Posted on 11/10/2012 4:07:54 AM PST by Kaslin
Barack Obama wants you to know that the rich are out of control.
And I partially agree. It’s a matter of fairness.
After thinking about it for a few years, he has finally figured out that our economic problems have a very simple explanation: There are too many rich people.
I know of at least one too many. The one occupying the White House? Way too rich.
(Editor's note: I'm taking a few days off. I'll see you guys again on Tuesday)
Too many rich people are causing a jobless “recovery.” Having too many rich people caused gas prices to go up, the stock market to go down and the housing bubble to burst. Too many rich people meant that a peaceful demonstration against America in Benghazi turned into terrorism.
The rich, Obama would have you believe, are probably responsible for the next ice age too.
Rich people, it seems, run up huge budget deficits on silly things like entitlement spending disguised as healthcare reform, green energy swindles disguised as “jobs programs” and road projects that benefit the Illinois Asphalt Contractors Association -bada-bing!
Rich people demand trillions in stimulus spending, huge mortgage entitlements for people who can’t make house payments and bloated pension programs for public workers.
Rich people get special treatment from banks that they are supposed to be regulating; they encourage the Federal Reserve Bank to print more money and they borrow gigantic sums from the Chinese.
The rich people are out of control, Obama tells us.
In order to get them back under control, they have to be taxed.
Obama and his friends want to tax impose a super-tax on the 4 million household making more than $250,000 per year to solve the so-called "fiscal cliff" where tax cuts expire and the federal government is forced to cut spending, just as they agreed to.
Former Clinton administration Labor Secretary Robert Reich writes: “From the 1940s until 1980, the top income-tax rate on the highest earners in America was at least 70 percent. In the 1950s, it was 91 percent. Now it's 35 percent. Even if you include deductions and credits, the rich are paying a far lower share of their incomes in taxes than at any time since World War II.”
And that’s just not fair, say liberals.
“Fair” can also be called the Obama Doctrine.
The Obama Doctrine says that we have to tax the rich in the interest of fairness. We’d all have less money, for sure. We’d all get to wait in line for rationed toilet paper, rationed food and rationed healthcare but fairness would rule the land.*
Sure, the whole Land of Opportunity thing worked for 300 years, but what about the next 300 years?
Maybe instead America can be the Yeah, We’re the Land of Opportunity, But Don’t Get Carried Away With It, O.K.?
Or maybe we can be the Land of Fairness.
Certainly if those darn rich people would just stop being rich, then we’d have no budget problems at all.
Some of the rich are guiltily admitting as much. They’ve banded together into United for a Fair Economy. They’ve signed a pledge pleading with the government to tax the rich more.
“Seattle-based Judy Pigott, one of the heirs to her grandfather’s company that builds Peterbilt trucks and other heavy equipment, was one of the first people to sign the Pledge,” said a press release from the organization last year.
“’If we even kept what was in place from the end of the Reagan years and into those of Bush I,’” says Pigott, “’I suspect we’d not be in a budget crisis now. Let’s do what it takes to support all of us, since it takes all of us to keep this nation going.’”
You see, it takes a village to tax the rich.
Of course, Ms. Pigott is probably relying on her considerable economic experience as an heiress to come to that conclusion.
Economists and historians disagree with Ms. Pigott: “The historical evidence suggests that capital gains tax reductions tend to increase tax revenue,’ says Shahira ElBogdady Knight an economist with the Congressional Joint Economic Study Committee.
“When capital gains tax rates were lowered in 1978 and again in 1981, revenue climbed steadily. Conversely, when the tax rate was increased in 1987, revenue began declining despite forecasters predictions it would increase. For instance, capital gains tax revenue in 1985 equaled $36.4 billion after adjusting for inflation, yet $36.2 billion was collected in 1994 under a higher tax rate. In other words, tax revenue in 1994 was slightly less than it was in 1985 even though the economy was larger, the tax rate was higher, and the stock market was stronger in 1994.”
But what about fairness? asks Obama.
Oh, well here’s the answer:
In the interest of fairness, there is one guy who needs to be taxed, and taxed at the same rate they he has taxed our patience for nearly four years long.
Because the rich guy in the White House is out of control.
I say tax him. And then tax him again, until he stops taxing us.
That seems fair to me.
*Actual Fairness to be determined by the executive office under paragraph 5, subsection 2 of the U.S. Citizens Fairness Act also known as ObamaFair.
Sorry to say it, but you are absolutely correct. The GOP has proved that insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. They keep making "good faith" deals and the other side keeps reneging. There is no polite or politic way to deal with them. Until we decide to throw the PC bull$h-- out the window and start using more forceful (take that as you may want to interpret it) tactics, they will continue to have their way and amass more despotic power. People like the Left used to be treated like the pariahs they are and would be run out of town on a rail. Today, it is considered to be bad manners to disagree with them. Decent people will have to do indecent things if we are to recover from the cancer that has eaten away our core.
It's bad enough that wealth gets taxed if its real estate or a car, and that there's all sorts of pension restrictions, but those are disguised wealth taxes.
If what you are thinking of is taxing all accumulated wealth above some amount, I think you'll be sorry. Capital accumulation will be severely affected, and with it jobs and general economic well being. It will be eating the seed corn.
“As it exists now, trusts pay income tax on any undistributed income, and the recipients of distributed income pay tax.”
Are they using that income to build the economy, or to support themselves in a high style while they tear it down for the rest of us? Think of all the heirs and heiresses spouting leftist platitudes so they can get invited to Hollywood cocktail parties. A lot of people who have fabulous wealth they did not earn are using it to make my life miserable, and I resent it.
Look, we are going to have to negotiate with them, otherwise we go over the cliff and the negative consequences, real or imagined, will be blamed on us. Unless you can show me that going after trust funds will hurt the GOP more than the dems, then I say throw that out there and let their trust fund babies squeal.
It depends. Be careful before you cap wealth. What would you think if you had some enterprise of yours come through, and politicians decided to cap what you could give to your family after you were gone? Even if your family turned out to be liberal jerks? Who makes the decision?
We are like an army standing in an open field while our enemies shoot at us from behind trees. And all while we complain about how unfair it is. If we do not find a rock soon, we are gonna get wiped out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.