For some time now, liberals have been demanding—their visages positively aglow with sweet reasonableness—that “the rich” should pay their “fair share” in taxes in order to help the government meet its expenses. Let’s leave aside the fact that they often make up the numbers and manipulate the statistics to suit themselves. (For instance, last year President Obama said that closing loopholes, etc., could produce $1.2 trillion in taxes, now he says it couldn’t produce $800 billion, so only raising marginal rates can force the rich to disgorge their fair share.)
No one can really argue with the proposition that the rich should pay their fair share. Of course they should, just like everyone else. But who are the rich and what is their fair share?
The president argues that a single person earning over $200,000 ($250,000 for a married couple) is rich. Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer suggests that a million a year should define the rich. (He also sees nothing wrong with hedge-fund zillionaires—generous suppliers of cash to his re-election campaigns—paying only 15 percent on their eight- and even nine-figure incomes, thanks to the most egregious tax loophole on the planet, “carried interest.”) In fact, since “rich” is purely a relative term, most people define the group as consisting of everyone who earns substantially more than they earn themselves.
But at least people are willing to say who constitute “the rich.” What I have never heard is a liberal actually stating what percentage of marginal income it would be “fair” to tax away from them. And, needless to say, the wholly-owned Obama campaign subsidiary—aka the mainstream media—isn’t about to ask.
To do so, of course, would be to force Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Debby Wasserman Schultz, et al, to either name a figure that would be used against them the next time they want to raise taxes, or to shamelessly prevaricate. Heaven knows they are well practiced in the latter. But honest reporters (I know, I know, but there actually are some) would do the country a favor by asking the question anyway, over and over again. To watch them dance around and desperately change the subject would at least be entertaining and might even show people how shameless they actually are.
What makes me want to pull my hair out is the fact the Republicans are not getting their message out. Why don't they yell out that when Dems call for going back to Clinton era tax rates, then how about Clinton era spending levels ? Or the large number of Obamacare taxes levied on upper incomes? Or the lies and deceit BHO is levelling on the American people as you mention? The Republicans continue to let BHO set the messaging. Nothing has changed!! Republicans seem to be silent on MSM saying they will be considered to be the blame if we go over the "fiscal cliff". Why do they allow this message to remain? Why don't they fight? What a bunch of whimps.
The GOP must work harder to change the messaging on this issue. We hear virtually nothing about spending.
The true opposition is to the entrepreneurial middle classes leaving poverty behind and hoping to to get rich. They were hated by the European Church and nobility for undermining their happy parasitic partnership and doing away with feudalism and they continue to be hated today. The lofty contempt of princes ecclesiastical and princes noble for the sweaty ambition and grubby social climbing of those want better now expresses itself as contempt for business, for consumerism, for the corporation.
(cont.) Hypocritical hand-wringing and crocodile tears by the undeserving rich for the poor are traditional as well. The czar hated tradesmen but he loved his serfs. And Tolstoy, a precursor to the fat and comfortable writers, journalists, academics and Hollywoodians of today, elevated the serfs to saints for their simplicity, their humility, their uncomplaining Christian suffering. n
Dear John, n nI wish it were that easy. But all Obama would have to do is say "You know what, I'm not sure exactly what the perfectly fair tax rate for the rich would be, but I know for sure they are not paying their fair share now." QED. n nThere is, alas, no silver bullet for killing these vampires. n nBDZ
My guess is that the liberal response to what is a sufficient rate?: “Whatever is needed to generate enough revenues for the country.” That is, you won’t be able to nail them down as to a percentage. They’ll talk in vague terms about fairness and social justice, et cetera.
We’ve seen, for example, Krugman and a few other voices discuss the 90% rates of the 1950s and how that didn’t hurt growth (as if the economy of 1950 is any way similar to today’s). They may say now that they don’t support that number but they won’t openly reject it.
In any case the Republicans simply will have to agree to higher rates. Only by agreeing to higher taxes will they be able to show to the public that these increases simply won’t solve the debt/deficit problems we face. Too much of the public believes that we can solve this problem far more easily than we can. Until they’re shown that it’s wrong the President has the upper hand.
One of these "tax the rich" clowns actually attempted to answer the question once. This was maybe 20 or so years ago and I believe (but am not certain) it was Sen Harkin of Iowa. Whoever it was, he was a senator running for president and taxing the "wealthy" was one of his planks. Some venturesome reporter (it was so long ago, we still had them then) asked him where he would draw that line and he hemmed and hawed about 40 no, maybe 50 thou (I told you it was a while ago.) Needless to say, his campaign collapsed shortly after that.r nr nThe truth of the matter is that this whole "tax the rich" baloney is a distraction, a sideshow to keep the rubes from focusing on the terrible mess the morons have created. If they were actually to put out a number, someone would do the math and realize it would not work. Keeping the circus sideshow going is the object, actually addressing the problems are not. It's no longer politics, it's 3-Card Monte on a national scale.
If you don't enjoy celebrating the top marginal rates of the 50's, try the 80's. In 1987 the top marginal rate under President Reagan was 38.5%. The top bracket, in 2011 adjusted dollars, was 178K. Why you are tearing your hair out over 39.6% at 250K is truly a mystery to me.