Maybe this was a problem with the speech, but the key problem was much simpler: The president was needlessly insulting. He wasn’t just calling on successful people to pay more in tax but was being dismissive of their accomplishments.A different view of the speech, but here is another part of the OpEd.
I agree with David Frum that the most toxic part of the speech is Barack Obama talking about the sources of success:
I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.Really? The president is always struck by people who take credit for their own successes? Obviously, every successful outcome in life -- and every failed one -- arises from a combination of internal and external factors. But the president’s tone when he said this, amused by the very idea of people taking credit for their achievements, was off-putting.
The president’s speech calls to mind a second-season West Wing episode, in which speechwriter Sam Seaborn (Rob Lowe) explains to the staff of some liberal house members why he won’t insert a line in President Bartlet’s upcoming speech. They want the president to attack Republican tax cut proposals as financing “private jets and swimming pools” for the wealthy. As Seaborn argues:Frankly, I am not someone who watched West Wing, but the sentiment makes sense.
Henry, last fall, every time your boss got on the stump and said, "It's time for the rich to pay their fair share," I hid under a couch and changed my name. I left Gage Whitney making $400,000 a year, which means I paid twenty-seven times the national average in income tax. I paid my fair share, and the fair share of twenty-six other people. And I'm happy to 'cause that's the only way it's gonna work, and it's in my best interest that everybody be able to go to schools and drive on roads, but I don't get twenty-seven votes on Election Day. The fire department doesn't come to my house twenty-seven times faster and the water doesn't come out of my faucet twenty-seven times hotter. The top one percent of wage earners in this country pay for twenty-two percent of this country. Let's not call them names while they're doing it, is all I'm saying.When Barack Obama has made an argument for progressive taxation that even Aaron Sorkin finds distasteful, he has erred.
And, let us be clear. Those who earn more should pay more in taxes. On the other hand, the sentiment above rings true. The person earning $35,000 per annum in the United Dates is still benefitting quite a bit. Otherwise, why do we have all those illegal immigrants from Latin America (and, as someone correctly said to me today, and the Irish)? As Scripture tells us (Luke 12:48b):
Much will be required of the person entrusted with much, and still more will be demanded of the person entrusted with more.But, still, we need Concensus as to what is a "fair share".
Regards — Cliff
Actually, the estimate needs to be upgraded. The top 2% of income earners in this country pay for much more than they did a few years ago, especially when one considers ALL of the "benefits" one enjoys living in the US...even if you are not a citizen.
ReplyDeleteI've asked this question on this blog site a number of times...with no response. How much income is "too much"? At what level of income does one have to turn over the "excess" to the government? Does being an American citizen require that one "do something" for the benefits one enjoys EVEN when not "gainfully" employed? Does an American citizen even HAVE TO WORK? It would seem a sizable percentage of the population don't work and yet seem to live above "basic subsistence" levels. Want come cigarettes, some whiskey, a vacation in Aruba, fresh lobster tails, rib eye steak? Just swipe your EBC through the card reader and all these things can be yours....instantly....no questions asked (at least...not seriously)......and you don't EVER have to repay ANYONE.
What ever happened the community "poor farm"? Sure, it wasn't the nicest place to live, but you ate well, you had safe and reasonably comfortable shelter.....and you had to work for it.....either on the farm or for the community...sweeping streets, painting buildings, bridges, etc. Yeah...I know....all those jobs are now being done by the SEIU.....but hey....they should spread it around a little.
People keep talking about people paying their fair share. Can we first agree on what "fair" means?
ReplyDeleteFor example, is it fair that the rich man and the poor man pay the same for mailing a one ounce letter?
Is it fair that the rich man and the poor man each pay the same percentage sales tax while the righ man spends less of his money on taxed purchases?
Is it fair that the fruit of labor is taxed at a higher rate than the fruit of investment?
Is it fair that more income is taxed at higher rates?
I'm not talking about the policy reasons for each of these decisions, I just want to know what fair means. Perhaps fair can be found in the following ideas.
We could just make everyone pay the same $$$ in taxes and call it done.
We could make everyone pay the same percentage on all accessions to wealth. (flat tax)
We could make everyone pay a percentage of net worth in tax each year.
I'm not comming out in favor of any of these. My point is that we can't have this argument until we define the terms. I have yet to see someone make a serious attempt at that.