Real Americans Don’t Hate The Rich

They Want To Be Rich!

And I also question the timing.

Patterico brings to the web what he found on the front pages of the LA Times.

Page One of today’s L.A. Times says:

From front to back and on nearly every page, President Obama’s new budget plan delivers a stark message: It’s time for the rich to lighten the load on the middle class.

That’s right, rich folks! You’ve been avoiding your fair share of the taxes for far too long! Stop putting so much of the load on the middle class!

And this his what he found “after the jump”.  You know – where they like to bury the information they don’t want you to see.

[S]ome economists warned that higher taxes on the affluent could reduce their entrepreneurial energy and were unfair because upper-income Americans already pay a large share of the government’s total revenue.

You don’t say.

Yeah.  I call that – what the LA Times writes – class warfare, and I don’t believe that Americans buy into it (they never have, even in the hay-day of socialist unionisation in the ’30s).  Well, some do, of course.  And we see them in the highest echelons of government, just as we see them in the editorial sections of the major newspapers (what’s left of them, anyway).   After the lessons of the ’30s, and the lessons of the ’80s, I’m beyond questioning their intelligence.  I question their motives and patriotism.

I lied before.  I don’t question their timing at all.  It’s obvious and transparent.

Explore posts in the same categories: domestic, Economics, politics

3 Comments on “Real Americans Don’t Hate The Rich”

  1. Becky Says:

    My understanding – which could very well be wrong – is that while the rich may pay 75% (for example) of tax revenue, it still only represents 5% of their total income, while the remaining 25% of tax revenue comes from “little people” and represents 25% of their income.

    The rich may pay more bucks but percentage-wise, much less than the rest of us.

  2. joe Says:

    That’s not quite right, Becky. What they used to tell us (and the BBD and I recall the teacher(s) who did), is that “the rich” paid a much lower percentage of income on necessities, therefore they had a larger percentage of “disposable” income that could be taxed. IOW, even a higher tax rate on them represented a smaller burden. And perhaps it does. That’s a separate question about basic fairness about which reasonable people can (and have) disagreed.

    But to really get to very low tax rates, like the 5% you mention, you’d have to use the infamous “write-offs” and “depreciation credits” that only the wealthy could take advantage of. There was only one way to get them. That one way was to let the government decide what to do with your money (“Drill for oil, here, or No write-off for you!”) When the government controls how you spend your money, then it’s not yours.

    Even if the government is giving a lucrative deal at the moment, the piper is paid at the other end of the deal.

    Besides, those infamous tax write-offs disappeared in the ’80s, except for one. Your mortgage interest.

    I’m getting cynical enough to my old age, Becky, to believe that purpose of our tax code is no longer to raise revenue for the mutual benefit of the citizens of this country, if it ever was. It’s purpose is to reward Congress’ friends, and to punish its enemies. It does that very well. Nothing else explains the tax code we have now.

  3. VINSON Says:

    Of the present U.S.A. population of Approx 306 million how man does NBC survey to get their political results for their approval ratings they publish on the evening news broadcast.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: