Prog-talk on taxing the rich
By Neal Boortz
Dissecting prog-talk is pretty straight forward. Dissecting prog-logic is a whole other can of worms. So let’s start with the prog-talk .. this is language that the left uses to describe words or concepts that would otherwise sound bad if you actually call it like it is.
This one is a no-brainer: “Revenue.” This is a word that progs use instead of saying “taxes.” The thought process is easy, and it is based on focus group studies showing that people see “taxes” as an evil word. “Revenue,” however, has yet to accrue a negative connotation.
So that brings me to this article by Democrat insider and former chief of staff to Al Gore and Joe Biden, Ron Klain: How Democrats Can Make Their Case for Raising Revenue. In other words, how Democrats can convince the dumb masses to raise taxes. So that’s the prog-talk, now let’s try and dissect prog-logic. Let’s start with this …
To avoid being burned by the tax debate, Democrats need to begin the conversation by reiterating that they support revenue increases -- not because there are people who can afford to pay more, but because there is no other way to get our fiscal house in order.
Democrats have convinced themselves that there is no other way to tackle our debt/deficit crisis other than raising taxes. Those recommendations by Obama’s own deficit commission – cutting spending and entitlement reform – apparently are not considered credible in the eyes of Democrats. But the panel’s recommendations on tax increases, now that part MUST be credible. And don’t even THINK about proposing the idea of growing our economy as a way to help shore up our fiscal problems. They don’t know how to do that. But let’s stay with this idea for a moment that taxing the rich is the only way to get our fiscal house in order. To debunk this theory, we go to this column by Walter Williams: Tax the Rich? Good Luck With That. I’ve given you these statistics before, but they continue to be poignant in this discussion on taxing the rich.
If Congress imposed a 100% tax, taking all earnings above $250,000 per year, it would yield the princely sum of $1.4 trillion. That would keep the government running for 141 days, but there's a problem because there are 224 more days left in the year.
How about corporate profits to fill the gap? Fortune 500 companies earn nearly $400 billion in profits … Taking corporate profits would keep the government running for another 40 days, but that along with confiscating all income above $250,000 would only get us to the end of June. Congress must search elsewhere.
According to the Forbes 400, America has 400 billionaires with a combined net worth of $1.3 trillion. Congress could confiscate their stocks and bonds, and force them to sell their businesses, yachts, airplanes, mansions and jewelry. The problem is that after fleecing the rich of their income and net worth, and the Fortune 500 corporations of their profits, it would only get us to mid-August.
These figures, folks, are just to keep our government running .. we aren’t even talking about getting our fiscal house in order! Now, let’s try and dissect a little more prog-logic. Shall we? More from this column by Ron Klain:
The single largest revenue item -- allowing the Bush-era tax cuts for the highest-income taxpayers to expire as scheduled at the end of next year -- could be devoted to several purposes. For example, a large portion could be applied directly to paying down the debt. In other words, easing the future burden on our children, not expanded government spending.
First of all, the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy would net about $800 billion. Our debt is $14 trillion. And how are we to trust that this money would even go to paying down the debt and not growing the size of government? But let’s move on to something even more important. Klain writes, “easing the future burden on our children, not expanded government spending.” Government spending? This prog seems to assume that allowing you to keep more of your money is “government spending.” This implies that all money belongs to government, and it only allows you to keep a certain amount. This, folks, is a frightening way to view wealth. Isn’t it any wonder that these progs think we need to share the wealth? OK .. one more from Ron Klain:
Here’s the bottom line: Tying tax increases to dedicated and popular uses insulates proposals for much-need revenue from attacks of “class warfare” or general anti-tax sentiment, and can help rebuild faith that marginal dollars collected by the government will be put to a clear and important public purpose.
So now, according to the progs, it is OK to seize wealth from people who earned it so long as it is dedicated to “popular uses.” Majority rules versus minority rights. I don’t know about you, but the idea of the tyranny of the majority – democracy – scares the tar out of me. And this is a prime example as to why.
“There is no crueler tyranny that that which is perpetrated under the shield of law and in the name of justice.” – Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu (1689-1755), The Spirit of the Laws, 1748
No comments:
Post a Comment