I was going to write about the Buffett rule, but Mark Steyn has already done a much better, and funnier, job of crunching both the numbers and the concept than I could, so I'll give you a link to him and take on a different aspect of Obama's presentation. The curious notion that our tax policies are somehow about "Fairness"
Webster's lists 11 different definitions for the word 'fair', but when used in politics it's generally taken to mean just and equitable. Even children understand that usage. If I called my twin grand-daughters over to the cookie jar and hand the first, one cookie, and give the second, two you can bet the house the farm and the dog that I'm going to hear "That's not fair", and she'd be right to call me on it.
Fair means the same for everybody, right? Isn't that why we have the 14th Amendment? Assuring everyone of the equal protection of the laws? So why do we have an unfair, unjust, and inequitable tax system that takes proportionately more from some of us than others? Why are 5% of our taxpayers stuck with 60% of the bill, ( while earning 30% of the income ) while 47% get a free ride and the rest of us divvy up the difference?
Try rounding up 19 of your friends for a night on the town, and get them to agree to draw lots to see who gets stuck with how much of the tab using those numbers. Good luck with that.
The 16th Amendment states: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from
whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States,
and without regard to any census or enumeration.
And given our 'Progressive' income tax code, apparently without regard to the 14th Amendment
10 comments:
Why are 5% of our taxpayers stuck with 60% of the bill
----------
First of all, they are stuck with 60% of the income tax bill so right away, as usual, Mark Steyn is shining your ass.
To answer your question:
They are stuck with 60% of the bill because they control *0% of the assets. So they're are getting a break.
Remember, ass racks like Mark Steyn make you stupid. Avoid.
Ducky those proportions have been around a lot longer than Mark Steyn. Even so, why 60% of the income tax bill on only 30% of the income? The topic was equitable treatment under the law. How do you reconcile a graduated tax with the 14th Amendment?
Excuse me, there was a typo, should have read , "control 80% of the assets".
Oh, by the way, when Mark Steyn says income he does not include dividends and Kapital gains.
In other words, get informed. He's powdering your ass.
This couldn't have been said better and totally applies, of course "Try rounding up 19 of your friends for a night on the town, and get them to agree to draw lots to see who gets stuck with how much of the tab using those numbers. Good luck with that."
Mark STeyn is brilliant and he's absolutely right.
And it does make you laugh to think that even if every billionaire gave all he had over it would go almost nowhere in helping our country at all.
This isn't about numbers, it's about agenda.
FAIRNESS used to have a nice connotation......now it's FORCED FAIRNESS. Doesn't have the same ring, does it.
Remember V...it's:
Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen!
Fair is subjective. What is considered fair to one may be unfair to another. Who gets to define fair? Fair is a anti-concept. It can literally mean anything someone wants it to mean. And it usually does.
Equal on the other hand is objective, having a clearly stated and understood definition.
Fair is a anti-concept I discarded a while ago.
Leftists tend to be very arrogant about the use of "fair", with a tendency to impose their own personal "one size fits only myself" view on society.
A perfect example is their idea of a fair wage, which completely ignores the opinions of the only two people who matter in this; the employer and employee.
As RN said, "Fair is subjective. What is considered fair to one may be unfair to another."
Very true. Therefore, the best people to determine what is fair are the two individuals involved in the deal. No one else has any idea or any business.
Ducky: Your point of view is irrelevant. 0% or 80%, these people control their own assets and not anyone else's.
"Fairness" is one of the terms used in all utopian systems.
But that "fairness" ultimately doesn't turn out to be fair at all.
I agree with all three of you re. the malleability of "fairness". Which is why I raised the question of our tax policies compliance with the equal protection guarantees of the 14th amendment. Unless 'fair' is defined as 'equal' it should have no place in the discussion.
Thanks for coming by!
Post a Comment