Sunday, June 11, 2017

Is 70% Not Enough?


The liberals (a/k/a Democrats and Progressives) are constantly claiming that the “rich” don't pay their “fair share” of income taxes, but they never tell you that the top 10% of taxpayers (the “rich”) pay almost 70% of all income taxes collected. Well, it's true, but still the drum beat goes on – the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting screwed.

One might ask, how much is enough? Where would we be if the “rich” didn't pay 70% of the income taxes, we'd be racking up a much larger debt than the already $20 trillion we now owe? We must not cut off our nose to spite our face.

To try to even out the income bubble would be an almost impossible task. Some people will always succeed in accumulating money and wealth ( a fact: 90% of all millionaires did not inherit their wealth, they earned it themselves), even though we are all created “equal” under the eyes of the law, we cannot force equal outcomes in life through income redistribution (the Robin Hood syndrome). As the old saying goes, “you cannot make the poor rich by making the rich poor”.

President Trump has proposed a tax plan that will give all taxpayers a reduction in their taxes, with the “evil rich” paying the highest percentage rate. Yes, the “rich” will get a tax reduction also, but so will the middle and low income taxpayers, isn't that “fair”? The emotional fear scenario by the Democrats that the Trump tax reforms are “gifts” to the “rich”, does not meet the smell test. Most companies and businesses (both large and small) are the major employers in our economic system (a free enterprise capitalist system). If you want to create jobs and increase revenue to the government, you must not overtax the entrepreneurs and risk takers. These are the people who create the jobs and expand the economic base.

It might seem incongruous, but when you reduce taxes to a “fair” level, instead of reducing government revenue, it actually increases government revenue. History is replete with the truth of that statement. When Presidents Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, and G.W Bush lowered the tax rates, government revenue increased exponentially. The caveat with that increase in revenue is that the Congress spent the extra revenue, and more, by increasing many of our social programs and “pork barrel” projects over and above the increased revenue. As a result, we now have a $20 trillion national debt, which President Trump is proposing to reduce by cutting and streamlining government programs and the bloated government bureaucracy.

To listen to Trump's detractors, he is going to kill children, starve seniors, ruin education and a host of other dire consequences, if his tax reform and budget proposals are carried out. The Democrat's are the one's who love to pass out “freebies” to the electorate in order to garner their votes at election time. The only trouble, with being so generous with handing out money from the public treasury, is that “there's no such thing as free lunch”, but as the Democrats surmise and factor in, people will be more receptive to the “something for nothing” plea as there are more people who will fall for that ploy because of greed and economic ignorance.

We should not penalize success by punishing the “rich” with unrealistic and overbearing taxes put upon them, but we should try to raise all people to become “rich” so that they can pay the taxes that the “rich” now pay, thereby increasing government revenue and reducing our enormous debt. A hand up instead of a hand out is the way to go. Too much government means more waste and inefficiency and an economic malaise, which we are finally recovering from our past policies.

So, as the headline of this editorial asks, “Is 70% Not Enough”, the answer is, “Yes”, it is enough, since the “rich” pay 70% of all income taxes, we should not overly penalize them by overly taxing them as the amount of jobs and economic expansion will decline, and we will push our national debt even higher and higher. If we have to balance our own personal finances, why shouldn't the government have to do the same? We have to start sometime, so now is the time to try to get our house in order and pass the tax proposals President Trump is proposing, the sooner the better.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann








Bookmark and Share

1 comment:

George Giftos said...

I wouldn't mind getting screwed if the government house of ill repute had some physical benefits for the money, but it seems the free loader are getting some on the house.