Posted on 10/19/2015 12:25:59 PM PDT by jazusamo
At the recent televised debate among candidates for the Democrats' nomination for president, Hillary Clinton declared that "the wealthy pay too little" in taxes and "the middle class pays too much."
Some people might wish to argue about whether that is true or not, but no rational argument can be made on either side of this issue, because the words used are completely undefined. Nor is Hillary Clinton the only one who talks this way.
It is one of the many signs of the mindlessness of our times that all sorts of people declare that "the rich" are not paying their "fair share" in taxes, without telling us concretely what they mean by either "the rich" or "fair share."
Whether in politics or in the media, words are increasingly used, not to convey facts or even allegations of facts, but simply to arouse emotions. Undefined words are a big handicap in logic, but they are a big plus in politics, where the goal is not clarity but victory — and the votes of gullible people count just as much as the votes of people who have common sense.
What a "fair share" of taxes means in practice is simply "more." No matter how high the tax rate is on people with a given income, you can always raise the tax rate further by saying that they are still not paying their "fair share."
Advocates of higher tax rates can get very specific when they want to. A recent article in the New York Times says that raising the tax rate on the top one percent of income earners to 40 percent would generate "about $157 billion" a year in additional tax revenue for the government.
(Excerpt) Read more at creators.com ...
“It is one of the many signs of the mindlessness of our times that all sorts of people declare that “the rich” are not paying their “fair share” in taxes, without telling us concretely what they mean by either “the rich” or “fair share.”
Truth is a crucifix to leftists.
” A recent article in the New York Times says that raising the tax rate on the top one percent of income earners to 40 percent would generate “about $157 billion” a year in additional tax revenue “
From the current 39.6% to 40% will raise 157 billion ?
Whodathunk ?
Any Pol (no matter their party) proposing tax hikes should be tarred, feathered then run out of the country.
Hillary and Bernie would already be long gone, what a pleasant thought.
“What politicians are interested in is what they can get the public to believe in the present and to vote on in the future. Plans to “soak the rich,” who are not paying their “fair share,” have worked politically, time and time again — and may well work yet again in the 2016 elections.”
Sowell BUMP!
Both parties just use tax hikes to buy power and votes. I would fire at least 50%-60% of all federal employees if I could.
Exactly. "Fair share" really means everything so that the government controls the distribution of all cash and there are no productive people who are strong enough to stand up to government control.
It seems that politicians, particularly liberal Democrats, pose their statements about taxes in a punitive way--"the rich have taken advantage of the system, and need to pay their fair share!"
Without parameters around the statement, we don't know if the rich are way short of paying their fair share, or if by writing an extra check for $100, they'd be paid in full. That might be a fun question to ask your liberal friends, "How much more do they have to pay before their share is considered fair?"
Better yet, we should pose a hypothetical question to the liberal politicians: "Assuming you raised taxes on the "rich," what will we be able to do with that extra money rolling in? How much better will we be? Will we then be able to pay for all our infrastructure? Will healthcare be provided to those extra 30 million people that are still uninsured, even after Obamacare? Will our Social Security accounts become solvent? Will we be able to pay down our deficit? Will we be able to bolster our shrinking military?
That last one was just a joke. I know liberals don't give a whiff about our military. But it would be a starting point for conversation because after the Democrats fleece the one-percenters for all they can, they'll come after the next in line. We may all find out that we're suddenly "rich."
I agree. Sadly politicians for the most part don’t want to spend new revenue on what you listed, they want to spend it on new pet projects while the old problems are left to be taken care of at some unspecified time in the future.
A tax is a tax is a tax. (Pate Phillips, IL)
Voices on taxes range from “total cost of government borne by the individual” on one side to “pick one small aspect of one tax and its impact on one small group” at the other extreme.
Voices that tend to the latter side then use the word “tax” with rare qualification...and then only when pressed to do so. Hannity is the best example.
Hannity lies repeatedly “Only the rich pay taxes”. He only qualifies it when forced to do so. “well, federal taxes....well federal income taxes,...well personal federal income taxes...well a high percent of personal federal income taxes.”
The left decries regressive taxes that hurt the poor the most. But all the while, the left pushes for regressive increases in taxes on the poor (lottery, casinos, alcohol, tobacco and other sin taxes).
The sacred cow of the left is the biggest regressive tax of all, FICA and Medicare.
Transparency and full disclosure of all taxes is the first step in any honest discussion of taxes. Every worker should be sent a pay stub showing the total cost of government attached to his employment, including unemployment comp, workers comp, head count and other local taxes, as well as the total cost of Medicare, Social Security, etc.
Likewise, every Link, EBT, WIC, Medicaid, Sec8, Unemployment benefit, etc should have a pie chart showing where that money came from. The recipient should be required to finger tap each section of the pie chart before getting the benefit.
You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.
But can we handle the truth?
A tax rate is a price. And just as in the real world businesses do not set their prices to infinity, because they only make money when people can afford to buy the product, governments will in the long run make tax rates reasonable because if they don’t they get a lot less money.But in the short run, politicians can always make hay by talking a good game of soak-the-rich. And inflict substantial damage on society in the process.
Hey Jaz,
First, thanks much for posting Mr. Sowell.
Second, thanks for taking care to use the URL of the print ready page!
Well done.
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.