Monday, August 6, 2012

Forward towards a fair share

Have you seen the political ad that has Obama blathering about "fair share" and "asking" (at the point of a gun) for the "rich" to pay a little more?

It's time to reprint some real information.

I find it strange that the current Democratic Party wants to avoid the label of socialism. Socialism is an economic theory. I think that it is not good for people. I think it often sounds compassionate and caring, but in the long run is harmful to mankind. Unfortunately, many of socialistic ideas have been incorporated into the national fabric.

For example, progressive taxation has been accepted by both sides and we just argue about the details. But, why should one pay more if they have more?

 Should that principle apply to goods also? It would subsidize the poor if working people were required to pay more for each loaf of bread. Maybe we should set a scale: make $1o per hour and pay $1 per loaf - make $20 and pay $3 per loaf. Thats how "progressive" taxation works. First, you pay more, even if the percentage remains constant. 10% of $10 equals $1 and 10% of $20 equals $2. In addition, to the increase resulting from a percentage calculation, the rate or percentage is increased also. So 15% of $20 is $3 for the bread. What is "fair" about that?

This is how our income tax system currently works.

Socialism - a system of social organization in which property and the distribution of income are subject to social control rather than individual determination or market forces.

Socialism refers to a broad array of ideologies and political movements with the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community.

The Progressive Tax chart tells the story. You've seen one like this posted on El Rushbo's site.



In actual dollars, and in percentage points, the rich already pay more of their fair share. The top 10% or earners pay almost 70% of the dollars that go into the treasury.

If President Obama and the Democrats are not careful they might get exactly what they say they want (but really don't) - a fair, flatter tax.

9 comments:

  1. Just so the blogpost will not say *no comment*, I will throw my progressive 3.5 cents worth in this morning.

    I like the idea of a *Flat Tax* ! What I do not like the the percentage that the pol's insist on. I believe that the government should take no more than 10% of a persons income, as tax. Folks say the government would not be able to operate at that level of income. I say it can ^^^But it would have to cut spending drastically^^^

    Good Day =^. .^=

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dean0,

    I agree, a 'flat' 10% paid by everyone would be a "fair share" by definition. As far as the adequacy of financing the Government is concerned, it would finally require the Government to be cost efficent. Our Government is now replete with waste! If "everyone" paid then everyone would have a stake in the system and, hopefully, more interest in how the money is being spent. At present it is reported that 47% have little or no reason for interest in such. It should be clear that under this system investors would have far more to help build the economy and, as a result, even the tax base. OK, I'm not holding my breath for this to happen. The Liberal/Democrats have built a 'fire wall' against anything like this happening with a dependant mentality which leads us further into demise!

    ReplyDelete
  3. @ deanO I think your 10% flat tax would work just fine if the taxes were only used for original Constitutional purposes. I think this is a case where less is better. If businesses were set free to compete, then we could have such a low unemployment rate that we'd see the best workers getting great pay.
    Obama calls free enterprise "the same failed policies of the past." One thing I have learned over the past several years is that Obama is a master liar. He uses flawed data to make a point he knows people want to "buy into" but the actual results will be the opposite of their hopes.

    ReplyDelete
  4. GMW: Failed Policies of the Past: Just in case some people forgot the policies of the past made the greatest country with the greatest economy in the world.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I am curious if it is because I am not as smart as I am good looking or if there is something else I am missing here.

    The graph does not seem to add up. If the top 50% are paying 97%, how can the top 1% be paying 38% ? That is well over the 100% mark...I make no assertion that I understand this sort of breakdown in percentages.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The top 1% is part of the top 50%. One could also say the top 1% is paying 38% and the rest of the top 50% (top 2% through top 50% is paying another (97% - 38% =) 59%

      59% + 38% = 97

      Delete
  6. We need to do away with exceptions to the tax code - all of them. Everyone pays a simple fat % of their income (lets say 7%). So if you are single, married, have 1 child or 12 children. Those are your choices in life, not the responsibility of the government. You pay 7% of what you earn. If you have a mortgage, good for you. Now pay 7%. Church? Non-Profit? on Food Stamps? or making $100 million a year - you get no exception and you pay 7% (period).

    Everyone woudl have an interest in how our government is run and how efficient it is and no one would be getting an unfair loophole to go hide in.

    My $0.02

    ReplyDelete
  7. Seven % is even better. If this Nation still had a back bone we would be on a flat tax. But if this Nation had a back bone B.O. wouldn't be occupying the White House either!

    ReplyDelete

All points of view are welcome, but comments with excessive bad language and/or personal attacks will be deleted. Commenting on posts older than 5 days has been disabled.