They're really never satisfied. I've asked liberals before exactly how much would be one's "fair share"? I've never received an answer. The fact is they're afraid to say what they're really thinking and that is that everyone would have the same amount of money and get equal services forever. Ultimately they want the entirety of everybody's income to go to the government and then have all our needs met equally. That's been tried before, but they'd like to try it again without actually calling it communism.
Our current progressive tax system is by very nature and definition unfair. The more you make (in regular income) the more you pay. This is true in two respects. First by percentages. 20% of $1,000,000 is more than 20% of $100,000. The person making one million dollars would be paying more than someone making less than that. The left says that's not fair though. The second way higher earners pay more is by having their percentage go up with the more they make. So the person making that million dollars is taxed at 35% now. Is that fair yet? No, of course not, they say. So by definition being "free from bias" making higher earners pay more and still calling it unfair I guess the left must have a dictionary version I've not had access to. Now that's unfair. Dare ye high-income earners follow the law and pay the current capital gains rate they'll surely be skewered in the press. I guess we'll have to come up with a progressive capital gains structure to make it "fair". By the way, if you're lost already with all this math and logic don't forget to vote on November 7th!
Enter the charity debate for the presidential race. Earlier this year Michael Scherer from Time put his calculator to work and crunched the numbers on the candidates for an article. The 2011 tax figures had not been released yet, but Mr. Scherer concluded that for 2010 President Obama and Mitt Romney were equal with 14% of their gross income having gone to charity. Really? Percentages made them equal? He points out that Romney's nearly $3 million is certainly higher than Obama's $245 thousand, but lets not get mired down in the details, 14% is 14%! Unless of course you're talking about the income tax side and then it would have again been unfair.
Later in the article things get even more tricky since apparently we now consider our legal tax burden somehow on par with charitable giving so it's OK to combine charity and taxes for a total percentage of money that you won't be able to spend on cigarettes and DIRECTV.
To recap, flat tax = unfair, flat charitable giving = fair.
It's a real shame that the standard narrative of the Democrat Party that Obama is a saintly philanthropist of care for the common people and Romney is an evil rich guy doesn't fit with reality, but that won't stand in their way. Oh and by the way, there is a national economy that needs saving and a few million people that would actually like to have a job. How about we get on with that discussion.
A.J.
No comments:
Post a Comment