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, October 09, 2008
Larry Elder :: Townhall.com Columnist
In Defense of "The Rich"
by Larry Elder
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Do you feel the leaked information from a global warming alarmist organization is meaningful?



So, what do "the rich" pay in federal income taxes? Nothing, right? That, at least, is what most people think. And Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama wants to raise the top marginal rate for "the rich" -- known in some quarters as "job creators."

A recent poll commissioned by Investor's Business Daily asked, in effect, "What share do you think the rich pay?" Their findings? Most people are completely clueless about the amount the rich actually do pay.

First, the data. The top 5 percent (those making more than $153,542 -- the group whose taxes Obama seeks to raise) pay 60 percent of all federal income taxes. The rich (aka the top 1 percent of income earners, those making more than $388,806 a year), according to the IRS, pay 40 percent of all federal income taxes. The top 1 percent's taxes comprise 17 percent of the federal government's revenue from all sources, including corporate taxes, excise taxes, social insurance and retirement receipts.

Now, what do people think the rich pay? The IBD/TIPP poll found that 36 percent of those polled thought the rich contribute 10 percent or less of all federal income taxes. Another 15 percent thought the rich pay between 10 and 20 percent, while another 10 percent thought the rich's share is between 20 and 30 percent. In other words, most people thought the rich pay less -- far less -- than they actually do. Only 12 percent of those polled thought the rich pay more than 40 percent.

Let's try this another way. A U.S. News & World Report blogger went to the Democratic National Convention in Denver and conducted an informal poll of 24 DNC delegates. He asked them, "What should 'the rich' pay in income taxes?" Half the respondents said "25 percent"; 25 percent said "20 percent"; 12 percent said "30 percent"; and another 12 percent said "35 percent." The average DNC delegate wanted the rich to pay 25.6 percent, which is lower than what the rich pay now -- both by share of taxes and by tax rate!

Thirty percent of American voters pay nothing -- zero, zip, nada -- in federal income taxes. And, not too surprisingly, compared with taxpaying voters, they are more likely to support spending that benefits them. The majority of the 30 percent who don't pay federal income taxes agree with Obama's $65 billion plan to institute taxpayer-funded universal health coverage. But the majority of the 70 percent who pay federal income taxes are opposed to Obama's health care plan.

Non-taxpayers support Obama's plans for increased tax deductions for lower-income Americans, along with higher overall tax rates levied against middle- and upper-income households. The majority of non-taxpayers (57 percent) also favor raising the individual income-tax rate for those in the highest bracket from 35 percent to 54 percent. And the majority (59 percent) favors raising Social Security taxes by 4 percent for any individual or business that makes at least $250,000.

Obama calls increasing taxes and giving them to the needy a matter of "neighborliness." Vice presidential running mate Joe Biden calls it a matter of "patriotism."

Yet when it comes to charitable giving, neither Obama (until recently) nor Biden feels sufficiently neighborly or patriotic to donate as much as does the average American household: 2 percent of their adjusted gross income.

Liberal families earn about 6 percent more than conservative families, yet conservative households donate about 30 percent more to charity than do liberal households. And conservatives give more than just to their own churches and other houses of worship. Conservatives, especially religious conservatives, give far more money and donate more of their time to nonreligious charitable causes than do liberals -- especially secular liberals.

In 2007, President George W. Bush and his wife had an adjusted gross income of $923,807. They paid $221,635 in taxes, and donated $165,660 to charity -- or 18 percent of their income. Vice President and Mrs. Cheney, in 2007, had a taxable income of $3.04 million. And they paid $602,651 in taxes, and donated $166,547 to charity -- or 5.5 percent of their income.

Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, earned between $200,000 and $300,000 a year between 2000 and 2004, and they donated less than 1 percent to charity. When their income soared to $4.2 million in 2007, their charitable contributions went up to 5 percent.

Joe and Jill Biden, by contrast, made $319,853 and gave $995 to charity in 2007, or 0.3 percent of their income. And that was during the year Biden was running for president. Over the past 10 years, the Bidens earned $2,450,042 and gave $3,690 to charity -- or 0.1 percent of their income.

So let's sum up. The "compassionate" liberals -- at least based on charitable giving -- show less compassion than "hardhearted" conservatives. The rich pay more in income taxes than people think. Voters, clueless about the facts, want the rich to pay still more.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Larry Elder is a syndicated radio talk show host and best-selling author. His latest book, "What's Race Got to Do with It?" is available now.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Larry Elder's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
In defense of the rich:
To Semperfi/par:
Social Security is an insurance program, not a tax. People who pay Social Security are insuring their future, not contributing to the funding of the government. Just because irresponsible politicians take that money, spend it, and leave an I.O.U. in the account, doesn't make it an appropriate revenue source for the Federal government. Don't claim to be contributing to support the operation of the Federal government by talking about paying Social Security. That is an outright fraud.

pablo st cruz's Reference Request
Pablo,

I'm late to the party on this one, but if you're still out there I came up with the following information from Timothy Carney, a Warren T. Brookes Journalism Fellow:

"...the top four donors to 527s in 2004 — and the only donors to spend in the eight figures on that election — all gave exclusively to pro-Democrat groups. Of the top 25 individual donors — all billionaires or multi-millionaires — 15 of them gave to pro-Democrat groups, and 10 gave to Republican-supporting groups....Soros and Lewis together spent more to defeat Bush than the ten most prolific Republican fat cats combined spent to support the president."

Carney goes on to report that "this dynamic was not particular to 2004," and that in 2002 and 2000 the "story was much the same."

This information doesn't directly support the stat you questioned (61% of billionaires are Dems), but it does show the disparity in campaign contributions by wealthy donors between the two parties.

http://cei.org/gencon/019,05433.cfm

Life is like a movie...
from "Mel Brooks' History of the World Part I"

Senator: "All fellow members of the Roman Senate, hear me! Shall we continue to build palace after palace for the rich, or shall we aspire to a more noble purpose, and build decent housing for the poor? How does the Senate vote?"

The Senate repiles: "Phuck the poor!"

Senator: "Good."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYqF_BtIwAU&NR=1

Kassandra...America is based on LIBERTY!
From Kassandra-"America was based upon equality, not freedom of the rich to rape the nation of its wealth" No actually the USSR is based on equality.
America is based on LIBERTY. It's called FREEDOM in some circles. Look at the currency. You have the freedom to get an education, sacrifice, work your behind off and make a lot of money. You have equality of opportunity in America. Anyone who says they don't have that is lying and doesn't want to work hard for it.
I am sick and tired of the class envy. I live in Los Angeles and I see the homeless downtown too. Guess what? Most of them are drug addicts and alcoholics who refuse to get the FREE help that is offered in AA, the Salvation Army and any number of programs on skid row. I know because I've been there to help feed them often. So, don't throw out your liberal guilt at people who actually function in society and want to keep what they have earned. It's old school socialism and its scary that people still buy it.

the 90% tax of FDR's time
The 905 tax bracket caused tax evasion. Who do you think actually paid that tax? Only fools. Just like the only people who pay any sort of estate tax are poor planners. Rich people hire hordes of accountants and attorneys to set up their estates to eliminate taxes. And if that fails, they'll take measures to evade it. The IRS, much like the other investigatory/regulatory agencies, are not equipped to investigate the super wealthy.

I can tell you that my wife and I work and will probably fall under Obama's new tax rate hikes. If our taxes go up, our lifestyle will probably go down a little. But our net worth will not. That's because we'll continue to save every year...we'll just spend less. The first things to go...the guy I pay to mow the lawn and the housekeepers to come to clean twice a month. After that, I'll reduce discretionary spending. Next I'll reduce regulars such as newspaper subscriptions, cable tv use, etc. Just like when the gas prices go up...yeah, I stop driving. I stop driving to places where I spend money..like zoos, aquariums, museums, local businesses, vacations, etc. So whilst you may hurt me by making me stay at home, you also cause many others to lose precious income.

So you see, you libs might lower my lifestyle...but not before I reduce that of those I employ directly or indirectly.

In Defense of "The Rich" with Mr. Elder
Donate… donate… donate… blah, blah. Mr. Elder, please cut the crap out of your nonsensical drivel commentary. Donation is a form of keeping someone or a people subservient. Keep your donation money. A true CON ought to adhere to stopping your donation mind teaser. There is no such a thing as free lunch. There is nothing wrong being a neocon. But it stinks to be a neocon "expletive" and pushing a perverting charity scheme. Stop your crocodile tears. Do you get the hint?

To Rebecca:
" Obama said during the debate that health care is a "right" which must be given every American courtesy of the government. What is the source of this "right?"

To Liberals a "right" is someong provided to some at the expense of others. Clean water, Clean Air, A Job ( providing you belong to the union), Healthcare, a Nice home, a car, food etc.

Liberals Punish the Responsible in order to give to the irresponsible, because it makes them feel special. That is liberalism in a nutshell


F1etch shoots and scores!
Add to that the fact that Herbert Hoover jacked up the top rates first up to 60% from a much lower level. I don't have the figure handy. THAT ensured that a steep but short Depression became the GREAT Depression and FDR poured high test gas all over the situation till WW2 saved the economy!! Had Japan not bombed Pearl and we stayed out of the war for say five more years we'd have been a Third World country.

-Ray
NRA Life Member
Go 'Cuda, GO!!!

reply to F1etch
cogent, cognitive posts there, man!

I particularly agree that presidents deserve neither the credit nor the blame for crisis events of the moment... Jimma' Carter was a boob, but the hyperinflation and stagflation which came to roost under him was the result of "guns and butter" spending under LBJ, aggravated by the stupid wage and price controls that Tricky Dick agreed to and the Arab oil embargo, but Jimma' wore the collar

I think that LBJ was our worst modern president... he stuck us with 2 profligate boondoggle wastes of $--> Viet Nam and the Great Society ... the latter alone has cost us $11 TRILLION to date, but "poverty" never seems to get any better!

Too little credibility
ajhill,

If you wish to be taken seriously, then don't pretend that the EPI, the Tax Policy Center or an Op Ed columnist (rather than an actual analysis) constitutes real, credible research to support your positions.

1 - Obama's tax plan will NOT reduce taxes by $2.9 trillion over ten years. In fact, simple math (as noted by countless non-partisan analyses) demonstrates that such is impossible. The tax proposals not only result in HIGHER taxes, but corporate taxes are ultimately paid for by consumers and the proposed massive increase in spending creates an additional tax on everyone in the form of inflation.

2 - Obama's plan, in reality, raises taxes on anyone with an income level of no more than about $90,000 and, if construed in a certain way - as it might be - raises taxes on incomes as low as $42,000. Again, objective analyses have demonstrated that Obamanomics math isn't even remotely credible.

3- Socialism includes any state intervention into the economy, particularly in the name of wealth redistribution and it has universally proved to be an economic disaster, even in this country.

4 - Want to read a truthful analysis of the candidates' tax plans, don't rely on the Washington Post editorial page for your information. Instead seek out the countless economic analyses that are available all over theplace online.

Get real! Socialism is for suckers!
In FDR’s day the top marginal rate was 90% and it was a disaster. While FDR didn’t casue the Great Depression, he DID manage to prolong it for years.

Thanks to Reagan, those high marginal rates were slashed to a fraction of their previous level, resulting in greater economic prosperity and the rich actually paying a GREATER percentage of the overall tax burden AS YOUR OWN FIGURES SHOW.

At present, the top 10% of wealthy Americans control about 70% of the nation's wealth (the statement that it has increased dramatically is factually wrong) and pay an EVEN GREATER percentages of taxes.

The Left would have you believe that the real measure of well-being is discretionary income, but, in no small part because the bottom 40% of wage earners pay essentially NO income taxes, the adjustment is entirely irrelevant and doesn't alter the steeply progressive nature of income taxes (or for that matter all taxes combined).

There's no question that cutting taxes creates jobs. One of the dumbest positions of the Left - those foolish enough to take the almost-invariably-debunked research (sic) of the EPI seriously - is the idea that presidents have some magic wand they can wave on day one and make things change. The Bush years began with an inherited recession (and unemployment lags more than a year after changes in economic direction), followed by the economic impact of 9/11 and this latest crisis (thanks to Fed and Fannie Mae failures). His predecessor inherited a strong economic recovery and left it in that recession that CAUSED the job losses. Only those with the reasoning capabilities of gravel (socialists) base assessments on merely who was in office rather than taking underlying causes into account.

And, as any economist can tell you, whether "extra" profits are put directly into businesses or expended on the production of consumer goods, they create economic efficiencies and JOBS while government spending does exactly the opposite.

Too much misinformation ...
To handle all at once. How about a couple of issues at a time.
1 - Obama's tax plan will reduce taxes by $2.9 trillion over ten years, but not as much as McCain's, which will cost $4.2 trillion.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics
2 - Obama's plan will reduce taxes for every family with taxable income less than $250,000. This includes 95% of all small businesses.
Washington Post & http://mybarackobama.com
3- Socialism doesn't mandate income equality. If anything that's communism. Get your terminology straight.
4 - Want to read a truthful analysis of the candidates' tax plans, instead of wallowing in silly right wing dogma?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/0 9/07/AR2008090701950.html

Get real! Reagonomics is for suckers.

Taxes on the wealthy aren’t high compared to historical rates. In FDR’s day the top marginal rate was ˜ 90%. (And the wealthy did just fine in spite of it!)
Thanks to Ronald Reagan, those high marginal rates were slashed to a fraction of their previous value & have stayed there, while the national debt has nearly doubled every ten yers. The WSJ reports the top 400 US families pay ˜18% in taxes (compared to 12½ % for everyone else.) http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/mar2008/rich-m07.shtml
Would rates in the sixties be unfair? Nope! In the mid ‘90s the top 10% of wealthy Americans controlled 67% of the nation’s wealth and that fraction has increased greatly since then.
The real measure of well-being is discretionary income: what’s left after paying living expenses. A family making $100,000 might have around $10,000 or 10% left. A similar family with a $1,000,000 income would have $910,000 or 91%. Is it unfair to ask them to pay 9x as much?
Does cutting taxes create jobs? During 8 years of Bush tax cuts, the U.S. lost more than 3 million job, while revenues will be reduced about $5 trillion in ten years. http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_viewpoints_tax_ cuts_and_workers
The rich don’t necessarily put extra profits into business. Many devote it to increasing their net assets. http://www.dollarsandsense.org/blog/2006/05/econamici-tax- cuts-for-rich-hurt.html

Obama's Magic
{For his next trick, the Great Obama will jumpstart the economy, and he'll do it by raising taxes on the very businesses that are today adrift in a financial tsunami! That will include all those among the top 1% of taxpayers who are in fact small-business owners, and the nation's biggest employers who currently pay some of the highest corporate tax rates in the developed world. Mr. Obama will, with a flick of his fingers, show them how to create more jobs with less money. It's simple, really. He has a wand.}

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122360618747721991.html?mod =article-outset-box

Obama: Dictatorship of the proletariat

{The "dictatorship of the proletariat" or workers' state is a term employed by Marxists that refers to what they see as a temporary state between the capitalist society and the classless and stateless communist society; during this transition period, "the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat." The term does not refer to a concentration of power by a dictator, but to a situation where the proletariat (the working class) would hold power and replace the current political system controlled by the bourgeoisie (the propertied class). In short, the "dictatorship of the proletariat" would replace the current "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie". Many Marxists refer to this transitional stage as socialism or "workers' democracy".}

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_proletaria t

Obama also talks about "economic justice." "restoring fairness to the economy," code for soaking the "rich"

"Economic justice" simply means punishing the successful and redistributing their wealth by government fiat. It's a euphemism for socialism.


No Jobs - No Taxes
Obama wants to raise taxes then he should have a voluntary tax for those in his income bracket who want to pay more and let's see if he's the first one to stand up and sign up for the tax hike! After all, there are companies folding up everywhere who can't even make a profit because they're taxed to death, especially in California, and that means the unemployment rate is increasing and spiraling at a rapid pace - so who's going to pay higher taxes if there's no one to tax? Does anyone on the liberal side have a clue about the economy - there's no money and no jobs and the small businessman is being squeezed out? Like McCain says, he doesn't have the experience or maybe Obama just doesn't get it or doesn't care!

Obamanomics Flunks The Test
{He also fails to understand how taxes change behavior. He thinks raising taxes on the most productive members of society won't "curb incentives to work or invest." Even TV news anchor Charlie Gibson knows better.

During a primary debate, the ABC host took Obama to task for proposing a doubling in the capital gains tax. History shows, he pointed out, that raising the cap gains rate actually ends up costing the government revenues.

Obama just didn't get it. "Well, Charlie," he argued, "what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness."}

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=3024840201 65482

Some information
The tax system is really screwy. The "rich" that get hosed are those who earn enough money and get paid through a W-2. The real rich find ways to avoid or evade tax. Granted, they still pay way more tax than anybody else, but as a percentage they'll never pay 60%. The reason being is that they can pay people to find every loophole in the tax code and have monetary means to take advantage of them. They can also incorporate in tax havens, and legal or not, they evade taxation.

And also to that person who said there are 88,000 homeless in L.A.: Did you know that there are rooms available for each and every person, but many homeless choose not to avail themselves of them. They'd rather live on the street. The vast majority are mentally ill or drug addicts. I'll grant you that we should care for the mentally ill...but you'll have a tough time getting me to pay welfare for addicts.

TAXES
This topic really highlights how ignorant many liberal democrats are. Their decisions in life are not based on facts and logical conclusion, they are based on feelings, preceptions and suspicions.

So where did they come by these feelings, preceptions and suspicions?

1. Major Media Outlets.
2. Public schools.
3. Liberal Socialist institutions of higher learning.

So ask yourself this question. How long can a free society exist with an ignorant population.

We are about to find out.

Democrats: Misleading on Taxes
{Byron Dorgan, the Democratic senator from North Dakota, said in a statement, ``It's shameful that so many corporations make big profits and pay nothing to support our country.'' House Speaker Nancy Pelosi piled on, arguing that the data revealed a fundamental unfairness in the U.S. system, and called for reform.

``When two-thirds of corporations pay no taxes,'' Pelosi said, ``American workers are forced to pay too much in taxes even as they cope with rising prices and falling wages.''

The study seemed to play right into the Democratic us- against-them playbook. Evil corporations rake in the cash and then play dirty tricks to avoid taxes. That leaves the little guy with the bill for our government.

The problem is, the study showed no such thing.

No Profit, No Tax

First, while it is true that 60 percent to 70 percent of companies in the study paid no tax in a given year, there was a big qualification. The study focused on an Internal Revenue Service tax database that included millions and millions of companies. The vast majority of firms in the study were tiny mom- and-pop enterprises.

Why did the tiny mom-and-pop enterprises pay no taxes? Because they didn't make any money! The study reported that was the reason about 80 percent of the firms in the sample avoided taxes in a given year. How terrible of them. }

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=aJHKNW1 lro9Y&refer=columnist_hassett

Maverick...Brother
1st
You knew I was going to do this. You have to be VERY CAREFULL about what you tell people like Kassandra. You should not tell people like her how much of your income you got to keep; only how much you paid in taxes. The percentage is really irrelevant.
2nd
One of the biggest problems in America is our Education System. We have allowed the young minds of America to be influenced by low-income, disgruntled teachers. The rule is pretty simple, if you want to be poor; learn from the poor. If you want to be wealthy; learn from the wealthy.
To all of the Parents reading these blogs: Be very careful who you allow to teach your kids in school!

Wake Obama up to reality
There is this new thing called employment and if the employer is paying what once was used to pay salaries on taxes, the welfare rolls grow. If that is Obama goal then it simple vote for Mccain/Palin. Vote for McCain only once. Larry thank you for bringing the true.

Bloefeld's
comments reduced to a level that a Leftist might understand.

Vote for Freedom!

Vote Republican!

Maverick, great retort!
It simple to explain, but they don't get it anyway.

Ask a liberal if they are in college and study hard and don't go out much and get an A for the class, and their roomate is in the same class and doesn't study, goes out every night partying and gets an F, if to be "fair" shouldn't he/she give 2 grades to their roomate to make them "equal". Fair is fair, afterall!

Freedom Part II
The next take-over will be health care. The brainy guys will just leave. With them goes the innovation that makes things like MRI's happen.

Those tools will be gone, the money into a vast bureaucratic maw. Nothing produced, health-care diminished and progress gone.

Economic freedom allows investors to pick winners and losers. The competition to get those investment dollars fuels all innovation. Take those freedoms away, remove those investors and give their dollars to everyone else or keep it in the hands of the government and the magic that has made each American richer and more free than any other citizen of the earth will be gone.

All you have to do is look to Canada to see the results. These are the results of many years of liberal rule in Canada. Obama makes liberals like Pierre Elliot Trudeau in Canada look like robber barons.

Canada's universal health care system functions (barely) as a result of the ability to purchase equipment from the the U.S. innovators who make it. Without that, they will be reduced to some nice Doctors with no tools.

The waiting list in the richest Province in Canada, Alberta for an MRI to detect cancer is more than 9 months. In poorer Provinces, it is more than 2 years. That is the reality of universal health care.

You will lose your economic freedom by allowing the top 5% of earners and owners to be taxed out of proportion with their peers the world over. With that loss, the US cannot maintain its productivity edge and its citizens will lose their economic advantage over everyone else on earth.

Voting for Obama is a vote to lose your freedom.

Cheers,

Bloefeld

Freedom
American's all like to talk about freedom. Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Freedom to own a gun, we all think that freedom is a good thing.

But what about economic freedom?

Next to the freedom of the individual from coercion by the state, economic freedom is the most important freedom we have.

That is the target of Obama and the marxist agenda he is so transparently putting forth.

He believes that we are too stupid to have economic freedom. So he wants to tax that freedom from us.

Because money is so fungible and fluid, he will have to quickly put into place 'reforms' that we keep us from sending our money to places that give us the economic freedom to invest our money in those things that we think will give us the best return.

The result will be identical to every other attempt by a government to take that freedom away. People will either move to places where they can better exercise their economic freedoms. Or they will create an underground economy that will end-run the tax system entirely.

The government has already made a huge stride toward nationalising a 'critical' industry; banking. The next step will be to nationalise the energy sector. When that is done, the brains that make that sector work will flee, and it will be the guys who gave you the US Postal Service that will be in charge of finding more oil and gas.

If by then you could actually afford to own a car, the price to fuel it will be 5 to 10 times what it is now.

continued

Where is Raywood Ashe?
Kassandra - Actually, America was founded on Freedom, not equality. Equality is most certainly part of our history as Americans, but it has nothing to do in the financial realm. If I work hard and make $100,000.00, then I EARNED $100,000.00, not you. If I am to pay 30% in Taxes, then I keep $70,000.00. However, if I make $1,000,000.00 and only pay 15% in taxes, then I keep$850,000.00. I pay less in taxes percentage, but I pay more than five times what I paid when I earned $100,000.00. Get the picture yet or do you need more education in math? At what point do you say I have to pay more money than everyone else regardless of what I make? (Get the Freedom part now)

Equality doesn't mean I have to pick up your slack because you can't make more money then me. Equality means I treat you fairly and you have the same advantages that I do...if you know how to use them.

Go back to school Kassandra

Mav

Liberals are always generous...
with other people's money or conveniences. This goes way beyond monetary terms as this article presents.

For example, Ted and Robert Kennedy Jr., while strong supporters of alternative energy, worked hard to kill Cape Wind project, which will build windmills at the family's favorite sailing place at Nantucket Sound.

You'd think Al Gore, being the champion of reducing carbon emission, would be watchful of his own carbon footprint. But no, his mansion in Tennessee consumes about 20 times the energy average American families consumes. He flies to Global Warming lectures and conferences in private jets.

Since these people "champion" the right causes and bring about the good for all mankind, their sins can be readily forgiven. But as for you and me, oh no, we must live and support the progressive puritan life style, or else be called evil right-wingers.

Enough of the facts, Larry.
They will have no meaning to the leftists who troll Townhall.

Liberals reading your essay will be calling their therapists soon afterward.

M Sederoff....
Regarding your post (#10), it's a black thing, and the result of the "urban" parenting style.

Imagine what his mother says about politicians who don't fork over more government entitlements at her demand.

Just keep in mind that the young slug of a boy will be in lockup soon at a jail near you, that is, if one of his homies doesn't pop a cap in him prior.

I'm glad you weren't harmed.

Unca Alby
Excellent post!!

TAX THE RICH!!
One fundamental problem here is the "loose" interpretation of the word "rich". Before we can have a meaningful dialog over "tax the rich", we probably should nail down exactly what we mean by the word.

Most people interpret "rich" to mean "makes more money than I do".

The politician interprets "rich" to mean "makes money and doesn't contribute to my campaign."

The far left liberal interprets "rich" to mean "makes money".

pablo st. cruz
BHO seems to change his mind on a daily basis on what he his proposing. Just another example of him not having THE EXPERIENCE needed to lead this nation.

And M. Sederoff - thank you for sharing your experience. That 15 year old mentality is what our entitlement generation is producing. No personal responsibility or work ethic. It would never have occurred to him to instead of asking you to give him money that he instead introduce himself to people in his neighborhood and that he would available to do work in their yards, errands, etc. Gee, actually work for that money you want to be put in your hand?? The very thought of it!! No, there will be no working for it - "I am entitled to it."

Richard -- re: McCain
"What I do not understand is that when McCain is debating and Obama starts his Tax Dialog - why doesn't McCain hit with the figures and put him in his place."

McCain is only marginally better than Obama, and there pretty much only with defense-related issues. I don't know who said it first, but it's been said that the only reason to vote for McCain is Obama.

In order for McCain to mount what we might consider a substantive counter-attack against the lies from the liberal left, he would sort of have to not already believe those lies.

Old Saying:
"Don't tax you, don't tax me, tax that fellow behind the tree."

statistics prove
what I want them to!

Look at people like McCain, they have been on welfare since the day of their birth.

So bailing out the bankers is no skin off his nose.

You know
Obama is talking about raising the tax on the top 1% to 39.6%. That's where it was in 2000. His plan also calls for keeping the Capitol gains tax at the current 15%.

Daryl " A More Perfect Union"
Are you serious? The big corporations are not the ones who are going to be facing this Obama tax burden, it is primarily going to be small business. Read #48. That is your Obama rich, that is who he is going to tax. That is what will break this country. We can't afford someone who doesnt celebrate the hard work and dedication of everyday people who took a chance and started their own business, employing other Americans. Jobs will be lost, businesses may be lost. Tell me again how that will benefit this country!!

Socialism on the way
It seems that liberal America has made its mind up that we will become socialist. I could not believe it when Obama said during the debate that health care is a "right" which must be given every American courtesy of the government. What is the source of this "right?" It surely is not the Constitution; perhaps it is in the penumbra of rights from which the right of privacy materialized. This fiction is but one more example of liberals' rush to compel the government to intrude into every aspect of our lives and force the industrious part of America to support the slackers.

A few days ago
I was getting into my economy car at a local pharmacy when a young black youth, who looked to be about 15, came riding up on a bicycle. He started to speak to me saying “Ma'am, could you help me out with a few dollars?” Before he was even finished with his sentence, I started shaking my head “no”. He said “Bi-ch” and rode on by.

Here is what I would like to say to that young man. “I am 59 years old, and right now my arthritis hurts me so much I can barely stand here. But in spite of that, I got up this morning at 5:30, got dressed and went into my job where I worked for 9 hours. I do this five days a week. You are younger than I, so no doubt you are healthier. You are a male, so you are no doubt stronger than I.

Nobody hands me money for doing nothing, and I can’t think of a single reason why I should hand you my money, which I work so hard to earn, just because you are here with your hand out.


Weisshaupt, F1etch, Oracle1, Great!
What you said!

Larry, thank you for your contribution to logic and reasoning, something our enemies on the left are bereft of.

Money cannot "trickle up", it must trickle down just like Reagan said it would. Just because you are lazy and don't think that it trickles fast enough for you, doesn't mean that you get to steal a productive person's money to make you feel better. Poor people from around the world are dying, literally, to come here to be poor here as it is still a 10x improvement over wherever they came from.

Wealthy and Rich are not always the same
Being a non person of wealth, I am rich.
I know several wealthy personnal friends who are both and some who are not. And many say I am wealthier than they.
Wealth by association to possesions, money and property is one term for rich.
Wealth by association to the above and doing the right thing is another.
Dems are the first lot, and most Rep. are the second lot.
I will always try to be the later and remember my Faith, My family and my past. For I was not always with money, nor was my family.

real tax reform
We the people pay all taxes, and we are the only ultimate source of all tax revenue. Regardless where government initially collects the money, all tax money ultimately comes from us, the people, even though business has to pay thousands or millions of dollars at one time, and get it back from us one dollar at a time.
Since we the people are the one and only source of all tax revenue:
There should be only one tax to collect all tax revenue.
It should be a single, simple, fair, direct, graduated, individual, full-income tax levied on living persons for each level of government: One Tax and Done.
The best thing that government can do to help the country, the people, and even government, is to repeal all of the many hundreds, or thousands of existing taxes, fees, and charges. These taxes are the federal deficit. These taxes are the high price of everything. These tax eliminations are spending cuts. Every tax that is eliminated is a tax that we the people no longer have to pay. These taxes are the difference between the price we pay for health care and everything else, and the price we would pay if these taxes were repealed. Eliminating these taxes will remove them from the price paid for everything by everyone, including government.
One Tax and Done will provide many benefits to all, even government:
One Tax and Done will reduce the price paid for everything by one-third.

Sir Daryl the Uneducated
Since corporations pay no taxes but, as an economic imperative, factor such expenditures into the cost of production and thus into the price of consumers, you are not only advocating a policy that is most harful to the poor, you are bemoaning a circumstance that, by definition, cannot POSSIBLY harm the economy, let alone "drive it into the ground".

Further, it was the OVER-regulation of business and the OVER-intervention of government that caused this crisis (as it did in 2000 and in the early 80s and the 50s and the late 20s). What is an abomination is the level of economic illiteracy that pervades this country.

The rich DO pay more in taxes, LOTS more and, in the wake of the tax cuts that you so dislike, the percentage of the tax base paid by the wealthy INCREASED.

Why does Warren Buffet support Obama. I can give you two equally plausible reasons. First, Warren ain't getting any younger and he is trying to make himself appear nicer and less of a target than his wealth would otherwise make him. Second, Warren Buffet is on track to be the one individual that benefits most greatly from the governmentally-engineered catastrophe that has occurred (talk about "buy low") so supporting the candidate most likely to cause it to happen again might be in his direct interest.

"He along with myself choose to put country first.... I care about a wide variety of people. These people working together with President Obama will make a more Perfect Union."

Bartender! I'll have what HE'S having!

"By the way, if any of you voted for George W. Bush, your judgement on what is best for this country is seriously flawed!"

Ordinarily, I'd agree but the same can unequivocally be said for those who voted for Gore or Kerry so maybe the Libertarians should rule (of course, libertarians wouldn't want to "rule").

Obama's plan
I call it theft, which is what it is.

CrackSandra:
You ignorant trollop!!! You think YOUR idea of equality is what the Founders meant. Put down the crack pipe a minute. We are nation that offers equality of OPPORTUNITY and NOT equality of outcome. EVERY time the latter has been tried (USSR, N. Korea, Cuba, Vietnam) the result is the same. A tiny number of powerful "leaders" live like emperors while the rest are forcibly kept down.

-Ray
NRA Life Member
Go 'Cuda, GO!!

the war on "poverty"
Since LBJ foisted the "war on poverty" on us, we have spent $11 TRILLION on poverty programs... that is over $50,000 per person in america-- how could there be ANY poverty left? UNLESS there are "professional poor people." Did you notice how when the real Republicans in the class of '94 pushed welfare reform that MILLIONS were suddenly able to find jobs after having claimed they could not.

Our "poverty" programs have destroyed the black community as a whole... consider trends over time in broken homes, illegitimacy, per capita black crimes, drug abuse and pushing, and other snowballing and self-perpetuating social pathologies in the 1950's versus more recently. We too often play an "emperor's new clothes" PC game of denial about all of this.

As someone noted below, how we define "living in poverty" is a farce-- the envy of the rest of the world. I will follow with an analysis of this that I think I saved-- stunning.

For A More Perfect Union
The hypocrisy of republicans is staggering to me. Your policies of providing tax breaks and loopholes to corporations has driven our economy into the ground. The lack of regulation and accountability for business over the past eight years is an abomination.

The rich should pay more in taxes for the greater good of america. Ask Warren Buffet why he supports Obama? He is the last person that I would expect to be an Obama supporter. He along with myself choose to put country first. I personally will benefit from Republican tax policies more so than Democratic policies. I care about a wide variety of people. These people working together with President Obama will make a more Perfect Union.

By the way, if any of you voted for George W. Bush, your judgement on what is best for this country is seriously flawed!


Nice quotes.
First Amy Woodbrain and U. of NC Chapel Hill?!! That is a SEWER of leftist indoctrination NOT a university!!!! Their psychology dept. supplements their income (and libidoes) cranking out explicit "marriage manual" type videos with porn stars pretending to be "married couples with relations issues".

Find a solid source for quotes not a neo-socialist twit and a kook factory run by elitist pointy heads.

-Ray
NRA Life Member
Go 'Cuda, GO!!

Playing fair
If the rich should pay more income taxes than the poor because it's the "fair" thing to do, as Obama says.
Then he should give some of the money he's raised for his campaign to the McCain camp. It's not "fair" that McCain doesn't have as much money. I can bet he wouldn't want to do that. But it's okay to tell me that I should contribute more to the government because I make more.

That's the problem with these liberals, it's okay for them to take money out of my pocket and give to the less fortunate via taxes. But they won't do the same.

I want to be rich...
so let's not punish them (the rich) any more.

As another thought, everyone should have to pay taxes to maintain our country. If you don't pay taxes you shouldn't be voting.

Give McCain permission to plagerize
Why can't our Repulican candidates ever explain the tax problem like this? Give McCain a call, Larry, and let him read this word for word at his next debate.


Observations.

Hey, Elder... spot on, bro. Five stars.

The ideology of envy and resentment... works every time it's been tried. Sad.

Or the zero sum game... if "they" have more, you get less. Proven to be false, ad nauseum.

I then wonder how many posters addressing poor Kassandra actually believe that she read their truly fine posts.

I also wonder how many will pass this information on to their family, friends and asscociates.

Finally, I wonder if McCain/Palin will prevail.


LD 35 #32
Can you give me a link to the information that says 61% of billionaires are Democrats and 64% of CEO's are democrats?

It would be appreciated.

Thank you Larry Elder
for another great article. As usual, this is yet another example of the extreme hypocrisy on the left. The left wing nutbags scream at "everyone else" to pay more in taxes, but they sure don't want to do anything more than they have to support charity. LOL

The Dem presidential ticket should be ashamed and embarrassed at themselves for these kind of paltry charitable donations.

But, then again it's only true capitalists that actually believe in taking care of yourself and your COMMUNITY. The socialists dems expect (DEMAND) the government to do it. And we all know that this year's presidential ticket has the biggest socialist of all running.

Kassandra whatever your
post name is = 50% - 70% tax bracket?? Under Carter? Well, do we need anymore reason NOT to vote Demo than that? LOL

You braindead idiot - this country isn't socialist yet - we don't have a 50%-70% tax bracket. But, with communists like you panting at the WH front door, it will surely only be a matter of time before we do.

Small Business will suffer under Obama
Our family owns a small business. We have been in business for 10 years. The past 10 years have been filled with a tremendous amount of hard work, 60 to 80 hour weeks, worry, sweat, tears, and a lot of pride, as we had NOTHING when we married 25 years ago. We employ 20 people who depend on the money they earn to support their own families. In addition, I still have a job outside the business to help pay the bills. Under Obama we are considered rich. He will raise our taxes so that we can be more patriotic.. We will have NO choice but to lay some of our employees off to pay for this. Will Obama come to our busines and choose for us who we can no longer afford to pay so that he may redistribute our VERY HARD earned money to others. Why are we and others like us being punished by the libs for pursuing the American Dream and working our butts off? It is beyond wrong and talk about unfair!!!!!

Lon proclaims:

"And yet curiously, the poor do better when democrats are in charge than when republicans are."

Lon, I challenge you to offer one shred of empirical evidence in support of your statement. You can't, can you?

I don't personally know whether the "poor" will ultimately fare better under an Obama administration or not. I suspect that most of the newly imposed taxes will go to support bigger and even less effective gov't bureaucracies.

But I DO know how the "rich" and productive job creators of America will be treated under an Obama/Biden administration. Like dirt.

And I also know how the "rich" will react. Not by rioting or wallowing in their misery, but rather by retrenching -- in capital investments, in hiring and in their charitable inclinations.

Are the "poor" better off in these circumstances? Perhaps so, I don't know.

Is America as a nation better off? I think you know the answer as well as I, but (as a unapologetic progressive) you won't admit it.

excellent point
re:

"The Founding Fathers supported Equality of Process. Equality of result requires individual freedom to be squelched and that someone to be given the god-like power to sit and judge what is *fair*"

*****************************************

When they wrote "all men are created equal," they certainly did not mean with equal natural gifts, sense of purpose, etc., nor that all should share resources equally. [See Communist Manifesto for that drivel--> "From each according to his gifts-- to each according to his needs." That sure worked swell in practice!]

The Founders gave us a wonderful foundation, but what they intended often gets distorted. I am personally agnostic on religion, but it is silly to think that their call for separation of church and state (Establishment Clause) would have been interpreted as many do today. They simply wanted no state religion like the Church of England.

We have liberal judges who say they do not care what was intended originally, but that is why we have the amendment process-- judges were NEVER intended to make law.

Libs don't need to give to charity...
In their world, it's the governments job to forcibly take your contribution. Based on that, there's really no need to give independently.

Supporting f1etch
"The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; "

James Madison, Federalist #10

The Founding Fathers supported Equality of Process. Eqaulity of result requires individual freedom to be squeched and someone to be given the god-like power and sit and judge what is "fair" -

NOTE TO LIBERALS: You are NOT in kindergarten anymore. The Cupcakes you had in Kindergarten were given out VOLUNTARILY by adults assigned to your care.

In the real world, where all wealth is produced by labor, not everyone will get a Cupcake. The lazy animals in the Little Red Hen, did not get bread because they did not work. People in the bottom qunitile work on average 10 hours a week. Those in the top qunitle work on averge 60 hours a week .
Just because someone is lazy, on drugs, a high school drop out, or simply has other gaols than the accumulation of wealth does not entitle them to the sweat of another mans brow. Its time to grow up, act like adults, and take care of yourselves. Most people feel its immroal to be a burden on others, but that doesn't prevent some peolpe from deciding to be exactly that.

Kassandra
So, what is fair? For everyone to make the same amount of money regardless of how much work and risk they take? The homeless person who doesn't want to work or is hooked on drugs should make the same as the person who hires a hundred people in his small business. What about the welfare recipient who wants the government to take of their every need. They should make the same as the business owner?

curious
And yet curiously, the poor do better when democrats are in charge than when republicans are. One would think there was more of a connection about caring for people and having them do well. But then that assumes that caring about the poor has something to do with caring about improving their fortunes.

Robin Hood
No Matter how noble you think Robin Hood was, he was still a thief. Is it neighborly to go to your neighbor's house, hold a gun to their head and demand they give you their money so you can give it to charitable causes of your own choosing?

"Donations" to a cause obtained under threat is not Charity. It is not neighborly. It is not patriotic.
It is a violation of our inalienable right of conscience to decide when, where and how to best help those in need. (as well a being unconstituional for anyone who has read and can understand the Constitution and in particular the 9th and 10th amendments)

"That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical"
Jefferson , Bill for Religious Freedom

A true morally advanced society would rely on individuals looking out for others voluntarily, without coercion, because it was the right thing to do. Mr Elder's stats suggest that the morally advanced in our country are conservative, and liberals are moral degenerates who can only bring themselves to part with their money if someone else is forcing them to, AND only so long as everyone else must do it to.

Meanwhile money that Conservatives might donate to programs that work is instead funneled to a vast, corrupt, inefficient system what hardly works at all. (unless you measure success in how good it makes liberals feel about themselves - in which case they are 100% effective programs)

kassandra's twisted statistics
Your posts are full of twisted statistics.

The average "poor" person in America (the bottom 10%) own at least one car, more than one color TV, microwave ovens, VCRs, etc. America's poor have more living space than the middle class of Europe. This is due to the overall prosperity in this country that you are trying so despeartely to dismantle. Meanwhile according to the most recent study, the number of homeless in Los Angeles (in no small part influenced by rent control) FELL from 88,000 in 2005 to 74,000 at the beginning of this year.

I'm sorry, but not everyone can be saved from their own poor decisions.

And actually, very few Americans face foreclosure even during the cirrent government-induced mess.

kassandra desn't get it
"The United States has the largest wealth disparity of any industrialized nation in the world, and this disparity is growing larger every year."

Even if that's true (and the difficulty of assessment makes such bald assertions dubious to begin with), the fact remains that the US has the wealthiest "poor" in the world (by a huge margin), one of the highest overall standard's of living, unemployment routinely lower than the socialist countries of Europe, a HUGE middle class and income mobility that sees as many as 30% of those who are poor eventually reaching the top 20% of income earners.

America was NEVER based on "equality" in the context you mean. It was based on each individual having equal liberty to live their lives as they chose (so long as they harmed no one else) without the intervention of government. Equality fo wealth was NEVER a concept on which this country was based and attempting to create it is a direct attack upon the freedom on which this country WAS based.

Efi the "fat cat"
It is stunning that the left would expect your family to "do more" for the "less advantaged" (or less able/diligent!). The drivel about taxes only going up on those earning >$250k under Obambi is fallacious. Hussein IS a BIG GOVERNMENT LIBERAL! He is spooky left, but the MSM is helping him hide it. You have to pay for that largess somehow! National health care alone will enervate us all, and the feds are already squandering too much to screw up education.

Aside-- some personal advice from a long-time banker who now teaches personal finance, etc., at a college... paying off your house with only a 10-year mtg. is arguably too conservative... at your income level, you are getting killed with taxes already; I would refinance at a low fixed rate for 20-25 years to defray taxes, and put your $ otherwise into investments. The markets WILL come back-- they always have.

You should be thinking 20+ years before you need to get at most of what you sock away. Stretching out cars is SMART-- buy quality cars like Toyotas or Hondas, then maintain and hold onto them for at least 10 years. Too many people waste $ on cars in multiple ways, especially by trading regularly.

kassandra still clueless
What appears on "Democracy Now!" cannot accurately be described as reporting largely because "accurately" is not a phrase that can be used with regard to any of its content. I already posted the actual figures of "wealth disparity" that in no way resemble the one's you found there.

Only the delusional could possibly refer to the US economy as anything even RESEMBLING "totalitarian fascism". This country is on the brink of electing (which is problematic for your assessment to begin with) an unabashed socialist. The chief component of the US economy is a burgeoning middle class and some of the greatest income mobility in the world (because the "have nots" so frequently become "haves").

"Is it true that Rome collapsed when the disparity of wealth reached 5 % of the populace owning 95% of the wealth?"

No ... which kind of undermines your argument still further.

Kassandra
I work with "rich" based on Obama's plan. They will pay A LOT in taxes. These "rich" people you describe are not Warren Buffet. They are small biz owners WITH Employees up to 50 hard working folks. You liberals will talk about taxing the rich and use Warren Buffet or Paris Hilton as a visual example. In practice your little ponzi schemes impact small biz owners and professionals.
There is a lot of sacrifice that goes into starting a business; blood,sweat, and tears. That tired line about Republicans are making the rich richer has lost its freshness. Your income, way of life would not be here if the rich did not exists. What jobs and wealth do the poor create? Also, Obama is rich, do you REALLY think he is going to create a tax plan that will negatively impact him or his high net worth contributors?

kassandra's inaccurate terminology
“Isn't that what Warren Buffet , billionaire pays on his income [16% - actually the figure cited was 17.7%] while his salaried secretary is in a tax bracket almost twice as high [30%]?

Not really. Warren has been shilling to make his image appear nicer for some time given that his liquidity enabling him to “buy low” at this time will make him the individual who gains more than any other from the current economic crisis. In truth, the taxes that Mr. Buffet pays represent a much higher percentage and are misstated (by him) by presenting his income figure before the deduction of a huge percentage given to charity. His tax BRACKET in particular is MUCH higher than that his secretary finds herself in. If one wishes to bemoan the unfairness of the tax system in this case, one must specifically complain about the incentives built into the tax code for charitable giving. Otherwise, the argument is completely dishonest … not that the truth is likely to stop you.

BTW, apparently you didn’t get the memo. Certainly, the “bailout” is socialism. You may choose to call it “fascism” – even though it does not meet that criteria – or “corporatism” which is even farther from a correct definition, but the inescapable reality – as recognized for at least half a century – is that fascism and corporatism (which has nothing whatsoever to do with corporations having power) are BOTH forms of SOCIALISM. Mussolini’s comment, in particular, referred to the state merging corporate interests by imposing WORKER CONTROL over corporate entities.

You might want to do a little actual research before getting in so deep.

I've seen the IRS data
"So, what do 'the rich' pay in federal income taxes?"

I've seen the IRS data, and "the rich" pay 100% of the taxes, "the rich" being defined as those above the median income level.


"Thirty percent of American voters pay nothing -- zero, zip, nada -- in federal income taxes."

Now, that is an interesting statement because he counts only voters, not those with incomes. I don't know what that is supposed to imply.

Bush's Failed Policies?
Are you better off than you were 8 years ago? Think about it, in the last 8 years, Barack Obama has gone from an unknown state Senator making hundreds of thousands a year (jointly with Michelle) to a presidential candidate making millions of dollars a year. Sure he wrote a couple of books (about himself). But people actually bought those books and he made money - lots of it - how capitalistic. Bush's policies seemed to work for Obama.

Kassandra
61% of billionaires belong to the Socialist(dems)party.

64% of ceos belong to the socialist(dems)party.

Less than 30% of the wealth is in the hands of the rich---i don't know where you got your garbage.

Of the 13 richest in congress, 12 belong to the socialist(dems)party.

Now, you are either lying or haven't done your homework.

What I have sacrificed
I wanted to tell my story to highlight how unfair Obama's tax proposals would actually be. I work 2 jobs. My husband also works 2 jobs and we have 2 children ages 5 and 7. Our combined income is approximately $200K per year. We come home from our full time jobs, take care of our children (dinner, homework, playing, baths...) put them to bed and then both begin our second job teaching at a University online which we do until about midnight or 1 am on a regular basis - our only real day to "relax" is on Saturday. That second job has surely come with some sacrifice - but we have not let it affect our kids. I also do not know many people who would be willing to do what we do. Yes, we make good money, but we sure earn it. I envy people who come home from their day jobs and have the rest of the evening to themselves but we justify it now when the kis are small and in bed early because we want to give them the things they will need now (sports, books..) and in the future (college tuition...). We do not live outside our means and live in a decent suburb of Chicago. I am angry that I would be classified as "rich". I drive a car with 130K miles on it. Mu husbands car is 15 years old. I pay $1500 a month on day care for the kids. I have a $2000 mortgage not because I live in a big fancy house (I do not) but because we refinanced for a 10 year mortgage 6 years ago and have 4 years left on it. We went on a real vacation for the first time in 8 years thus past summer. These are the sacrifices I have made. I am angry that MY hard work is going to somehow be punished. I can see why people would rather stay home. It is appalling for me to think that so many people who do not pay federal income tax will be getting a check under Obama's plan. Where is MY check?

Kassandrasduplex,
Yes, it's true. There are some people who are more ambitious; have a better attitude; work harder (and, more importantly, smarter); are more persistent; and, in some cases even more gifted and talented than everybody else.

What do the rich own? Except for a relatively few exceptions (98% of which involve politicians), they own what they deserve to own. Just like you and your father do, too.

Why shouldn't the world be safe for billionaires (as well as everyone else)? You and your father are fine examples of envy.

Anyone who has ever made a difference, anyone who has ever given anything great into this world, has been a divinely selfish soul, living for his own best interests, no exceptions.

so compelling, it is worth a reprise
re:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

frank Location: NY

Reply # 16
Date: Oct 9, 2008 - 7:45 AM EST
Subject: I want to scream
Every time during the debate when Senator Obama talks about cutting taxes for 95% of the people, I am screaming to Senator McCain, to say things like, so you want to raise the tax on the 5% that pay over 50% of the federal tax? How can you cut taxes for 95% when 30% of them don't pay any federal income tax?

I guess we are not screaming loud enough for Senator McCain to hear us!

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Salient, cogent, and cognitive... could not have said it better myself, Frank in NY.

The ironic part is the column's point that the rich are ALREADY paying FAR MORE than people bray that they should pay as their "fair share"!

The only true tax the bottom half pays that they do not realize is REALLY spent just like income tax is the extractions for S.S. and Medicare. In other words, your S.S. confiscation is REALLY paying for Iraq, pork, etc.

Frank's lover Herb Moses a culprit...
... in the devolving Fannie Mae crisis, which led to the sub-prime mortgage debacle, which in turn is "queering" the investment market and economy generally.

http://delawarecurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2008/09/who-is-herb- moses.html

Honestly folks, the left's sticky fingerprints are ALL OVER this financial debacle! The key congressional recipients of Fannie Mae $, who doggedly resisted reform, after demanding for years that banks make sub-prime mortgages were in order:

1) Chris Dodd
2) BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
3) John Windsurfer Kerry

Note that the data were based on 10 years ending 2008... Hussein did not even get to Congress until 2005!


As a "Rich" Small Business Owner ...

I try to be fair with my employees and generous with my take-home profits, at least when revenues are sufficient to support a draw. In particular, I try to give when I can to my local homeless shelter, who (more than most local charities) do an effective job with minimal administrative overhead.

With my most recent donation, I included a card, which reads:

"Dear [Homeless Shelter]: For you sake, as well as mine, I sincerely hope that Sens. Obama/Biden do not actually intend to hike taxes on the "rich". If that were to occur, the very first expense item that will be cut from my budget will (by necessity) be charitable donations, including the sporadic contributions that I am able to offer to [Homeless Shelter]."

I've not yet received a response. I wonder if they realize that I'm serious.


By the way, kassandra, there was a reason no one listened to the "Cassandra" from mythology. And you're offering a fine example of why that was the case.


Who are they?
If you ask people of all income levels "Do you consider yourself to be wealthy?" 99% will answer No. What this means is that the virtually universal connotation of the words "the rich" is someone else who makes or has more money than I do. The insideous aspect of this perception is that it allows the left to excoriate an imaginary group of villians who no one belongs but everyone despises in the quiniessential example of why envy is one of the seven deadly sins.

My father was in the 50 to 70 % bracket
Under Carter. He was a lifelong Republican. After what he has seen of the past 8 years, he has switched to Democrat. Striking really, for a man who once worked as Ronald Reagan's political science editor for KTLA News Los Angeles!
This article above is full of the old twisted statistics game.
Tell us what the wealthiest Americans own, while 88,000 go homeless in Los Angeles on any given night. I hear one New York Landlord owns more than 20,000 rental units. Now honestly, in an age of foreclosed Americans living on the streets, is that fair, just or equal?
The GOP making the world safe for BILLIONAIRES, one foreclosure at a time.

The Rich
Sen. Obama wants more and more voters to work for the government. He wants more socialism and less capitalism which he considers bad.

Sen. Obama wants higher taxes so that he can grow government and increase regulations, while giving a part of each tax dollar back to taxpayers, a part to nontaxpayers as a transfer of wealth, and the remainder to government.

Liberals don't directly contribute, they expect our taxdollars to go into government programs that indirectly contribute inefficiently.

Liberals oppose clean coal, clean nuclear, and drill baby drill. They want most Americans to move back into the cities that they control and use mass transit.


Corporations don't pay taxes
Corporations don't pay taxes stock holders do. When a corp pays taxes it causes the value of its stock to drop and reduces dividends. In the end it is the stockholders who get it in the end if you know what I mean. As of this bailout it was not for the banks it was so some dimwit soccer mom who took out a loan with balloon payments which are now due can keep her McMansion which you and I are paying for. But since it doesnt fit the liberal agenda you all can go around blaming wall street and greedy bankers.

Ugly Truth About America's Rich
'The United States has the largest wealth disparity of any industrialized nation in the world, and this disparity is growing larger every year.'

This came from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
America was based upon equality, not freedom of the rich to rape the nation of its wealth.

buffetts comments
When Buffett said HE doesn't pay enough in taxes - that's NOT what he meant. Like all good liberals, what he means is YOU don't pay enough in taxes. After all, nothing is stopping him from writing a larger check to the treasure.

Disparity of American Wealth
Never greater than it is today, as reported by Amy Goodman recently on Democracy Now!
A republic BASED UPON EQUALITY cannot survive when the economic reality is one more of totalitarian fascism.
Is it true that Rome collapsed when the disparity of wealth reached 5 % of the populace owning 95% of the wealth?

The other night obama
used the word "fairness" to justify his marxist agenda of re-distribution of the wealth.
What's fair when a small business guy like my son gets hammered $168K last year in taxes and under this commies plan, he'd get hit another 100K?

Somebody will have to lose their job in order to keep the company solvent or they all lose their jobs, they all default on their mortgages etc.

But, it buys votes from the recipient class who IMO are thieves if they refuse to work and accept largesse from US and the gov't is the enabler.

The socialists say you don't "need" a big house or whatever, they forget, you only get one life, you have a right to enjoy the fruits of your labor and they have no right to insist that you share it with anyone else....we all start out the same way, stupid, wet and naked, if you can't succeed in America it is your fault, no-one else's and the rest of us shouldn't have to subsidize sloth and stupidity.


Warren Buffet VS His Secretary
Didn't Buffet recently reveal that his effective tax rate was 16 percent while his salaried secretary was paying 30 percent?

The Republican Party, making the world safe for BILLIONAIRES!
The recent bailout, a half trillion or so of the nation's Treasure handed over to the welathiest bankers on earth, that really isn't socialism, it's the operative definition of fascism.

Buffet 16% his secretary 30%
Isn't that what Warren Buffet, billionaire pays on his income while his salaried secretary is in a tax bracket almost twice as high?
But we wouldn't want the rich to lose their homes now would we.
The Republican Party, fighting the good fight to keep the billionaires, well...billionaires!
BTW, the media have characterized the recent bailout as socilaism. When the wealthiest bankers on earth get a gift of Treasury funds of some half TRILLION more or less, I call that fascism. "Fascism is more appropriately termed corporatism, for it is the ultimate merger of State and corporate interests." Mussolini, history's genuine fascist.

I want to scream
Every time during the debate when Senator Obama talks about cutting taxes for 95% of the people, I am screaming to Senator McCain, to say things like, so you want to raise the tax on the 5% that pay over 50% of the federal tax? How can you cut taxes for 95% when 30% of them don't pay any federal income tax?

I guess we are not screaming loud enought for Senator McCain to hear us!

for real
So being rich means you should not be taxed more because you create jobs and give to charities, seriously are you for real?

Legalized Plunder
Nothing is more maddening than watching John McCain and George Bush NOT talk about what Larry points out in this column.

Look, it's legalized plunder, pure and simple.

Imagine the (admittedly far-fetched) scenario of you seeing an envelope of cash in your neighbor's house. You enter his house, take the money, but give it all away to various charities.

YOU'RE STILL GOING TO JAIL WHEN YOU GET CAUGHT, and everyone knows this.

But Obama and the other socialists say, no problem, we'll just get Congress and the IRS to execute your plan instead! So you basically have a large group of people knowingly confiscating and appropriating the wealth of a smaller group.

It's a moral issue alright, but not for the reasons typically portrayed by the MSM.


flaws with Amnesty John campaign...
re:
"What I do not understand is that when McCain is debating and Obama starts his Tax Dialog..."

First Amnesty John is a poor debater. Second, nobody cares about his issue,Iraq, now... braying about it scrapes a scab. Third, foolish John refuses to say what NEEDS to be said-- Hussein is HARD LEFT, will REALLY tax and spend us to death, and Revrund Wright, etc., are BAD signs.

I think that Amnesty John, or any RINO would likely lose this time because of the suddenly bleak economic news-- talk about a break for the left/truth distortion ilk! It is now SURELY "the economy stupid." When Daddy Bush got replaced by Slick Willie, only about 40% considered the economy the most important issue-- that is suddenly now 60%!

The mess is too complicated for Middle America to realize that the left CAUSED this crisis-- Barney "gay blade" Frank, etc., demanded that sub-prime mortgages be made, resulting in at least $1 TRILLION of bad loans... they resisted reform efforts of clueless Jorge as far back as 2003... then they all took money from the corrupt Fannie and Freddie which drove the crisis. Speaking of "rights," it should NOT be a right to borrow $200k when you already do not pay your bills.

Hidden Taxes
Federal spending increased from two trillion to nearly three trillion under Bush. The result is that buying power for lower income people fail. Gas costs more because the dollar bought less. Ditto for healthcare, food, and everything else.

Then, layer on the added cost of an industry like healthcare supporting armies of government "workers." That adds lots of cost. So does the government giving away healthcare or not paying fairly for healthcare (others end up paying more).

The problem with our economy is not that Bush was too conservative. It was that he was too liberal.

Dreams of Riches
Obama will not only soak the hardworking, he will make it much harder for those making $30,000 or $50,000 to make the jump into higher income brackets. That's because it will be harder under Obama for lower income families to save money for investment or to take the risks necessary to start a business.

Who Really Pays Taxes %
This is the kind of information that has been public for years. What I do not understand is that when McCain is debating and Obama starts his Tax Dialog - why doesn't McCain hit with the figures and put him in his place. Obama is about redisrtribution of this countries wealth into a few needy, but most will be directed towards beucratic government programs that in most cases have not lived up to their so called claims.

the fallacy of mass perception
When I was growing up, I literally had a very savvy "rich uncle" (the wisest person I ever knew) who mostly reared me. He used to say-- find out what the average Joe thinks about complex issues and you will likely know what is WRONG.

This is why the left plays the demagogue to the electorate on tax burdens and other class warfare drivel. Have the rich accumulated a lot of assets? You betcha-- it is a free country, and its great socio-economic productive engine DEPENDS on initiative and the potential for success of invested capital. Take that away, and you get Cuba or much of decayed Europe (welfare states gone amok).

Anybody notice that Barry Hussein who "understands us" lives in a home he paid almost $2 million for? Funny thing-- he does not seem to have done anything except community organizing and civil rights law... then his spouse got a sinecure paying $400k a year working for a hospital. Hmmm! How 'bout his preacher who rants racist screed hate speech and "God Damm America!" but is moving into a $2 million home? Tough work that-- doing "God's work" and helping "poor people."

Jassen Says:

'the top 5%
The top 5% own what percent of america's wealth? close to 90%.'

I'm not sure where your statistic comes from, but if I work 65-70 hours a week running a business, and show more income than most people, doesn't it stand to reason that maybe I have sacrificed something to get there? Any more risk involved than if I would get a reliable check working regular hours for someone else? What if I provided something of value to others where I would be rewarded for this?
Socialists are more than happy to live off of the effort and innovation of others- and BTW, 86% of millionaires come from new wealth, not inheritances. The problem with Socialism is there is a parasitic ruling class with special privileges, and everyone else at a lower level. It never accomplished what it professed to do, make all equal. Instead, it punished drive and ambition, while rewarding the opposite.

the rich also create the jobs...
... and play a key role in the investments which benefit all.

Barry Hussein also likes to flame on about the oil companies that make "too much money"-- he wants to "punish" them with an excess profits tax. Guess what-- over half of Americans have $ invested in Exxon itself thru pensions or 401-k type retirement vehicles.

If you gouge the rich and the "big corporations," you cut off your nose to spite your face. We already tax corporations more than other countries-- it drives operations to move abroad and jobs to be outsourced! The rich provide the capital that drives the economic engine... this is the much maligned "trickle down theory" which is spot on correct.

Government produces NOTHING-- if it drags down the productive/investment engine too much, ALL suffer as a result. Simply look at the countries which experimented with high taxation and nationalizing of industries-- they ALL regret it... and they have ALL DECLINED in production and per capita living standard.

Fixing obvious liberal misconceptions
1) The notion that everyone pays income taxes all the way down to the minimum wage worker is deceptive. The benefits accrued to the worker under Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid and unemployment taxes accrue even more heavily to low income workers than the tax rates apply to them. Nevertheless, our tax system, even factoring in FICA and consumption taxes is STILL steeply progressive.

2) Wealth measures are a) deceptive, b) discussed entirely out of context by the Left and c) irrelevant to a discussion of income taxes. Actually, even when wealth measures are captured consistently (a rarity) indications are that a bit more than 70% of net worth is concentrated in the wealthiest 10% of households. The oft repeated figures indicating that 90% of wealth is concentrated in the top 1%, 2% or 5% (it's ever changing) are factually wrong. Moreover, the abundance of this wealth is not being squandered on yachts and luxury items but is employed in productive endeavors CREATING THE JOBS that employ 93.9% of the workforce at the moment. Further, wealth subect to its own set of taxation (even income taxation in the form of capital gains which only harms the economy and puts those who don't have massive wealth out of work).

The class warfare elitism that attempts to justify soaking the "rich" on such the basis of these arguments is completely dishonest.

Nice try, though.

cogent, informative column
I now teach college business and econ as a second career. My students are stunned when I share stats on who actually pays the taxes; my data are in sync with Larry Elder's.

Here are some more, also from the I.R.S. itself. The share that the top 5% pays has actually RISEN slightly under Presidente Jorge Bush. Larry is RIGHT! The left has sold us all an egregious DISTORTION! When they say that the rich should pay "their fair share," they WILLFULLY lie about the actual data. What is "unfair" about the top 5% paying "only" over 60% of the tax? Actually, it is unfair to that top 5%! They benefit from almost no government services (highways and military), yet pay over half of everybody's tab.

Here are the ACTUAL stats on taxes REALLY paid per the National Taxpayers Union:

http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6

The levels are based on A.G.I. (adjusted gross income) to account for actual taxable income. The source is none other than the I.R.S. itself. Note that the portion the bottom half pays has DROPPED from 3.91% before Bush in 1999 to 2.99% in 2006, the most recent year analyzed. so much for the tripe that Bush has benefited the rich at the expense of the Middle Class-- an ARRANT LIE.

the top 5%
The top 5% own what percent of america's wealth? close to 90%.

tex mex guera YOU ARE PAUL!

Taxes
Actually everyone with a social security number pays income taxes all the way down to the minimum wage worker. The only tax refund that I can think of that gave people back all their tax money under a certain income was the earned income tax credit for children.

Raise tax on those who make more than I
As the saying goes: "The politician who robs Peter to give to Paul will always have the support of Paul."

Once again you nailed it
Thanks Larry - I wish you were running for President.
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.