The Mutation of "Fairness"...the push for equal outcomes

[sirs]

So what if taxing the rich hurts economy?

Consider this headline from a Reuters article in the Huffington Post: “Raising Taxes on Rich Won’t Hurt Economic Growth, CBO Says.”

But the first paragraph refutes the headline: “Allowing income tax rates to rise for wealthy Americans would not hurt U.S. economic growth much (emphasis added) in 2013. …” The CBO did not say, as the headline suggests, that raising taxes on the rich has no negative economic effect. In fact, the CBO actually said that extending the Bush-era rates for all would increase economic growth by 1.5 percent. If, however, the Bush era rates expired for the rich – but were retained for everybody else – economic growth would still increase, but by 1.25 percent.

In other words, raising taxes would result in less economic activity, not more. Herein lies the key to understanding why the left wants higher taxes for “the rich.” To the rich-should-pay-more crowd, the question of whether raising taxes hurts economic growth is less important than the issue of “fairness.”

Then-presidential candidate Barack Obama, in 2008, was asked why he insisted on pushing a capital gains tax increase given that, historically, higher capital gains rates meant less revenue:

ABC News’ Charlie Gibson: “You have, however, said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, ‘I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was 28 percent.’ It’s now 15 percent. That’s almost a doubling if you went to 28 percent. But actually Bill Clinton in 1997 signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.

Then-Sen. Obama: “Right.”

Gibson: “And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.”

Obama agreed, “Right.”

“And in each instance,” Gibson continued, “when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?”

Obama explained: “Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness (emphasis added). We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year – $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That’s not fair. And what I want is not oppressive taxation. I want businesses to thrive, and I want people to be rewarded for their success. But what I also want to make sure is that our tax system is fair.”

Years earlier, in 1998, the then-state senator told a Loyola University audience: “The trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some (wealth) redistribution – because I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level to make sure that everybody’s got a shot.”

The then-Democratic nominee Obama told Fox’s Bill O’Reilly that wealth redistribution was the neighborly thing to do. “If I can afford it,” said Obama, “what’s the big deal for me to say, ‘I’m going to pay a little bit more’? That is neighborliness.” And a month before the 2008 election, Obama explained to “Joe the Plumber” that “when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

In a 2001 Chicago radio interview, then-state Sen. Obama said: “The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth (emphasis added), and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. … One of the, I think, the tragedies of the civil rights movement, was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community-organizing activities on the ground, that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change – and in some ways we still suffer from that.”

Investor’s Business Daily says raising taxes on the top 2 percent figures to bring in annually about $34 billion. Others put the number at twice that. Either way, it is a tiny fraction of the $1.1 trillion annual deficit. And an Ernst & Young study says this would cost 700,000 jobs. So raising taxes on the rich a) brings in a small amount of money, and b) reduces, not increases, economic activity.

Why increase taxes on the rich at all? Answer: It’s a matter of “fairness.”

Andy Stern, the former head of the Service Employees International Union, the fastest-growing American union, describes the economic philosophy of the left: If raising taxes on “the rich” hurts the economy, that is an acceptable price. “Western Europe,” says Stern, “as much as we used to make fun of it, has made different trade-offs which may have ended with a little more unemployment but a lot more equality.”

Any questions?

[Plane]

A clear majority of us voted in favor of this.

In ignorance, I expect ,of the European habit of keeping doubble digit unemployment all of the time.

[sirs]

A clear majority of us voted in favor of this.

100% true

In ignorance, I expect ,of the European habit of keeping doubble digit unemployment all of the time.

Well deduced.  Our tipping point may have been reached, where a majority of the electorate is either beholden to Governmet or working for them.  They require power to impose their ever oppressive doctrine, even at the expense of the country they govern, since.....they get to remain in power.  It certainly has in California.  We'll go Greecocolypse 1st.  The rest of the country will fall suit a little bit later

[Plane]

Mitt Romney got severe criticism for saying as much and putting a 47% figure on it.

But its true.

And the truth hurts .


Therefore we are never going to elect anyone who is telling us the truth, even a little bit.

We might elect an honest guy now and then , but only if he doesn't know the truth.

[sirs]

That's a fair assessment and prediction, given our current circumstances

[Xavier_Onassis]

Maybe 5% at most of those with income above $250K are actually entrepreneurs. Those who have not hired people after four years of tax rates will not do so if they have four more years of tax breaks. A measly 3% in the rate will notmakeany major difference to anyone.

Romney was a dick, and said what he believed or what he wanted some fatcats (NONE of whom were entrepreneurs, by the way,just hedge fund managers) to believe.  Romney was a dick and he lost.

[Plane]

Xo

Do you think that fatcats keep their money under their mattresses?

[sirs]

If we're going to start picking and choosing who to tax based on nothing more than a perceived fairness, let's tack on Hollywood
-----------------------------------------------------

In the name of shared sacrifice, it’s time to impose a tax on the $7 billion in box office receipts that Hollywood generates.

I added up the domestic box office activity for the week August 26 through September 1st based on figures provided by Variety. The take for the week for Rise of the Planet of the Apes, Our Idiot Brother, Spy Kids: All The Time In The World, plus 130 other box office leaders was $136 million. Year-to-date those films have grossed over $4 billion.

$7 billion in annual receipts can hire quite a few teachers. 145,228 teachers actually.

$136 million each week would pay the unemployment benefits for 461, 017 people at the average benefit of $295 per week.

Look, if people are going to talk seriously about taxing “the idle rich”, they should get serious about looking at the most idle members of our society- those who reside mostly in Los Angeles and Manhattan and make a living off of show business.

Being a sometimes starving writer, I have a lot of respect for the sacrifices that artists make to pursue their craft.

But Hollywood box offices aren’t funding starving artists.

They fund “Contagion,” the next in a series of socially redee…, excit…, err, movies by Matt Damon who gets paid enough to pay 572 teachers. Tell me which has more value for society? A rich, smug, preachy Matt Damon? Or 572 teachers?

And in what passes for political strategy in Democrat circles, Michael Moore, the mustard-stained Leni Riefenstahl of the progressive fascists wants Damon to star in a new role- as president of the United States.

Really. I’m not making that up.

“The Republicans have certainly shown the way — that when you run someone who is popular, you win," said Moore according to the Huffington Post.

Then he compared Damon to Ronald Reagan: "Sometimes even when you run an actor, you win. And I guess I only throw his name out there because I’d like us to start thinking that way."

I don’t know Michael.

You already have a candidate who can only manage prepared lines, has no experience at anything other than acting and thinks that paying taxes makes one an “American.”

"The wealthy are paying less than they paid at any time else, certainly in my lifetime, and probably in the last century," said Damon in the same article. "I don't know what we were paying in the roaring 20's; it's criminal that so little is asked of people who are getting so much. I don't mind paying more. I really don't mind paying more taxes. I'd rather pay for taxes than cut 'Reading is Fundamental' or Head Start or some of these programs that are really helping kids. This is the greatest country in the world; is it really that much worse if you pay 6% more in taxes? Give me a break. Look at what you get for it: you get to be American."

Gee I wonder how we got to be such a great nation when we’ve been under-taxing the citizens by so much for so long?

I think it’s time to take up Damon’s suggestion and tax all of Hollywood at 80 percent of their net worth, and 80 percent of the gross going forward. That would still leave Damon with $3 million of his estimated $65 million net worth. That’s a small price to pay for being an American Matt. 

That’s certainly a better plan than taxing banks. Say what you want but banks generate an awful lot of economic activity by building hospitals and schools and roads. When was the last time a movie paid to fund a new school in a public school district or made sure that teachers wouldn’t get laid off?

When was the last time a Damon movie made money by anything other than glorifying violence or preaching a smug unreality to the rest of us who live in the real world?

Because after all the demonization of “big” oil, “big” banks and corporate profits by Hollywood’s saintly progressives, maybe it’s time for the Damonization of Hollywood in return. 

If you can do it to banks and CEOs, why not actors and film corporations? 

Raising the income tax by Damon’s 6 percent isn’t going change Warren Buffet’s tax bill one bit.

But introducing a Hollywood tax bill at 80 percent off the top may just get the millionaires of Hollywood to shut the heck up.

[Plane]

Entertainment products are one of our big exports.

Do we really want to strangle an industry that hires so many and pays so well?

Perhaps we do, we have taxed other industrys out of here , why not one more?

[sirs]

Exactly......its only "fair"