Gay Patriot Header Image

Must only the rich pay their “fair share” (of taxes)?

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 2:02 pm - January 23, 2012.
Filed under: Democratic demagoguery,Random Thoughts

Democrats often talk about hiking taxes on the rich so they pay their “fair share“. So what about the 47% who currently don’t pay any federal taxes? Is their fair share zero?

UPDATE:  Does this mean Obama plans to ask the 47% to do their part.  From his fund-raiser last week in Harlem:

And if we are going to do all that without leaving a mountain of debt for our kids, while still maintaining the strongest military on Earth, while still making sure that Social Security and Medicare are there for future generations, that our seniors are protected –then all of us have to do our part.  (Applause.)

And that should not be a Democratic idea or a Republican idea.  It’s about responsibility.  It’s about taking responsibility for the country.

Emphasis added. He did say, “all of us”, but it sure seems he meant what the Occupiers call “the 1%.”

Share

18 Comments

  1. Yes, hard working Americans ‘owe’ it to the lazy to work extra hard for them. If they worked for themselves and their own families it just wouldn’t be fair.

    Comment by Leah — January 23, 2012 @ 2:33 pm - January 23, 2012

  2. Is their fair share zero?

    What a great question!

    My answer: It would be… if everyone else’s taxes were a lot lower.

    The original top income tax rate was 2%, and the politicians that passed it pinky-swore it would never go higher. Let’s go back to that.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 23, 2012 @ 2:54 pm - January 23, 2012

  3. Had this conversation with my dad over the weekend.

    Dad: So you saw that Romney is only paying 15%?
    Me: Well don’t know for sure yet, but I’m all for everyone paying 15%. Flat tax all the way.
    Dad: What? If we paid a flat 15% we’d pay more than we pay now!
    Me: Then what’s the issue with him paying 15%?

    Comment by The Livewire — January 23, 2012 @ 4:17 pm - January 23, 2012

  4. Dad: Well Buffett says the rich should pay more.
    TL: But Buffett himself doesn’t. Just google “Warren Buffett tax hypocrisy”

    (please forgive the imaginary extension)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 23, 2012 @ 4:42 pm - January 23, 2012

  5. I’d be OK with a 90 percent tax at Romney’s income level if it would help. But it wouldn’t. The government would continue to spend far more than it takes is – no matter how much it takes in.

    Add to that the fact that government is amazingly efficient at doing damage: for every dollar spent, we get $1.25 in damage (e.g. Great Society programs).

    Comment by SoCalRobert — January 23, 2012 @ 5:30 pm - January 23, 2012

  6. It’s not true that 47% don’t pay any federal taxes.
    http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/13/who-doesnt-pay-taxes/

    Comment by RT — January 23, 2012 @ 7:02 pm - January 23, 2012

  7. “Rich” in Democrat-speak is the Middle Class & even the poor; basically, it’s anyone with a job.

    Comment by Sebastian Shaw — January 23, 2012 @ 7:20 pm - January 23, 2012

  8. “’Rich’ in Democrat-speak is the Middle Class & even the poor; basically, it’s anyone with a job.” Ain’t that the truth, Sebastian!

    Comment by Seane-Anna — January 23, 2012 @ 9:44 pm - January 23, 2012

  9. Me: Then what’s the issue with him paying 15%?

    Well, I’ll stand in for your dad.

    I believe the household I live in pays an effective income tax of about 5%. If that went up to 15%, I honestly don’t see how we’d be able to pay the rent on this house (and we do not live in a ‘rich area’).

    If Mitt Romney’s tax rate went up to 30%, 40%, even 50% (the last being the top marginal tax rate in the UK) I still don’t think he’d be worrying about how he’s going to afford accommodation any time soon. I don’t think that’s the sort of sacrifice he’d be considering.

    Comment by Serenity — January 24, 2012 @ 1:05 am - January 24, 2012

  10. #9: “If Mitt Romney’s tax rate went up to 30%, 40%, even 50% (the last being the top marginal tax rate in the UK) I still don’t think he’d be worrying about how he’s going to afford accommodation any time soon. I don’t think that’s the sort of sacrifice he’d be considering.”

    It should surprise no one that Serentranny’s analysis of the tax issue is focused exclusively on making subjective judgments about what a taxpayer NEEDS to ‘afford accommodation.’ It’s the argument the Left uses to justify any level of taxation against anyone they perceive to be ‘greedy’ (=successful conservatives). Hence, their refusal to provide an actual NUMBER when they start shrieking about the “rich” not paying their “fair share.”

    Serenity would NEVER ask the government whether it really NEEDS to take a higher percentage of the incomes of successful and productive citizens because in her greedy, narcissistic mind, they can get by on whatever’s left, and the money should end up flowing to her because she NEEDS it more than they do. Moreover, in the sick mind of a leftist like Serenity, WANT=NEED=DESERVE.

    This is just more evidence that Serenity is the greedy, freeloading, narcissistic leech we always knew she was.

    Comment by Sean A — January 24, 2012 @ 1:42 am - January 24, 2012

  11. You nailed it, Sean.

    Pomposity did not earn a penny of Romney’s money, yet it insists that it is allowed to pass judgment on and take as much of the money Romney earned that it likes.

    But of course, if you dare suggest that Pomposity pay more or earn more, you get a shrieking fit about how it’s “unfair”.

    This cannot be repeated enough. Pomposity does not want to work. It does not want to educate itself. It does not want to contribute to society. It does not want to pay for the copyrighted media it uses. It refuses to lift a single fat finger in honest work. It does not want to pay a dime in taxes and insists that it could not pay a penny more.

    And then it demands that those who do work, who do educate themselves, who do contribute, who lift fingers and arms and hands and whole bodies in labor, and who pay taxes…..be forced to pay even more to finance its lazy lifestyle because, says Pomposity, they make too much money and don’t need it.

    Pomposity and its ilk are adult babies — screaming, crying, diaper-wearing children who want what they want and don’t care what has to be done to get it. And that’s why they flock to Obama, who is also a screaming, crying, lazy welfare brat who won’t work, won’t pay, and demands that everyone else finance his lifestyle.

    A Republican administration slashes the gravy train. Pomposity and its ilk would have to go to work, contribute to society, and do more than breathing, and that thought scares the living sh*t out of them, their Obama Party, and especially their Barack Obama.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 24, 2012 @ 1:57 am - January 24, 2012

  12. It’s kind of like the way Obama’s definition of ‘shared sacrifice’ means that the productive will pay hire taxes and the military will be slashed. Democrat constituencies… welfare recipients, unionized public employees, social security recipients … are all exempt from having to share in the burden of deficit reduction.

    Comment by V the K — January 24, 2012 @ 5:49 am - January 24, 2012

  13. ‘higher’ not ‘hire’ obviously.

    Comment by V the K — January 24, 2012 @ 5:49 am - January 24, 2012

  14. Really, what could it cost if all the people who wanted to live the socialist life were moved to the Elysian Fields Estates and given everything necessary to keep body and soul together in a benevolent concentration camp. They would be happy to putter about doing the painting, fixing the plumbing, emptying the trash, growing food, preparing food, giving loving nursing care, teaching their young whatever liberal liturgy they like, grooming the dogs, and entertaining one another. Since they would be engaged in a constant fervor of praising diversity and promoting the communal spirit it should be a clear win-win for the rest of society.

    They would have cradle to grave communal care and never suffer a worldly care. But, they can not come out of the Elysian Fields Estates and mess with other people who are being productive. That is not to say that they would not be able to have exchange programs between the benevolent concentration camps.

    The cost to government should be really minimal. The police powers would belong to the communal council and disagreements would be settled by communal courts and people who didn’t get with the communal diversity program could be sentenced to communal reeducation and …… well, just read “The Little Red Book.”

    The actual state beyond the Elysian Fields Estates would only need to provide a little infrastructure. Heck, think of this:

    Foxconn’s largest factory worldwide is in Longhua, Shenzhen, where 300,000 to 450,000 workers are employed at the Longhua Science & Technology Park, a walled campus sometimes referred to as “Foxconn City” or “iPod City”. Covering about 1.16 square miles, it includes 15 factories, worker dormitories, a swimming pool, a fire brigade, and a downtown complete with a grocery store, bank, restaurants, bookstore, and hospital. While some workers live in surrounding towns and villages, others live and work inside the complex, which broadcasts its own television network, Foxconn TV.

    No way would I suggest that the Elysian Fields Estates be set up to manufacture a product and be a contributor to the economy like Foxconn. I just wanted to show that it is possible to warehouse people with a certain panache and benevolence.

    Don’t tax these residents a dime. If they acquire money from some unknown source, let them spend it as they like. They will have to live with the guilt of being prideful. Make certain they have the drugs they want, that they can get immediate medical care, that there is plenty of sustaining and wholesome and tasty food, no weapons, and a rigid testing system in place if they decide to ask for a visa into the productive, outside world.

    Comment by Heliotrope — January 24, 2012 @ 9:22 am - January 24, 2012

  15. Strangely enough, Amy doesn’t seem to understand that when your income changes, you adapt.

    Depending on my PIP bonus (and if I didnt’ screw up my taxes) I either will make a good jump at getting caught up, or I’ll discontinue my subscriptions for about a year to get caught up. Either way, I don’t lament that I don’t have someone else’s money and demand it.

    Oh wait, that’s being an adult.

    Comment by The Livewire — January 24, 2012 @ 9:57 am - January 24, 2012

  16. Wanted to add, half the time, my dad says things just to rile me up. He’s pro union, but not a complete union bot.

    Comment by The Livewire — January 24, 2012 @ 11:35 am - January 24, 2012

  17. Obama didn´t finish the sentance. It´s supposed to be ¨all of us rich people.¨ I believe that if we had a reversed progressive tax we could eliminate poverty. If the poor were taxed 50% of their income from all sources and the top pay 10%, wouldn´t that be motivation enough to get them out of poverty so they can move into a lower bracket.

    Why all this interest in how much taxes are paid by candidates and wealthy conservatives. I want to know how much George Soros has been paying, and where has he squirreled his money. For a man who bragged about bankrupting nations with his money manipulations, the tax that he should have paid might have made those nations solvent again.

    Comment by Roberto — January 24, 2012 @ 12:07 pm - January 24, 2012

  18. If you look at it mathematically, it’s really the bottom 40% who aren’t paying their “fair share.” But the real issue is spending, not taxation. At the current rate of Government Expansion, the Federal Government by 2050 will require all the money on Earth to operate. That’s just not sustainable.

    I just finished my taxes. I don’t want to discuss exact figures, but my taxes would have bought the Federal Government a nice, well-equipped minivan and the state of Maryland an upper-end used car. However, in order to cover Obama’s level of spending, my taxes (and everyone else’s) would have to be raised by $10,000. That’s 10K for Solyndra and the unionized public bureaucrats taken out of the mouths and backsides of my family.

    Worth it? Not by a long shot.

    Comment by V the K — January 25, 2012 @ 8:33 am - January 25, 2012

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.