegal aliens out of our country and forcing able-bodied welfare recipients into the fields to pick cabbages. “Those who will not work shall not eat.”
“If you don’t work you die.”
The Gods of the Copybook Headings, by Rudyard Kipling.
Government employees do not pay taxes. The tax portion of their wages are payed to them by private sector taxpayers. This is especially true now that public employees make higher wages than comparable workers in the private sector.
you’re right. i’m a Marine and the other day i figured, my own taxes pay my income so really, i put in money and get a 900% return. It seemed wrong at first but i believe i provide a necessary and important service for the American people.
Ask yourself, does it make sense for the government to pay you a wage for services rendered, then you have to return part of that wage in the form of “taxes”? Your wages come from a kitty, and your “taxes” go back into the same kitty. That’s not paying taxes, that’s money laundering. Ryan, your wages are paid by the private sector taxpayers, where most government money comes from. No one ever said you didn’t provide an important service, as I did when I was in the military.
yes it is that simple.
only one fair and that would be both pay the same. what one does with his talent and money has nothing to do with fair. the progs are nothing but thieves.
What’s “fair” IS probably impossible to define, and practically speaking probably not the right question. There is a quote from 19th century, I believe, I can no longer remember precisely or who said it, but essence is this:
Taxes are the price we pay so that the peasants do not rise up and
storm the gates.
Or, to put it another way, taxes are the price of a calm and ordered society, political stability.
I grew up in era of FDR and the New Deal. There are Republicans today still obsessed with remaining elements and influences of that era–will not rest until they’re gone–social security, a role for the Federal government.
Instead I think they should look back and acknowledge that hated FDR deflected, “saved” the U.S.A from the socialism Great Britain peacefully voted for and adopted once the war was over.
What America overwhelmingly voted for in 1932–the New Deal–in England was postponed by threats of war. Then as soon as they could, once that War was over voted for a far more extreme version of what had already happened in America.
America stuck with their wartime leader (Truman when it ended). England unceremoniously and as expeditiously as only the British system is, dumped Churchill and chose socialism. Broke Churchill’s heart it is said but those people who had fought to save England from the nazis WOULD NOT RETURN TO PRE-WAR CAPITALISM.
It was their version of peasants storming the gates.
“Fair” has no objective meaning. It’s merely a noise some humans make to cow others out of resisting encroachments on their rights — particularly their property rights.
In no other setting but taxation would compelling Smith to pay more than Jones for the same product be regarded as “fair” by anyone. A department store that set the price of its wares according to each purchaser’s income would swiftly go out of business, if it weren’t first burned to the ground by angry shoppers. But governments do exactly that, and all the time, and in every venue — sometimes, even when “the product” (e.g., sending your children to a government-run school) is something you decline to use, or cannot (e.g., for lack of children) consume.
Frankly, as soon as a politician uses the word “fair,” I tune him out. I’m interested in free: free men freely pursuing their own, freely chosen ends and trading with one another in a free market. Compared to that, “fair” is a non-starter.
The only way to be fair is to have a FLAT 15% tax top to bottom 1$ to $100B, and the same for corporations 15% on all profit. End all tax loop holes except medical bills (for an individual)the entire tax code does not need to be more than 1 yes 1 page long.
This will never happen because of the “elite” running the show are the ones that have enough money and income that they can’t “afford” a 15% pay cut.
Corporations don’t pay taxes. They merely collect them from their customers.
The sooner we eliminate the fiction of corporate taxes, the sooner we’ll make progress toward a sensible, fair system of taxation.
Coma, as I understand it the tithe was such a tax which was in kind rather than cash. I think we should take a look at how it was structured.
I am glad to see this discussion on being fair. As has been pointed out, nothing in nature is fair but it is operational. As the Apostle Paul writes to the Corinthians, The body is not one but many and he does not cite being fair but he does cite how, with different talents and responsibilities the body does function as a body. The Socialist “fair” does violence to that concept.
Obama’s Opposite World: Pay taxes = no skin in the game. Don’t pay taxes = skin in the game. His next “revenue” raising strategy will be to tax gravity, but only gravity used by taxpayers.
There’s an interesting example floating around (sorry, don’t recall the cite), which uses grades to teach students the effects of socialism. Basically, students get interim grades on all their work. However, as the semester progresses and it’s clear some are out-performing others, top performers are required to support under- and non-performing peers. Points from A and B students are redistributed to D and F students to create a “fair” outcome: a passing grade for all.
The reactions are predictable. Top-performers revolt, because the “fairness” doctrine creates a new inequity and penalizes them for hard work and effort. Or, they scale back their efforts and put in only enough effort to achieve a C.
This is the world Obama is trying to create.
This world has already been created. It was called the Soviet Union.
Very interesting, yet simple concept. And how long after that do A and B students stop studying, knowing that their grades will be reduced by the lowest common denominator – the number of students getting F’s, D’s and C’s. And if the A and B students start getting C’s will their grades be diluted even further based on the number of students getting F’s? Excellent way of learning about the “distribution of wealth”.
Very good reasoning, Jarmo, but what when the F and D face an A or a B situation. They won’t handle it. However the A student may provide a very comfortable niche for that D student. I think that would come closer to being fair.
“Fairness” aside, I think what drives a lot of people crazy is the fact that people like Obama feel that they are entitled to YOUR money. This idea never became clearer than during the debate over eliminating the Bush tax cuts.
During that debate, Obama kept whining that the Bush tax cuts were “costing” the Federal government something like $700 billion a year. Costing us? That only makes sense if you think the government is entitled to that money and can take it away from the people who have earned it. Allowing the Bush tax cuts to remain in place wouldn’t “cost” us a dime, if the Federal government were living and spending within its means. Keeping the Bush tax cuts did not “cost” us anything because nothing more was cut. We simply kept the tax rate as is. But to Obama and his crew who feel entitled to that money, they see it as money that is owed to them. They wanted to raise the actual tax rate to take more money away from those who earned it, even though most of that money was being made by small businesses or “Subchapter S” corporations.
Liberals see money that people have as property of the Federal Government. Conservatives see money that you have earned as being yours to keep. And THAT is the difference. Fairness has nothing to do with it.
Absolutely right. That’s why Obama/Dems can portray eliminating tax deductibility for mortgage interest and charitable donations as “tax expenditures”. (For fair disclosure, I don’t have a mortgage on my home but we do tithe.) Grrr.
Good thinking, Libertyship. Now lets take it a step further. We have what we call gross profit and then net profit. When you hire on a job your wage is your gross profit from that job. When you take from that wage all it cost you to earn that wage what you have left is net profit. Disposable income.
Now you pay income tax, union dues, insurance and FDIC,all of which takes a bite out of your net. Therefore you strike for more wages. But when it comes to the business that hired you it doesn’t work that way. He is not supposed to raise his selling price to cover the increased overhead thereby depriving him of the profit it takes to pay you your wage. When he raises his selling price your net income is affected but your gross income does not matter. That is the sure path to poverty.
We must reduce the overhead on business to the minimum for our net profit to be maximum. Trying to take money form the rich and give to the poor defeats prosperity but enhances poverty.
I think they should start with the 47% in this nation who don’t pay taxes at all. They’re the ones who clearly have the most to gain from democrat wins at the polls and should thus, put some skin in the game.
Maybe the rules should change so that people can’t vote unless they have “some skin in the game”. In other words, if you aren’t paying federal income tax, you don’t get to vote in federal elections.
Your most correct point is that different people have varying takes on what is “fair”. Otherwise, I fear that you are preaching to the choir. Your early point — The word [fair] actually means “free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice.” — unfortunately goes nowhere, because the re-distributors believe that the tax code is biased towards the “rich”, and is palpably dishonest, and unjust.
Gary writes: “Some would argue that it is not fair because the Williamses pay a lot of federal income taxes while the Joneses pay none at all. Others would argue that it is not fair for a completely different reason: The Williamses earn so much and could pay a lot more in taxes than they do. Our president looks at things this way.”
I like this statement a lot. Almost every day we discuss what CFB and others have called communism with a small c. Gary’s piece has restated the arguments for and against Marx in a fresh and simple way. It is not easy to recast simple truths in a simple way.
By the way, and I can’t say if he intended this, Gary’s paragraph could stand as a mockery of strawdog speaker Obama’s “On one hand some say (strawdog)…On the other hand some say (strawdog)…but I say (platitude)…” Of course there are no strawdogs in Gary’s statement, lest I be misunderstood.
Let’s be careful accepting the language of our opponents. When we let them use the word “redistribute”, we agree to their idea that wealth was first “distributed” and they are simply going to re-distribute it.
Wealth was never distributed. It was earned. That’s a big difference.
Agreed. Obama doesn’t want to redistribute wealth, he wants to expropriate it.
If that were true he would advocate a tax not on income but on wealth.
The redistribution of wealth by government is not a provision of the constitution but it is a product of political ideology. A flat tax for all is the only tax system that is fair given the definition of “fair” in this article. If all politicians were judged by their adherence to the constitution I don’t believe we would be facing many of the problems we now have ie; Class warfare,racial divide,illegal immigration fiasco,wide spread economic problems etc….
Usually Warren Buffett comes up in these discussions – his complaints that he doesn’t pay enough taxes. All of those arguments always neglect the taxes that Berkshire Hathaway pays – and Buffett owns 25% of that company (and plenty of other companies too). They paid 5.6B in taxes in 2010, so it cost Buffett 25% of that or 1.4B. Let’s see what his REAL tax rate is.
But you can easily make the case that corporations do not really pay taxes. They simply collect the tax from their customers in the form of higher prices. If you strip away corporate taxes, all prices would settle lower in proportion (under free market competition – the assurance of which is one of the government’s few responsibilities). In the long run, most businesses are driven by competition to a profitability rate that simply reflects a good return on assets invested and deployed.
On the other hand, I believe the way to get Warren Buffet (and other rich people I know) to shut up about paying more taxes, is to suggest a true “wealth” tax. That is, make them pay a percentage of their net worth. In effect high taxes on income prevent new people from becoming wealthy – but do not phase the already wealthy in the least.
Lets look at the real impact of a tax increase.
Pres. Obama was talking about letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire. That means the marginal tax rate in income over $250,000 increases by 4% (from 35% to 39%).
In the case of the family making $500,000, they see no increase on the amount of the first $250,000 worth of income. On the income over $250,000, the would pay an additional 4%, for a total of $10,000.
That isn’t exactly confiscating their wealth. Their total tax bill in your example would increase from $100,000 to $110,000. That raises their effective tax rate from 20% to 22%.
So, hypothetically, the high earner, (if on salary) has a gross take home pay of $19,230.76 per pay period (assuming he is paid bi-weekly). The increase in tax would mean an increase in withholding of approx $385.00 per pay period.
Also keep in mind that this earner would stop paying into Social Security 5 pay periods into the year, so halfway into March his takehome pay would increase approx $1250/pay period
As far as the $50K/year earner in your example, I have to assume that he is itemizing, has a mortgage, children, or some other deductions to give him a zero tax liability. Most $50K earners typically pay in, but without details, its impossible to determine. Using a standard deduction, a household with two parents and two children and a $50K income would look something like this
$50,000 gross income
less 4 personal exemptions @$3700 each: $14,800
less standard deduction: $11,400
Adjusted Gross Income: $23,800
Tax Liability $ 2,733
That is an effective tax rate of only 5.5%, but it is definately not zero.
You are missing the whole point. So you have decided that when the top 1% of wage earners pay 40% of all taxes, that isn’t “fair” enough? An increase in tax liability by $10,000 on earnings of $500,000, “That isn’t exactly confiscating their wealth”. So, two years from now if the Feds decide to raise taxes by another $10,000 you will once again say “That isn’t exactly confiscating their wealth”. And two years later after another $10,000 increase you again will say “That isn’t exactly confiscating their wealth”? You get to decide what “fair” is, or how many should pay taxes, or how much we pay for energy, etc.? What makes you so special?
Jarmo,
No, I don’t get to decide what “fair” is. Our elected representatives set the tax code. I can have my opinion about what “fair” is, as can you.
We obviously differ. I can tell you that if my take home pay was $15,000 per month and it dropped to $14,500 per month, I probably wouldn’t change my lifestyle much. If my takehome pay was $150,000/month and it dropped to $145,000 per month I probably wouldn’t change my lifestyle much. If my takehome pay was $2500/month and it dropped to $2250/month, that may cause me to make some changes in my lifestyle.
Now, I think I am going to take a moment to make another point. I read alot of blogs, and I read alot of comments from people who complain about taxes. I really think that alot of the complaining about taxes comes from people who wouldn’t be affected anyway. In fact, I am sure there are individuals who probably say to themselves and to their friends “I’d like to start a business, but the taxes would kill me”. Most high earners I know are congnizant of taxes, and certainly work to minimize the bite, but for the most part they aren’t obsessed with taxes. If I am in the highest tax bracket (and I am counting Federal Income tax rates) I still get to keep 65 cents of every dollar I earn. Why would I not want to continue to earn?
Americans are eternal optimists. We all believe that we will become high earners. My thought is, Let me work hard, become a high earner, then worry about taxes. I’m not going to let the fear of paying income taxes become a barrier to my earning
Rob, you are basically making the same argument, except now regards “change of lifestyle”, and implying that voters have no effect on their legislators. I beg to differ based on the gridlock in Congress today, brought about by the voters. If not for the House changing hands, the Bush tax cuts would have expired, taxes on the “rich” “millionares and billionaires” would have been increased, and the national debt limit would have been passed without any debate or consideration for spending cuts.
So, someone like Buffet who is a billionaire can or should be taxed at a 90% rate because it “probably wouldn’t change [his] lifestyle much”? What about someone making a million dollars per year? Some socialistic legislator from California in Congress can decide that a 50% rate on $1 million is fair, because it won’t change someone’s lifestyle? Allowing the government to make those kinds of decisions based on an undefined concept is strictly political in nature and gives them too much leeway. Fairness is relative. You want to raise taxes? Fine. But don’t talk about what is “fair” when 47% of workers pay no taxes. I will listen if legislators propose a 15%, 20% or 25% across the board tax rate, no deductions. That’s fair. Close loopholes? That’s fair, but there are tens of thousands of them. Who can guarantee that they will all be closed, and not targeted politically? Politicians should not be defining what is fair.
One of the big attractions of a flat tax is that it is simple. The tax form should be wonderfully short and preparing it should be a breeze. But is a simple tax necessarily a fair one? Maybe, maybe not.
Let’s consider the Olympic Games for a moment. The Olympic Games are anything but simple, at least in one sense. The Olympic Games most definitely do NOT work by putting all of the competitors from all of the different countries all on the same big track and then running a single race to see who is fastest. That would certainly be simple but it wouldn’t be fair. Instead, competitors are broken into different categories based on gender, means of locomotion (foot, skis, bobsled), and distance travelled at the very least. The 100 meter dash is run by very different people than the marathon or the downhill skiing event. Instead of having a very large group run a single race that lasts a few seconds or minutes, we have a whole bunch of much smaller races that take place, sometimes concurrently, over several days. Complex, yes, but also arguably fairer.
Would a flat tax be fair or would it only be simple? It is my impression that tax deductions and tax brackets were all set up to ensure fairness; someone who had a large family or dependent parents or unusually serious illness in his family was deemed to deserve to keep more of his money and pay less tax. If that is still a reasonable argument to make – and I’m not saying it is – then we will find that people with the same income don’t pay the same amount of tax. That’s not simple but it may be fairer in some ways.
Gridlock in Congress is caused by the lobbyists and special interests of those who’ve bought it–think they’d leave that to the vagaries and inconsistencies of mere VOTERS???
Everyone should copy/paste and READ
http://www.truth-out.org/goodbye-all-reflections-gop-operative-who-left-cult/1314907779
An astonishing piece of the raw truth of today’s two political parties–one more rotten than the other, just that one (debt ceiling fracas this summer) of the two is more willing to destroy the U.S.A. to get what they want–the other “feckless” and without that killer instinct.
Jarmo,the tax question is overlooking a minute exponential multiplier somewhere. Any tax increase is going to affect everyone regardless of how much they are worth.
I am in favor of distributing the wealth not redistributing the wealth. We distribute the wealth with business and jobs. We redistribute the wealth through government power, theft or fraud. It is that little thing called a profit that distributes wealth.
An insidious part of high income tax rates is that for many people annual income fluctuates, sometimes wildly. I once went 9 years with very modest income and then had one year in 7 figures. The combined total of State and Federal taxes in that year was enough to make a grown person cry. My average after tax earnings were not sufficiently higher than if I had taken no risk and held a regular old job.
And to jarmo’s point – you have to wonder where it will end. One way to guess is to look to the past. Back in the early 80′s I had a good year and made a bonus equal to my base income. I was flabbergasted to find that the entire amount was taxed at 75%. Yes, I got to keep 25 cents on the dollar! I worked very hard for that money – not that that should matter – and became a fiscal conservative politically ever since. Now add to this picture the waste and fraud that we support with our tax dollars and it becomes much too much to bear.
You are correct. In 1980 the marginal tax rate on adjusted gross income over $250,000 was 70%. Through 1986 the marginal tax rate in AGI over $250K was 50%.
In 1988, the marginal tax rate on AGI over $250K dropped to 28%. in 1991, it went up to 31%, and jumped to 39.6% in 1994. It is currently at 33% for income between $212K and $379K. Abover $379K your rate is 35%.
You had the bad luck to have earned your seven figure year when the tax rate was high. However, had you invested your $300K in a mutual fund that over the course of the last 31 years, yielded you 6.5% (a fairly conservative amount) you would now have approx $2.5 million.
Anonymous, this is an interesting post. I think it touches on that exponential multiplier mentioned to Jarmo. It does have a debilitating effect on ones efforts. The government had no risk in your bonus yet took 75% as its fair share.
That openes a question you may not be able to answer and am not expecting one. But What would you have done with the 75% the government confiscated. Would it have caused you to hire more help? Would you have fed it to a casino? Some more of that multiplier effect. You would not have dug a hole and buried it.
The real problem is not the 47% who pay no taxes; they own only a tiny portion of the nation’s wealth and neeed every penny the can get. The uber-rich keep getting richer at the expense of the middle class. That does not bode well for the future of the US.
Sure, the ultra-rich and the giant corporations have big tax bills, but because of loopholes and their control of Congress end up paying little or nothing. Its almost as if they have decided our society is doomed and are looting as much as possible before the end.
My ancestors were serfs beholden to the nobility in the old country. I am resigned to being a serf beholden to corporate interests in the new world order. At least the aristocrats often had some sympathetic qualities of patriotism and devotion to duty.
And what’s up with the Tea Party? Pure Ayn Rand BS. If people were to examine their Christian beliefs, they would find they are incompatible with Rand’s atheistic principles. Christ did not exhort us to follow the law of the jungle, but rather to help each other in gratitude for his sacrifice.
“Uber-rich”, “expense of the middle class”, “does not bode well for the future of the US”, “giant corporations”, “loopholes”, etc.
The world owes you a living? You are no doubt exploited. You’ve been sucking at Obama’s tit too long. Without “giant corporations” you would still be visiting an outhouse every morning, you wouldn’t have a car to drive, a cell phone to jabber into, a television to watch, nor a computer or a refrigirator. You would be living like “serfs beholden to the nobility in the old country”, in a hovel while tending pigs.
And the Tea Party? You know nothing about them, except what Hoffa has been feeding you.
Wow, an ad hominem attack and false assumptions about my personal situation.
I rarely watch TV, and don’t need a giant corporation to make sure I have indoor plumbing and household appliances.
The increasing disparity of income in this country is well documented. Research it yourself, unless you are afraid of facts that might challenge your assumptions about the way the world works.
An ad hominem attack? You were off subject of taxes, to begin with, attacking the uber-rich and giant corporations and I responded by pointing out that corporations are beneficial to our ease of life, sarcastically, while sitting in front of my computer manufacured by a “giant corporation”. Then you went off on the Tea Party. Where did that come from? And what assumptions about your personal situation am I making? You may rarely watch TV, but no doubt own one. And plumbing does not grow on trees. Someone produces it, including commodes. Same with houshold appliances. Someone manufactures them. Some corporations are bigger that others, the point being that big corporations are responsible for not only providing work for people, but manufacturing and inventing product used by you on a daily basis. The mean Microsofts, IBMs, Exxons, Fords, GEs, Frigidaires, Sonys have all made your life easier. Or am I wrong and you do use an outhouse in the mornings? And how do you know your plumbing and commode weren’t manufatured by a giant corporation? The only assumption I will make is to assume you are a shill for the unions or Socialists. You use too many key words in your talking points attacking the “uber-rich” and “giant corporations”, except one, how the working class is being exploited, one of my favorites.
“The increasing disparity of income in this country is well documented. Research it yourself,….”
Why do research? I’m waiting for you to respond to RobertMN, below. I see you are still anonymous.
The above is fom jarmo.
“I rarely watch TV, and don’t need a giant corporation to make sure I have indoor plumbing and household appliances.”
Really? So did you make that TV yourself? Or hire a local craftsman to make it for you? What about your plumbing and appliances? Did you make those too? Or did a “giant corporation” make those items and build stores in your area so that you could buy them?
Master of Disaster and other lib/progressives all seem to think that there is only so much “pie” to go around – if an individual or corporation makes a lot of money, they incorrectly think there is less of the “pie” for others. In a truly capitalistic society, the “pie” is only limited by how hard one is willing to work….
Sorry, there is a pie. One way of defining the pie is how much wealth an economy produces in a year. If the top 1% grab 40% of that wealth because of their control of, and excessive influence over government, then we don’t live in a truly capitalistic society. An average hard-working individual should be able to prosper most of the time; its not happening, is it? Because the government is not looking out for that individual. It is focused solely on increasing the wealth of the wealthiest through disharmonious tax policies.
Despite these burdens, the US economy has enormous potential. But when I look around at all the uneducated, unproductive, usually overweight, young people who seem to have multiplied alarmingly in the last 20 years, I truly despair.
as you can see there is no point trying to reason with a prog/troll.
there are two kinds of people …producers and takers. or put another way producers and parasites. the masterofdisaster is a parasite in my book.
“The uber-rich keep getting richer at the expense of the middle class.”
Show us how this actually happens. Or, perhaps, you’ve discovered that it is much easier to blame others for your problems instead of trying to solve them. But that would require hard work and the possibility of failure. Too scary.
Income inequality in the US:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States
My favorite specious argument to puncture. Obama and the left generally talk about taxing “millionaires and billionaires” because that polls well, but when the numbers appear, suddenly it’s folks making $200K (or $250K if married) who will be forced to pay more. That’s a far cry from Warren Buffet.
Couples earning around $250K are not fat cats; mostly they are working professionals or small business owners. An engineer, married to an accountant. A middle manager, married to a realtor. As such they have mortgages just like anybody else, car payments as well, and they worry about how they will afford college for their kids and retirement for themselves. The idea of taxing these people more to be “fair” to the navel gazers just makes me want to throw up in the corner. For the most part they have played by the rules, gone to school, got a degree, worked hard and managed their money reasonably well. As far as income inequality is concerned, they are not the problem. Those who can’t do these things are the problem, and that’s where the fix has to be.
I also find it interesting that the left never proposes a real high earner surtax, say another 10% on people earning, say $5 million or more annually. I have my theories about why, but it is still odd that our class warriors seem to have only the upper middle class in their sights (Oooohh, there’s a military metaphor. Calm down, all you rednecks, and don’t go out and shoot anybody). A tax increase of maybe 4% as the left advocates won’t be noticed by somebody making $10 million per year, but as somebody mentioned above, it sure will be noticed at $250K.
Could it be they are in thrall to the uber rich? Groupies of the entertainment stars and the professional athletes? Or could it be that the reflexively left wing politics so conspicuously exhibited by most such people has bought off the left? Or maybe those fabulously remunerative Hollywood fundraisers would be more difficult to organize if the “progressives” started talking about a real tax increase for the uber rich. Perhaps, to paraphrase John Dillenger, the real target is the upper middle class, not for reasons of fairness, but just because that’s where the money is.
I’d like to hear what others think about that observation.
I agree with your observations and have the same questions. Why is Obama and his team attempting to harm that upper middle class sector of the private economy?
These are key investors and producers; they are the owners of small businesses and many in this groups file their taxes as individuals rather than ‘corporations’. Why does Obama want to reduce the capacity of America for a small-medium private business economy?
Why doesn’t he go after the real ‘fat cats’, as you point out? They are the people, interestingly enough, that he vacations with and hangs around with. Why doesn’t he go after them? They are strong contributors to the Democratic Party.
Let’s say that the Obama-Democrat idea of winning an election is not about governing in a manner that enables the general population to be independent of government..but instead, to REDUCE the ability of this general population to be independent and to increase their dependency on government money. Hmmm.
Well, the actions of the Obama-Democrat policies seem geared to achieve that second goal. They are not interested in enabling small and medium businesses to prosper and increase; not interested in reducing regulations in these areas; not interested in strenghtening internal energy resources; not interested in developing better trade policies; not interested in reducing the debilitating role of public service and other unions.
Instead, interested in getting more money into govt hands, by massive borrowing and debt increases, and increasing taxes…to…give to people who are not wealth producers but who are dependent on govt funding. These are not merely those on social security and other govt assistance but, the bloated civil service and wasteful govt depts and jobs.
Again, govts don’t create jobs; govts don’t create wealth; they consume wealth. Period.
The super rich are not taxed much because that’s who Presidents hang out with, even liburuls like O-man. They don’t want to upset their new friends.
I would love to see you prove the statements you have made.
…without falsehoods ..get enough of that from your buttfriend obama
@ Cabeza: you are violating forum rules:
No profanity or foul language, no ad hominem attacks.
EVERYTHING done by Congress is result of corporate ownership (thru lobbying/paying off Congress). That’s our future–corporate fascism.
I reiterate: copy/paste/READ from one of your own (Republican staff worker in Congress for 15 years)
http://www.truth-out.org/goodbye-all-reflections-gop-operative-who-left-cult/1314907779
As to those who go on about giving corporations and the rich everything they want because we couldn’t live without them? We’re the only major economy country who even believes this.
Do corporations leave and/or die in, say, Japan? or Germany? or England? They have much higher taxes, much lower pay for corporate executives and no worse off than we are. At least one or two — Germany, Sweden, Canada — did a heck of a lot better handling their banking crisis. Germany has union members on their corporate boards and is now considered best-run best economy in the West.
Given the mess this country is in, and the division and the ever-increasing lack of common purpose–which of those countries even want to BE like the U.S.A. any more??
China (if you go by pure success) — i.e. Capitalistic Communism OR Corporate Fascism — is the model of the future UNLESS we end our present trade policy, and go back to the “protection” of our economy from, yes, multi-national corporations. Have we no patriotism left at all? They certainly have none and those prating about free market untrammeled capitalism here seem to be willing to dump the whole country and its people on the alter of corporate worship.
I re-iterate my earlier attempt at a quote I once heard: Taxes are the price you pay so the peasants don’t storm the gates and kill everybody.
That’s what bread and circuses in Rome were about, that’s what the guillotine in the French revolution was about, that’s what taking down the czars in Russia was about.
Surely, this is a country that can achieve political stability WITHOUT pushing the poverty-stricken to revolution. Whether you like it or not, that’s what FDR did back in the 30s, and we KEPT our president after the war was over. England was intransigent in coming up with solutions and that country dumped Churchill soon as ever they didn’t need him any more.
For god’s sake — read history!!!!
It is the distribution of wealth by business and their employees that created the middle class and it is by no means static, neither is the uber rich. The ones the libs like to attack made their wealth by work and good management. They have nothing bad to say about the tax cheats, corrupt government officials and rich union tyrants. They believe the Bolshevik doctrines that all profit is evil,neither are they open to instruction though it is all around them in plain sight.
Your attempt to align the Tea Party with Ayn Rand is irrelevant and false.
The Tea Party has a few basic axioms; they are primarily fiscal and economic: reduced taxation, eliminating national debt, eliminating deficit spending, reducing the size of the government, a constitutionally limited government, balanced budgets, free markets, individual responsibility.
Nothing to do with religion, atheist or otherwise.
The others have answered your errors about ‘corporations’. Some products require big corporations to get the products manufactured; you can’t build cars for an industrial size population one at a time in a local garage. Same with other products you use everyday – everything from cell phones, computers to airplanes. The old artisan craftsman, which you seem to long for, can’t produce the sheer amount of goods, or the research required, for our modern technologies.
Of course they have very little wealth. Most of them are in debt. Debt is negative wealth.
The debate should not be about what’s fair and who gets to define the term. It should be about the Spend-and-Tax disease, of which TAX is part of the problem. Barry ran up the tab, now he wants “the rich” and those evil corporations to pay for it. B.S., Barry. You and your Liberal supporters should pay for it. No more raising taxes. Cut government, cut spending.
And you should resign.
I think we all know what the problem is in our nation, but no one is addressing how to nip it in the bud. Wouldn’t it be best for we private sector Americans if we simply planned a time in the near future where we went on strike until more suitable arrangements were made on our behalf? Think about it,,,,the government will have lost control of the tax paying populace and be unable to feed and house it’s voter base. This is what needs to happen. It’s time to be strong if we really have our nation’s best interests at heart. I came to this conclusion after I admitted to myself that I am no longer going to be extorted for the benefit of those who act on their most intimate desires and then pass ALL of those expenses onto the tax payers. I drew a line in the sand of my life’s story.
The Indonesian uses the word “fair” (which he really doesn’t understand, at all) only to get at his real pursuit – exacting revenge on the US and the West for our perceived affronts to his delicate third world sensibilities. He says “fair” only to prep the field for pain he wants to deliver. This has never been a secret.
The key is when they leave the “fair” word and start speaking more honestly – such as when they say that “if someone CAN pay more, he should” – in other words, Americans are expected to pay until they CAN’T pay any more. That’s a long, long way from “fair” (as normal Americans understand the word).
As other commenters have pointed out, it’s nothing more than teleprompted marxism. From each according to his ability…
The ideal society is one where there are no government regulations (to speak of) very low or no taxes at all.
If someone wants to start a factory, they can start a factory without any permits, licenses, etc. You don’t have to worry about things like environmental regulations. You should be able to pay whatever wage the market will bear. Same with mining, logging, etc.
Why pay taxes for schools? Anyone who wants an education should be able to pick up the tab for it..that’s the free market. Hospitals
Sound like your kind of place?
I just read about just the place
it’s called Liberia…and Somalia isn’t much better
Your ‘argument’ is fallacious. It’s a ‘black and white Either-Or’ theme, which posits that one must have Either ‘all government’ Or ‘no government’.
That’s a false dilemma. The argument isn’t promoting no government, but ‘reasonable government’, which is to say, common rules and regulations that protect the consumer but do not inhibit investment and production.
So what’s your point? Was that the first time you ever opened a book, or was it a magazine? No wonder you remain anonymous. So you describe one societal extreme that is unworkable, with the unvoiced implication that is what Conservatives are striving for. The opposite extreme is a place that was, a place called the USSR, where government controlled all aspects of life, where millions died at the dictates of commissars. Millions starved because the government wanted it to happen, to punish them for being unruly. Millions were sent to labor or re-education camps. The political system of the USSR was called Communism. The Obama Administration hired an avowed, admitted Communist named Van Jones to be Environmental Czar. Thankfully, Jones was forced out because of public opinion. Some “folks” say that Obama wants to impose communism on the US.
Above, I stated “So you describe one societal extreme that is unworkable….”
That is – “unworkable” in today’s US. What you are describing is actually early United States of America when everything was up for grabs. Think of all the benefits that you are realizing from a system that constituted our contry’s history.
Baloney.
Liberia is one of the most corrupt nations on the face of the planet. You can’t blow your nose there unless you bribe a government official first…and since no one has any money…no noses ever get blown, except for the noses of the guys in the government and their rich pals.
That, and endemic fighting between various political factions makes it almost impossible to do business in Liberia. The World Bank recently rated Liberia 155th in ease of business (one of the worst nations in the world).
If you think you’re going to walk into Liberia and set up a factory and not get screwed with by the government…you’re dreaming. Just the opposite is true.
“Civil war and government mismanagement destroyed much of Liberia’s economy, especially the infrastructure in and around the capital, Monrovia. Many businesses fled the country, taking capital and expertise with them, but with the conclusion of fighting and the installation of a democratically-elected government in 2006, some have returned.”
It’s the usual story…they could be rich, they could be free, unfortunately they have a government that screws everything up.
And, it’s also the usual story with lefties like Anonymous…all lies all the time.
If you think back to your playground experiences, “fair” usually translated to: “You have something I want, give it to me!”
Playground politics: firmly in control of America.
I support all of Jarmo’s comments; he ‘gets it’.
The issues go beyond taxes – and, as an aside, why does Obama define an individual with an income of $200,000 as a ‘millionaire’? Did he fail grade school math? This leads to my question of – what is an economy?
It’s made up of THREE processes: Investment, production and consumption. The first two are vital and ought to be left in the control of the private business sector. Not the government. What’s the role of taxes?
Our governments are intruding more and more into the economy, depriving the people who work, of their money…via ‘taxes’. Taxes ought to be limited and meant to cover basic ‘common projects’ of the society that enable transportation, communication, defense. Most of the wealth of a society ought to be left in private hands – because this is the source of INVESTMENT. The wealth produced in an economy ought to be re-invested, privately, into PRODUCTION: more factories, more jobs, more businesses, loans to enable this etc.
This wealth ought to be privately controlled because decisions that are local and private are far more flexible and adaptive than centralized govt decisions. Private businesses can fail or switch focus without great harm, and new ones emerge rapidly. Public enterprises don’t have that flexibility.
But our govt has moved to take more and more of the wealth results of work, via taxes, into its own control. What does it do with this wealth? It massively increases its bureaucracy – an elite set of employees, with bloated salaries, benefits and pensions unavailable to the private sector. In many cases, the majority of taxes (80%) are spent on the unionized civil service and there is little left for repair and maintenance of infrastructure. Governments do not create new businesses. They CONSUME wealth; they don’t produce it.
Then, this bureaucracy introduces more and more regulations over the private sector, which stifles that basic strength of the private sector: its plasticity, its adaptive flexibility. Investment goes into hiding and production stalls. Then, what does the govt do?
Instead of freeing up wealth-production by reducing taxes and regulations, it BORROWS money! It continues its ‘distribution’ policies, which distribute money not for investment and production, but only for consumption purposes. This does nothing for the economy; it simply increases the burden of debt!
Federal and state govts ought to reduce in size, reduce and reform the tax code, reduce and reform regulations – and promote private small and medium businesses.
Did he fail grade school math?
Yes. When he spoke of the insane non-concept of “profit AND earnings ratios” the Indonesian let all know that he had the mathematical sophistication of a slow 8th grader … if that. There’s no question that the Indonesian didn’t break 420 on the math section of his SATs.
I have an idea. Let’s tax everyone’s total income from all sources at 100% and then give everyone an equal share of that total. That would certainly be fair.
I wonder how such a scheme would work out.
I saw a funny one recently; the new IRS 1040:
“How much did you make?”
“Send it in.”
I honestly loved this blog post.
I too have an idea. How about abolishing the IRS and tax code and putting a national sales tax on items sold?. That would CERTAINLY BE MORE FAIR as now even ILLEGALS would pay “their fair share”. Can’t afford that mansion?? Guess what you don’t have to pay taxes on it…oooh what about all those poor IRS workers?? Well put half of them to work collecting (harassing) at point of sales, then the other half on SS/Medicaid/Medicare fraud. And prosecute!
What happens in this type of scheme – with a sales tax added on to costs – is that consumer purchases move to the black market.
More and more consumption is dealt with via a black market economy that sidelines the tax. So, small businesses, independent contractors etc, move more of their businesses into the black market and thus, provide lower quotes than the larger businesses. In some cases, the work is good; in other cases, the work is shoddy.
And of course, illegal transactions, i.e., smuggling (cigarettes etc) increase.
There’s no perfect answer to taxation – but a key element in the issue, is to reduce the role of govt and reduce the size of their bureaucracy and reduce the scope of their programs, reduce the ratio of the population dependent on govt money..and reduce regulations.
Way back when, many decades ago, when I was in the service, I had a friend that got a promotion to E4. At the same time he went over three years service, both of which triggered a pay increase. The increase was enough to throw him into a higher tax bracket causing him to actually get less than he was making before. Needless to say, he was not a happy camper. Was that fair?
As to fair, I see our resident having the idea that everyone has the same, no one owns their own business, the government does. Everyone gets paid the same, everyone lives the same, cars the same, houses the same. That’s fair.
To do this, he must take all the wealth of the rich to even it out. Of course to even it out, the wealth would have to go to the government and theoretically be “redistributed” to those that don’t have. Of course the government would have to decide what would be a fair amount to pay everyone and of course, if someone doesn’t actually spend all of this largess from the government then they would have to give it back to be redistributed again. Heaven help them if they got caught trying to save anything. Now that’s fair.
Except for that one nagging little problem, human nature. If everyone made the same and had the same, why not do away with money all together. Just give everyone what they needed and be done with it. Everyone would be happy. Then along comes the guy that works in the bakery. He decides no one would miss one little cake, or the guy that works in the shirt factory that smuggles out just one extra shirt.
Oops, well, no harm done, nobody will notice. Especially our resident. Being in charge of redistribution, he will of course have to be able to spend what he needs to do his job. And of course he would have to have a better, more dependable car and nicer clothes since he is our representative. And he would have to have a bigger food ration. Wouldn’t want him to pass out from hunger while wining and dining all the other heads of state that would come to find out how they too could set up such a paradise.
But wait,our resident in chief has run out of golf balls. Can’t have that! But we are no longer making these frivolous things. No problem, we’ll just dig into the redistribution funds, nobody will miss it. Oh, wait, we ran through those on our last vacation. No problem, we will just have our workers produce more and trade…. What do you mean nobody wants our shoddy products? Aren’t we the greatest workers paradise on the planet? Well, I guess we will just have to produce more and sell really, really cheap. Surely someone will buy enough to afford a measly pack of golf balls.
Hey, what are all those people doing out there with torches and pitchforks? Who gave them a day off??
There’s another problem besides the psychological. It’s how an economy, any economy, actually functions. How is wealth produced? What is wealth? It’s ‘the goods’ or their equivalent that exist above consumption needs…
An economy, whether it be non-industrial peasant farming or industrialism, has three steps: Investment, Production and Consumption. Each is important but the first two are the most basic and vital. The first two produce wealth; the last one consumes wealth.
Investment is a long-term phase. It requires wealth, that surplus above consumption. The peasant must not eat all the seeds but retain enough for next year’s crops; must not slaughter and eat all the pigs; must not sell all his land..etc.
The industrial developer must not spend all his money on nightclubs and yachts but must retain enough to build a new factory, to pool with others to set up a research centre for new technology, retain enough to hire more workers..etc.
This investment, which is never about NOW, which isn’t about current use, but about long-term goals…is vital. A socialist agenda, such as that of the Obama redistribution type of economy, REMOVES all this private investment money and gives it to CONSUMERS..for their immediate use.
The second step is Production. It’s also a long term phase; not as long as investment where you must wait for some years to see that investment pay off..but, it takes time. Time to plant the seeds and water and fertilize and wait for the harvest. Time to build the factory, do the research, train the workers, build the products, get the markets.
The third phase is Consumption. This is ‘now’; this is current time. What it does is return the investment and production costs as a profit. This is how this economy MAKES WEALTH. ..to invest in the cycle yet again.
The problem with socialists and those on the left is that their focus is only on CONSUMPTION. They totally ignore Investment and Production. So where does their wealth come from? From a magic cauldron.
That’s right. The left views wealth production as some kind of magic cauldron, endlessly bubbling up ‘money’. The role of govt is to take this magic money out of that greedy cauldron..and ‘distribute’ it to those who don’t have access to magic. For consumption purposes only.
The socialist/left economy has no means of wealth production. No focus on investment or production. Just consumption. And if/when it runs out of the wealthy ‘millionaires and billionaires’ so defined by Obama, who has told us that ‘you’ve made enough money’ (a clear sign that he hasn’t a clue about the role of Investment and Production)….what does this socialist economy do?
It BORROWS money! From other nations! It goes into massive debt, so that it can feed its increasing ratio of those who only consume but produce nothing.
The result? An economy that removes all investment and production capacities from its population is unable to produce wealth, unable to invest or produce a thing. Think of Europe; think of Zimbabwe;..that’s right. And that’s the Obama economic mode. It’s all about magic and words. Not reality.
Generally I agree with the tone of this piece
“It is true, and redistributionists like our president often counter, that federal income taxes are just a small part of the overall tax picture. There are still property taxes, state income taxes, payroll taxes, sales taxes and excise taxes, hotel taxes, rental car taxes, airport taxes, etc., just to name a few. But let’s be frank: whatever the Joneses pay in these other forms of taxes, surcharges, and fees, the Williamses pay ten times that amount.”
This statement, while interesting, is not necessarily true. The statemetn is predicated on the belief that Joneses and the Williamses spend all of their disposable income. — A minor point but a true one.
The Joneses may save most their money and pay even less in taxes and only buy necessities.
While the Williamses spend every dime on businesses around the city, county, state and country. Helping those businesses out – which in turn may pay taxes etc.
Can anyone imagine if people like the Williamses suddenly had no money to spend becuase much more of it was being taken from them to feed the beast known as the ever growing Federal Government?
It ought to be clear that Obama has no intention of making the tax code fairer. His intent is to continue the long entrenched Democratic scheme to grow the percentage of those who pay no taxes and thereby create a permanent, Democratic majority voting block. The Democrats have cleverly positioned themselves fully aware of the prevalent ignorance among the electorate, those most likely to vote. There are an estimated 47% among those that now pay no income taxes which must be disturbingly close to their desired tipping point.
Ironic is it not, that the expressed, phony Liberal quest to “protect” America from the “draconian policies” of their main opposition is implemented by fomenting fraudulent, deceitful, unethical, anti-democratic policies of their own, policies which, no matter the intent, will destroy the independent, self reliant character that made America great.
As with all Liberal policies incubated, nurtured, developed and released from academia, the “noble, esoteric” ends justify the means and, by implication, the electorate are just too ignorant and unsophisticated to comprehend the benefits. Trust them. They’re Liberals,,,,,,intellectuals immersed in the brilliant thought experiments of those untarnished and undiluted by experience in the poisonous real world environment. They know what’s best for us all and we will learn to appreciate their wisdom……….or else.
Not to seem a spoilsport, but a few weeks ago IRS or some non-partisan group in DC noted that two years ago 1500 millionaires paid no taxes whatsoever.
A big part of the problem in this is simply widespread innumeracy plus a deliberate rhetorical bait-and-switch that *nobody*, conservative or libertarian, will ever explicitly point.
Forget ‘fair’, the key question is what does ‘pay more’ mean in the first place?
The scam is this — ‘more’ as in paying more in absolute dollars is substituted with ‘more’ as pays a higher percentage.
A very simplified example:
Bob makes $20,000
– an overall tax rate of 10% means he must pay $2000 in tax.
Jane makes $200,000 (ten times Bob).
– the same overall ‘flat’ rate of 10% means she pays $20,000 in tax.
They pay the ‘same’ [rate, that is] but she sure as hell pays more in actual $$s, ten times as much in fact — which is proportionate to her greater earnings. How is paying ten times as mush not ‘paying her fair share’?
If you go to a two tier system where she pays ‘more’ with a higher rate, say 20%, then she pays $40,000 or TWENTY TIMES AS MUCH. Yet the left would have you believe she is still some kind of shirker, not paying enough –even while in a more realistic example Bob would pay zero, or even be ‘paid’ in unearned credits.
WTF?!?!?!
How come NOBODY ever lays it out this way?
Defining ‘more’ is the key to tackling ‘fair’.
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. ‘Since you are all such good customers, he said , ‘I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’ They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay!
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
‘I only got a dollar out of the $20,’declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,’ but he got $10!’
‘Yeah, that’s right,’ exclaimed the fifth man. ‘I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!’
‘That’s true!!’ shouted the seventh man. ‘Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!’
‘Wait a minute,’ yelled the first four men in unison. ‘We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!’
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics, University of Georgia
Dr Kamserschen did not write that. It is an Internet hoax. It has been attributed to many others as well.
Talking about fairness and justice is an all too common ploy of the modern Leftist. I’ve never seen one of these people, from Teddy Kennedy to Barack Obama, ever come close to putting his own money where his mouth is.
Anytime you hear one of these supremely manipulative hypocrites wax eloquent about justice and fairness, run like the wind.
As far away as you can.
I paid more in taxes than 50,000,000 Americans last year, combined. Now somebody wants to tell me that is fair?
Barack and his cohorts have repeatedly revealed their lack of respect for founding principles.
Redistribution through government fiat is an attack on the Constitution itself.
Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6th, 1816:
“To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and
that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare to others,
who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is
to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association — the
guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits
acquired by it.”
Jefferson’s first inaugural address, March 4th, 1801:
“A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one
another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own
pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth
of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.”
“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”
John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Governments of the United States of America, 1787:
“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as
sacred as the law of God, and that there is not a force of law and
public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.”
Rarely taught to children in American public schools these days:
We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts,
not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert
the Constitution.
~Abraham Lincoln
Obama is always goin’ off about ‘fair’, and “spreading the wealth around”.
I say, he’s got a wife, and I don’t, and that greedy bastard should kick down and help me out.
Very good article in that you raise important points about who is paying the most taxes. But you miss one very important point in your argument. You are making the assumption that the money earned was earned fairly. This is a big assumption in the America of today.
In your case you proudly state that you are a trial attorney. Was your money earned honestly? Did it enrich our society or only yourself? Trial attorneys do not create any wealth. They take it from others utilizing highly effective methods of legal extortion.
If all money came honestly and fairly, the government would be wrong in taxing the affluent more than the poor. But in America today, it no longer matters how you get the money, only that you get it. You perhaps know that as well as anyone considering your occupation.
And that is why our society is crumbling.
Progressive tax rates have taught Americans that THEY have a RIGHT to other people’s money.
A corrosive and dangerous concept which has led us exactly to where we are.
And who is this John Galt guy?
Labor Unions and the People Who Love, and Hate, Them
. . . Admittedly and initially, the creation of united workers’ organizations may have served a critical function during the era when industries repressively and unconscionably dictated piddling wages and atrocious working conditions. I would like to agree with claims that the union movement in the United States established the foundations for America’s vast middle class, the indomitable engine for our progress.
I would concur with all that providing major labor union leaders and workers, Big Labor, concede the worm has turned 180 degrees and that over the past 50 years they have developed into the oppressive, greedy equals of nineteenth century businessmen and banker ”robber barons,” and worse.
Union excesses today are legion–think Wisconsin last winter–and many public unions are leading the pack, demanding and getting pay raises far beyond the inflation rate while 26 million Americans are under-employed, foreclosures are skyrocketing, and poverty is spreading wildly.
Still, the United Auto Workers, UAW, at Ford Motor Corporation take the greed cake even if the bigwigs at FoMoCo provided the incentive.
In July, Ford–the only Big 3 automaker that had the integrity to reject the 2009 Obamian bailouts which GM and Chrysler gladly accepted and have yet to pay back in full–announced it was giving tens of millions in executive bonuses while advising workers they were lucky to have jobs. In retaliation, UAW Ford authorized a strike.
Perspective is desperately needed here.
As with most major industry executives, Ford’s President and CEO Alan Mulally is grossly over-compensated for his efforts; Mulally’s July stock bonus of $56.5 million only added to the grossness level.
However, at the risk of seeming an industry shill, Mulally runs a $165 billion business, his company employs 164,000 people worldwide, and Ford earned a taxable $6.6 billion profit on $128 billion total revenue for 2010.
On the other hand, the average Ford UAW worker with perhaps a high school education earns approximately $58. per hour, almost $2400. a week, $124,000. a year, just for showing up and maybe watching robots affix rear view mirrors to Fusions. Also, in January, Ford’s hourly employees were awarded $5,000. in profit-sharing, the highest payouts in 10 years, on top of extremely generous employee and layoff benefits.
In brief, Mulally and company are rapacious SOB’s but Joe Average Ford is doing pretty damned well for himself too, . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5494.)