Won't One Brave Conservative Call for the Rich to Chip In?

Barack Hussein Obama and his administration have called for the rich to contribute their fair share, in this and every crisis.

Whether we speak of the debt ceiling or the annual deficit, the problem of rising unemployment or that of sinking consumer confidence, the Administration’s mantra is the same: "The rich" must kick in their fair share.

How they define the rich is another matter. In one conversation, it’s those with incomes above $250,000/year, or perhaps $200,000, or perhaps $150,000. In another context, it’s those who own jets, or who have access to corporate jets, or perhaps who have heard of corporate jets… the definitions change like the wind, more to meet the needs of the argument of the day than to establish any clear meaning for a useful debate.

To keep it simple, perhaps we should define the rich the way the Left really means it: it's everybody who makes a little more money than we do. That way, it’s a moving target: it might be the guy across the street today… but if we get a raise to match his salary tomorrow, then “the rich” magically becomes someone who makes at least a little bit more than that.

Just so long as our neighbor earns more than we do. “The rich” is always “him,” never “us.”

This is the great question, isn’t it? “The rich” is such a broad group, ranging from millionaires and billionaires, down to our next door neighbor the dry cleaner, the accountant, or the corporate middle manager who earns so much more than we do (or our jealous souls think he does, anyway). So let’s see what that group can do for the economy, to help chip in, as the president says.

When the rich own or run businesses, they can hire more employees to help improve the unemployment statistics… …if the government doesn’t take that potential salary money away from them through increased taxes.

When the rich own or run businesses, they can buy more things – office supplies, raw materials for manufacturing their finished goods, etc. – helping their vendors employ others, making taxable profits and taxable sales for those vendors… …if the government doesn’t take that purchasing money away from them through increased taxes.

Whether the rich own or run businesses themselves or not, they can spend their money on buying things at retail – clothing, books, furniture, knick-knacks for the house – employing the clerks at the struggling stores, staving off increased vacancy rates at the malls for another month, or week, or day… …if the government doesn’t take that purchasing money away from them through increased taxes.

The rich can spend their money on entertainment – whether on local restaurants, comedy clubs, and live theater, or on those far away, by adding vacations in New York, Chicago, the Dells, Branson, Miami, or the dozens of other famous tourism magnets across the country. …if, that is, the government doesn’t take that money away from them through increased taxes, which, as always, hurts not only the directly taxed individuals, but also all the people, groups, businesses, and communities that depend on that entertainment spending for their very livelihoods.

If the rich are business owners, they can hire contractors to renovate or otherwise improve their offices or factories – and whether they’re business owners or not, they can do the same to their homes, adding additions, or decks, or finishing basements or attics, or remodeling the bathroom – all of which employs not only the construction or remodeling firms doing the work, it also employs the people who work for their materials vendors, the manufacturers of paint, cabinetry, flooring, drywall, sinks and faucets, and so many other housing-sector industries… …if, that is, the government doesn’t take that money away from them by raising their taxes.

The rich might also be inclined to donate some money to charity. By every study, the American people are the most generous on earth with their personal funds. They might donate to a veterans’ hospital, a food pantry, a church or school, a research laboratory for cancer or AIDS or MS, a battered women’s shelter or group home for the mentally ill. Not only do they have the personal inclination to do so, as generous Americans, but the tax code encourages such donations through the tax-deductibility of charitable contributions. …Unless, of course, the government takes that money away from them by raising their taxes, or makes the donations cost them more rather than less, by removing or reducing the tax deductibility that has long contributed to American charitable generosity.

The rich might be inclined to just save that money for an uncertain future, putting it in the bank, which helps the banks loan money to investors, to people refinancing their homes, to businesses embarking on expansions. Our economy depends on the rich and their savings, more now than ever before, as the government has recently increased the amount of reserves that banks must have on hand to loan money; the best risks out there sometimes can’t get a loan nowadays, because the reserve formulas have been amended upward as part of the “financial reforms” of this administration. The rich would love to put more of their money in banks… …if the Fed didn’t cause the interest on savings accounts to be lower than the inflation rate… and if the government doesn’t take that money away from them in increased taxes.

There are so many things the rich can do with their money. They can spend it, they can invest it, they can save it. They can hire others directly, or, through their own self-interested purchases and investments, they can enable others to hire people or otherwise benefit the public. And in all of this, no matter what the rich do, the government does get a secondary benefit, one step later.

State and local governments get revenue from sales taxes at the shops, the theaters, the home improvement stores. They get revenue from property taxes and income taxes on those properties, those businesses, and their employees. Every government depends on economic activity – on every sale, every investment, every employment, every raise, every success.

So why is it that whenever things get a little tight, the American Left’s first, last, and biggest proposal is always to increase tax rates, to remove deductions, to reduce the pool of money in the hands of those who have it, so that all these sources, and therefore their resulting revenue streams, dry up?

When taxes are already on the wrong side of the Laffer Curve (that is, when tax rates are already past the point of diminishing returns, as we know the American tax burden most certainly is at present), every tax increase, whether through rate increases or through the removal of deductions and credits (which the American Left usually describes as “loopholes” nowadays), depletes that pool and hurts everyone.

Increased tax rates and diminished deductions do not one thing, but many: They reduce the stream of funds into government at every level. They further increase unemployment, further weaken every sector from wholesale to retail, from discretionary to mandatory. Increased tax rates and diminished deductions make it harder, not easier, for government to do what it must: raise revenue to make good on its commitments, service the debt, promote the general welfare.

The Capitalist economic system – as designed by geniuses from Adam Smith in Scotland to Alexander Hamilton in New York, as intellectually developed and explained by economists from von Mises in Austria to Friedman, Williams, Sowell and Laffer over here in the States – brilliantly enables every single transaction to support both the private and public sectors.

Every purchase and every sale helps vendor and consumer alike, and every participant up and down the supply chain… and helps government at every level as well, through reasonable taxation on the profits of those transactions.

But every penny the government takes away from those private sector economic actors – rich or poor, corporate or individual – obviously diminishes the activity they can perform. Take away another 5% of their funds in lost deductions or higher tax rates, and you eliminate another 5% of their activity. Take away another 10%, and it’s another 10% that you’ve killed. Take another 15%, and you’ve crippled the economy by 15% more.

What’s our unemployment rate? Our effective, real inflation rate? Our savings and investment rates, these days? Those five, or ten, or fifteen percent of the funds of America’s “rich” could really help us out, if “the rich” were free to dispense them as they choose. Instead, the administration and its Pelosireidian leadership in Congress are determined to take that money out of the mix, leaving ever less in place to work the magic of capitalism.

In the American economy, every single transaction is a force multiplier. The more activity there is, the more the economy grows. Good for people, good for businesses, good for government.

But just as surely, every single reduction in the money that these economic actors have at their disposal is a force depressor. Every time government shrinks the amount of money they have at their disposal, they reduce the transactions upon which real people depend for their livelihoods, depressing not only the business’ operating revenue, but depressing the economy as a whole, reducing the tax receipts upon which government depends.

In short, when the Democrats call for “a balanced plan” between spending cuts and tax hikes, they are working against their own stated interests, because such tax rate increases and deduction reductions can only further reduce the eventual government revenues that the Left claims to be focused on increasing.

And yes, after two hundred years of history and plenty of experiments on all sides, everybody knows it.

So who is it that really supports the idea of “the rich” chipping in to “contribute their fair share?” It’s always been the Right. Only the conservatives have been focused on tax rate reductions that grow the economy and thereby enable the economic participation of the wealthy to be ever more beneficial to both society as a whole and the government coffers as well.

The American Left doesn’t really want “the rich” to contribute more. If they did, they would be calling for tax rate cuts, not tax rate hikes and the elimination of deductions. No, the American Left isn’t about fiscal discipline or growth, they’re about control, and punishment, and envy, and destruction.

The Conservatives recognize and support the contributions of the rich to our economy, and advocate programs to enable every seed of wealth to germinate and work its magic. Only the Right knows that the solution to our nation’s problems is for government to get out of the way and allow our mighty private sector to work its magic, unfettered by the red tape of government agencies, unbled by the bloodletters of greedy taxing bodies from sea to shining sea.

You want the rich to chip in, President Obama? You really want the rich to contribute their fair share, Minority Leader Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid? Well, that’s not hard.

John F. Di Leo is a Chicago-based Customs broker and international trade lecturer. He may not be rich, but he knows he never got a job from a poor person, and that nobody wins when you kill the goose that lays the golden egg, as the Pelosireidian Left has been striving daily to do, ever since they took power.

Permission is hereby granted to forward freely, provided it is uncut and the IR URL and byline are included. Follow me on LinkedIn and Facebook!

I have a cousin, who at 49, the only job she has had was baby sitting others' kids. Her husband, who she met when he was a carnival worker, has worked in factories for maybe up to $13 an hour.

They have refused to pay Dr and dentist bills, because they have no insurance and no money, and cry poor about everything, and say that the government should help them because they're poor, and thats what taxes are for. Meanwhile, with an income of about $26k, with the EITC, they got a "refund" from the government for $9+k, about $5k more than they paid in.

Here it is July, 4 months after getting their "refund" they've bought ANOTHER computer, but have no money for property taxes.

They have a motorcycle, a fishing boat, 2 campers, about 4 computers, all on about $26k a year.

I work 60-70 hours a week. Pay all my bills, try to save and plan for the future, and am by NO MEANS "rich". I've never had a boat or motorcycle or camper. I'm on my second computer, after my first one died after 10 years of use

And now other people EXPECT me, or people like me, to carry others like my cousin and her family.

Give us a number. Should the 'super rich' top 1% pay, let's say, 25% of all taxes? Maybe they should pay 30% of all taxes? How about the top 10%? Should they pay, let's say, 40% of all taxes? Maybe 50%?

Tell us, how much extra burden should they bear? Give us some numbers.

How is it that having different tax rates for different people doesn't violate the Equal Protection Clause of the U S Constitution? If everyone had some skin in the game the amount of money the government confiscated from us would be a lot less.

Nice job on this.

Ubanga’s constant whining for a “balanced approach” has cracked me up from the beginning. It’s like he’s saying, “Hey, my Democrats are going to have to get by with a little less free stuff, and so to balance it out you Republicans are going to have to pay more taxes.” LOL, yeah, that’s “balanced”.

The audacity of that freaking dope..!

Warren Buffet is on record as saying his secretary pays more taxes than he does.
So I call on all the very wealthy Democrats to “pitch in”, first. Demonstrate some real leadership.
The ability to pay more than one owes has always been there and yet these people do not choose that option. It’s time they did. Buffet, Soros, Bloomberg, Kerry, the Clintons, Jobs, et all.

Oh, and Warren, while you’re at it, loan your secretary your tax attorney and pay for his time. It’s the least you can do.

Nascarnation (or anyone else), do you know if the value received from food stamps would be considered taxable income?

I don’t know the answer, but my presumption is that it isn’t taxable. I think all government handouts should be taxed as regular income and the recipients should be required to prove certain things. Namely, a legal right to be in this country, actual legal guardianship of any kids they claim as their own, that they are 100% drug-free and nicotene free, that their application for assistance correctly reflects their cohabitation situation so they’re not collecting money while an undisclosed roommate earns enough to support them.

On a side note, would it be constitutional to limit the number of years a person can collect government assistance? Maybe require 5 years off after collecting for 7, or something like that?

Another good question to ask a liberal is what is the maximum percentage of income the government should be able to take from the people? Try and get them to state a specific percentage ... I have not encountered a single one who has given this any thought. Of those that I have pushed for an answer most will say 25%. Occationally I will get a 30%.

I then try and get them to support a constitutional amendment that would allow the government to tax up to 30% of income but no more. The vast majority of liberals I talk to support that position. Every single one of them was shocked to learn that the “rich” pay far more that in taxes already.

Taking more from the private sector is stupid.

Taking more from those who employ and invest is even stupider.

Tax increases get passed on to the consumer, with the economy lacking consumer demand, this is also stupid.

Time for the federal government to “chip in”.

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.