Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Thursday, April 02, 2009
Jason Clemens :: Townhall.com Columnist
Is All "Fair" With the Obama Agenda?
by Jason Clemens
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


Another way of looking at the burden of income taxes is by the average tax rate faced by different groups. The average tax rate (ratio of income taxes after credits to adjusted gross income) for the top one percent was 22.8 percent. For the top 10 percent it was 18.9 percent. For the bottom 50 percent it was a near non-existent 3.0 percent. The figures make it abundantly clear that income taxes, the largest source of government revenues, are markedly punitive the more one earns.

The normal response from those who want yet higher taxes on the wealthy is that lower and middle-income earners also pay payroll taxes, which is true. However, payroll taxes largely go to fund what is supposed to be a social insurance fund. The grand bargain behind the program, as espoused by FDR, is that people pay into the fund and then receive a near-proportionate benefit. Those arguing for reform of payroll taxes are essentially promoting the abandonment of that grand bargain in order to achieve even greater redistribution of income.

It is a strange concept of fairness that requires some people to pay more taxes so others can benefit from programs they no longer pay for. Consider also the radical plan to shift power away from workers and employers to unions, known as the Employee Free Choice Act.

In the name of fairness, this bill eliminates the requirement for a secret-ballot vote to approve the installation of a union, which is considered a mainstay of fair elections and a protection against retaliation. In other countries, such measures have proven to be a bonanza for union bosses but costly for average workers and the economy as a whole. Thus, on union membership, payroll taxes, and income taxes, the administration's policies fail the basic fairness test.

President Obama is a man of boundless eloquence but proclaiming a policy to be fair does not make it so. To achieve the brighter future the President and everybody else wants will require a different and decidedly fairer approach.

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | < Previous
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Jason Clemens is the Director of Research at the Pacific Research Institute.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Fairness?
The new definition is that rich peoples' money gets redistributed to people who didn't earn it. So fairness will become, rich people will stop working so hard and become recipients of the redistribution and everyone will wonder where the source for the redistribution is going to come from. Do you really seriously believe people will keep working hard just to see their money given away to Obamaites? Socialism works until the socialists run out of other peoples' money to spend.

Re: SCHIP
I would like to suggest to the New Jersey State tax Collector that if they want to fund the "precious children" health-care program, (I no longer have any children, nor grand-children) they should lift the ban on smoking in public places, like bars and restaurants, or at least legalize the opening of public establishments that allow smokers (anti-smokers need not frequent such places), maybe that will increase the number of smokers, and they can reduce the prohibitive taxation on a segment of New Jerseyans to a manageable level. Furthermore, smokers who sign a "contract" with the state, that they will never peruse state funds for treatments of direct smoke related illnesses, such as respiratory system illnesses and cancers and heart disease that can be unequivocally proven to be smoke related (not cholesterol or other high risk-related life-style)would have to pay a lower cigarette tax. Wouldn't that be just a "fair and equitable taxation"? In the tea parties I would like all the "dinosaurs", like me, who would still like to enjoy a cigarette in a "public place" should carry signs "No cigarette taxation, without representation"!
Any feedback?
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.