Gotta love The New Republic and their article today which ask’s the question…”why is spreading the wealth a bad thing?”
But let’s get back to this apparently controverisal phrase–which, I gather, is going to remain prominent in McCain’s campaign rhetoric over the next few days. What, exactly, is so awful about “spreading the wealth”?
Government performs certain essential functions, from education to national defense. It must raise money to do that. Charging everybody the same tax rate might sound simple. But it would actually impose a much harsher burden on the poor, since they end up spending much–if not all–of their incomes on the basic necessities of life, such as food, clothing, and shelter. As one famous 18th century philosopher argued,
“It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expen[s]e, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.”
Another rationale for progressive taxation is the fact that random chance has profound effects on everybody’s financial well-being. (A guy named John Rawls once wrote a thing or two about this.) Mandating economic equality–i.e., carrying out a truly socialist agenda–would obviously be wrong. But there are compelling moral and economic arguments for asking the fortunate to pay a little more in taxes, in order to blunt the influence of chance on people’s lives.
Uh, hello? Are you kidding me? Asking the fortunate to pay a little more in taxes when the top 5% of wage earners, those making more then $153,000, pay 60% of ALL federal income taxes. The top 1% of wage earners, those making over $388,000, pay 40% of ALL federal income taxes. Those top 1%er’s make up 17% of the fed’s revenue from ALL sources including excise taxes, retirement receipts, and corporate taxes.
The top 1 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $364,657) earned approximately 21.2 percent of the nation’s income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 39.4 percent of all federal income taxes. That means the top 1 percent of tax returns paid about the same amount of federal individual income taxes as the bottom 95 percent of tax returns.
They already pay their share. Actually more then their share. But according to the yahoo’s at The New Republic (and Obama of course) lets take more of their money.
The government has certain functions laid out by the Constitution. But I can find no section in that document, or any other document related to how our government should function that says the successful in this country should be mandated to play Robin Hood. Our government should never punish success, instead it should award those who work their butt off to succeed. That will make more people wanting to succeed. Instead, with Obama’s “spread the wealth” mantra, he wants those who sit on the sofa all day eating cheetos to be just as wealthy, just as successful, as those who work 14 hour days making their business a success.
See author page
As one of those business owners working 14+ hours a day, 7 days a week, I invite the staff of TNR to kiss my ass.
I’m providing JOBS in my community. I took the financial risk to start this business at age 42 and I spend thousands of hours building that business instead of clocking out and going home to watch TV and have dinner with the family. I’m the one who went without to make sure I could meet payroll when my clients were late paying me. What have those so-called journalists done to contribute a damned thing to this country or their communities? Now, not only am I supposed to continue on, I’m supposed to be grateful for the opportunity to slave myself out?
No way, no how.
Wow, Dale. Here’s an Aye Chi gift to share with you! The “gender appropriate” version….
Hey New Republic! what say we start with your Profits. Lets give the guy on the corner that cleans windshields 20% for starters, and the guy thats sleeping in your door way 20%. We would hear some very loud screeches from your enlightened staff when you can’t meet the pay roll.
So, where’s the incentive to succeed? If Obama wins, and with the congress staying Democratic…..
1. I will stay in my current income bracket or cut back.
2. Cut jobs.
3. Cut inventory (which effects other job sectors).
4. Send my business/assets overseas (even if it means a 50% on-time expatriate tax by the Feds…passed in 2007).
5. Hide my income. “Cash only”.
Etc.,
hey my neighbor really likes to sit her ass on her couch eating her cheetos, what the hell. seriously, i think she needs to get off her ass, clean her house(its gross), take care of her kids and get a freakin job. one as as to who the trashy and toothless is voting for….obama. she doesn’t like that he is black, but she feels he is more in touch with her “needs”. i’m thinking psychotherapy is in order. i really hate working so other may sit on their ass to be a “stay at home mom”, i went back to work 5 weeks aftera c-section, took 3 months off after the second, i never got to be a stay at home mom. i didn’t have paid leave, we saved money and paid our own freakin way. god that shit pisses me off. i say we boycott cheetos. better yet, boycott obama. i already voted and their wasn’t a dem among them.
I have posted this comment on another thread, but it would be just fine here
ECONOMY 101 FOR THE HOPELESS:
How to destroy a country with socialism:
A father has 12 years old twin sons. He tells them, from now on, every domestic task you will do, I will give you 10$.
– The 1st week, Peter makes 10 tasks and gets 100$
– His brother Paul makes 2 tasks and only gets 20$
– Peter is very happy. He made a lot of money and he’s proud of himself.
– Paul is not happy; he envies his brother and decides that next week he will do more.
But the mother comes along, she is a leftist, and she thinks that this is unfair. So she takes all of the money (120$), splits it in two, and gives each boy 60$.
– Peter is mad. He feels cheated. Next week, he will take it easy. Why work his ass off if he has to split his money with his lazy brother.
– Paul is happy. He got more than he worked for. Next week he will take it easy again. Why work his ass off since his brother does it for him.
October 12th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
@Craig: so who ends up doing the work the next week? you know the obamatards won’t believe this, they think he will save them all.
LOL the Obamorons think that obama is gonna hand them a check for nothin’ too.
I always think that THIS explains it best!
http://www.sectalk.com/boards/showthread.php?t=60871&referrerid=1579
You all realize that all this has a ratcheting effect that can almost never be reversed.
Once the “goodies” get rolling, it will take a major disaster to unravel it, just like welfare.
Christy, your link was so good, that I decided to print the whole article here:
Our tax system, explained in beer terms
Here’s an explanation of the bailout……….
Read this and take heed –Remember this when you vote!
EXPLAINING OUR UNITED STATES TAXING SYSTEM WITH BEER
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 beers 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 pay $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!’ ‘Y eah,
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 very important….they didn’t have enough
money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how
our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most
benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being
wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might
start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible!
Look at what the Stock Market has done, even with the bailout, when it looked like Obama was going to win.
We don’t need to be “spreading the wealth” around and taxing our businesses at a time of economic crisis. We’ll be in a deeper hole than we were before we started out.
I agree, but wouldn’t Johnny’s $300 billion Homeownership Reurgency Plan fall into the category of handouts. And how ’bout that $5,000 to every American family health plan? 350 Americans x $5,000=trillion$$$
Where is he getting this money????
You guys need to jolt your base and get a true conservative. There’d be a lot of Dems (including myself) on board.
Richard,
When you give a tax break, you don’t give money. The money just stays in the taxpayer’s pocket. And the government gets none. So he doesn’t need to find it nowhere.
And the $ 300 billions Homeownership Teurgency Plan is taken from the 750 trillion Bailout out Plan.
Does it strike anyone funny that all the bribe money, that is what is is really, that the Messiah is promising the poor to vote for him will be paid by us? Promising a chicken in every pot is one thing, but hard cash seems a bit illegal? Seems like he should be charged with bribery and locked up before the election.
Just saying….
This is where we are headed:
You have to read the comments. This is what we have to look forward to.
Chicago Documentary: Where Is Obama?
Well, Obama doesn’t seem to be distributing wealh in Chicago Latino’s district. In fact, he has done nothing for them since he is a Senator.
They should just call it “The New Socialist Republic” magazine.
“Hey New Republic! what say we start with your Profits.”
Good idea, but you don’t go far enough: There are places in the world where the average income is about $600 per year. I suggest that every wealth-redistributionist be stripped of all but $600 a year of their income, and all of their wealth. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. 🙂
Appropriately, the founder of the New Republic, Herbert Croly, was a disciple of Mussolini and his magazine advocated unceasingly for fascistic policies and ideas.
Seems that not much has changed.