Over the weekend, I got into a debate with another liberal nitwit who tried to pass that bull that the rich don't pay enough. Inevitably, it's a discussion leaves most liberals speechless.
It goes like this........
Mr./Ms. "Progressive" - You know the rich don't pay enough in taxes.
Me - Is that right? How much do the rich pay?
Mr./Ms. "Progressive" - Well they don't pay enough.
Me - Let's be specific. Let's assume that a married couple with two kids make $125,000 each ($250,000 total). How much should they pay in total federal, state and local taxes?
Mr./Ms. "Progressive" - Well they get all those deductions.
Me - First off, I won't even try to educate you on the Alternative Minimum Tax which wipes off a lot of those deductions you think the rich get. Forget that. I want to know how much you think they should pay versus what they are paying?
Mr./Mrs. "Progressive" - I just know that they don't pay enough.
Me - So, in other words, you are just reciting the class warfare talking points. You have no idea how much they do pay or how much they should pay so you really don't know shit.
It plays out over and over again.
So let me fire out the question to the "progressives" out there.
Let's assume that a married couple with two kids make $125,000 each ($250,000 total). How much should the pay in total federal, state and local taxes?" Not percentages..... actual dollars.
So have the guts and tell me how much.
2 comments:
To socialists it's never enough. If you allow the socialists to proceed unopposed they will raise the tax rate to 95%. For those who don't believe me, read your history books. The US has had 90% taxes in the past. The UK has had 95%.
Even those conservative stalwarts, The Beetles, wrote Taxman and referred to the unfairness of "19 for and 1 for me".
You will still find those who think 100% taxes are a good idea. This would basically be the Cuban model. Oh I stand corrected. Castro gave every citizen a free rice cooker some years ago, so their tax rate is something like 99.9% if you count the rice cooker as income.
On the other hand, most normal Americans are not as hell bent on levying punitive tax on the "rich". As a middle class American I oppose progressive taxation even though I'm not in the higher bracket. That's because it punishes success and ultimately hurts the people that are employed by the successful companies, most of whom make less than me.
As a follow up to my prior message, I know libs will jump on the fact that I referred to the those employed by successful companies as making less than me.
They will criticize companies like Walmart that pay low wages. As if offering someone a low paying job is more criminal than not offering anyone a job in the first place.
Here's the deal...and it's related to the original topic. The labor market is beholden to supply and demand. The fact of the matter is that there is a large supply of workers in this country who want to work low skill jobs. Broom pushers, burger flippers, call center operators. The reason is simple. Low skill jobs are easy to prepare for in life. The qualification is basically having a pulse. (They are also boring though, which is why they suck). The problem is that the demand for low skill jobs is low due to businesses cutting back.
The solution is, first, get an education and take pride in your craft. That will create more demand for your services and you will get paid more. And you won't have to wait for the government to artificially prop up wages. Second, more people moving to high skilled positions reduces those who in the low skilled pool allowing their wages to rise as well via good old fashioned supply and demand. Third, and back to the original point, promote businesses that are successful by keeping punative taxes low. They will hire more (the demand side of the labor equation), and wages go up further.
Everybody wins, except for the Washington bureaucrats.
Post a Comment