Obama unwavering in his “fair share” stance
posted by Jim McAllister
at 16 November, 4:15 PM 0
When Obama talks about paying a “fair share”, he leaves that undefined. A new CBO Report from July, 2012 “found the bottom 20 percent of American earners paid just three-tenths of a percent of the total tax burden, while the richest 20 percent paid 67.9 percent of taxes.”
Thus, since the original report came out in 2004 showing the bottom 20% of earners paying 1.1% of taxes and the upper 20% paying 65.3%, the system has been getting more progressive, with the “rich” paying more.
So for all the people screaming “the rich don’t pay their fair share” — considering they already pay far more than other groups, how much more should the upper income levels pay to be “fair” in your view? And is it acceptable for about half to pay no federal income tax?
Obama has painted himself into a corner with his unwavering decision that the “rich” should pay more. He has harped on it so long that backing down would show weakness. Besides, his legions of “takers” love his stance. They love to see the “makers” pay their way. They don’t realize how it will affect them them adversely eventually.
His definition of “rich” is questionable too. Married couples making $250,000 a year are doing well but I wouldn’t call them rich in the sense that Warren Buffet or Bill Gates are rich. Most of them still have to get up for work in the morning and go to work.
Progressive taxation is not inherently wrong, but taken too far it’s socialist income redistribution, which is legalized theft. Asking one minority group to shoulder the burden almost exclusively is discrimination and unethical. Those blessed financially have an obligation to help others, but when the top 40% pay almost all the taxes, isn’t that enough?
(References: Constitutional Conservatism)