Pat Oliphant for November 29, 2012

Taxing the rich isn’t class warfare, neither is it socialism. It’s only one part of a necessary restructuring of how the federal government takes in revenue, and needs to be matched with plans to reduce spending, including entitlements. It’s important to note Warren Buffett’s recent editorial that, at no point in his long career of recommending investments, has anyone (including many wealthy investors) ever expressed concern about how much tax they would have to pay on their resulting incomes. They just wanted good investment strategies that would produce more wealth, even back in the 50’s and 60’s when income tax rates were much higher than today.

Fine, if you guys are against the rich paying their fair share of taxes, then cut taxes for the rest of us so that we’re paying what the rich currently pay…

when did it become sin to help the poor? I’m not jealous of what they have, it’s that they should be taxed at the same rate as the rest of us.

the post just above this said something that makes no sense.It sounds backward,

Wealth is concentrated in the top 5% at the highest it’s been since the 1870’s, and still Congress wants to extend their tax cuts. Why? Supply-side economics don’t work. Reagan proved that. So why go with a losing strategy?

Because it benefits the rich, silly. And they’re the ones who pay for McConnell and Boehner’s campaigns.

‘oh yawn, got to keep this class warfare going till we fall off the cliff. If we do not tax these guys we all are going to die..right?’- …if we do not tax these guys we all are going to die..So, if we don’t tax them we all won’t die!-Gosh, I never thought of it that way before. It all makes so much sense now. Don’t tax the rich and we will _all _ survive.-Thank you, thank you for that eloquent, informative commentary.-I look forward to your next treatise on the definition of class warfare, both in theory and practice.

This country didn’t fall off the cliff in the 1960s, when the top tax rate was 90%.

I see that they won’t stand for it.

“We were all poor…..the maid was poor, the butler was poor…..” (I think Benny Hill originated this but it might actually have been Plato……..)

Welcome back Pat , we need you in this mess sistem.

I am aware of a simple tax change that would balance the budget. It would be a small 10% tax. It would bring in $1 Trillion extra every year. It would Not affect the low-income earners. It won’t hurt the economy. When Obama sits down and names specific program cuts, then I will reveal it.

For once, I might just want to somewhat go along with you on that. Especially, as I formerly worked for aerospace on the space program, and still heavily support NASA and its efforts.

NASA now only gets some 0.3 % of the federal budget, but during the 1960’s NASA got an average of 2% of the federal budget, and in 1965 got an actual 4% of the federal budget.

And with that kind of a budget NASA did what many thought was impossible, and put Americans on the moon and brought them back alive and well!

I can not even begin to imagine just what incredible and wonderful things NASA could do with a budget that would be some 7 times its current budget!!

To say nothing of employing at least several million Americans in jobs with both reasonable wages and good benefits. Just why do so many Americans consider the time from the 1940’s through the 1970’s to be the greatest single period in American History?

Not only did we have higher taxes, but we were also ready and willing to do incredible things with those taxes!

And now we have the “ME!” generation instead, sad, truly sad!

Regardless of our various opinions, Have A Truly Great Day!

The “rich” pay the bulk of taxes already. We could tax everyone at 100 percent and it still wouldn’t be enough. Government doesn’t have an income problem. Period. It spends way too much.

To the progressives out there: make a specific percentage commitment. What percent of all federal income tax received by IRS should be from the top 1%? Top 5%. Name a number. 1%? 5%? 10% 25% 50%. Saying you want the rich to pay their fair share has no meaning without specifics.

LOL!! So let’s go over the fiscal ‘cliff’. That puts the Republicans in a pretty hard place, since ‘going over the cliff’ means the top 2% will pay their fair share of taxes – automatically. Then the Democrats can say ‘okay, now let’s cut taxes for the middle class’ and the Republicans will rally to it because it’s a tax CUT, right? And they can go ahead and do the sequester thing because it, too, only hurts the Republicans. If they want to fight like little boys, let them – our president can get a lot accomplished via executive order if the congress continues to be unwilling to pretend they’re grownups.

Oh, the art!! Makes U wish to live in a drawing…

there are a lot of people that have stock and bonds that need to live on not just rich people

Lets look at the facts a rich person (romney)paid 2 million dollars last year that not even covers the pay for one senator 174 grand pay check , fringe and staff and family members on his payroll. Cut the spending because the more you give politican the more they will spend so even if you tax the rich more It will not help

There has always been a large group of “Christians” who have strongly supported PARTS of the Bible while conveniently ignoring other parts. The favorite part to ignore these days seems to be the sections on sharing with the less fortunate.

Thanks for starting but you haven’t answered my question of defining how much is “fair”. You said what you would like to be done but I repeat. If the USA takes in $100 in Federal Income tax how much of that should be from the upper 1%, upper 2% , upper 5% and upper 10% to be fair?

If the upper 1% pay 1% than that is a flat tax. If they pay in 10% then they have paid in 10X more than they earned. Is that “fair”? Be specific- how much?

“… tax on every stock transaction…” Sounds like a good idea.

“… Think they’ll recognize him?…” That is their problem. I doubt that God will take your advice.. Progressive and Liberal policies are INCOMPETENT at building the poor into productive (tax paying level) citizens. .You sound like you mean well. Too bad you deliver Second Generation Welfare Families too much of the time. .Or, do you thrive on expanding the number of dependent people that vote for more Free Rides?

What the Repubs, and the voting public at large, don’t really understand is that you really don’t have to tax the rich. All you need to do is pass a tax code amendment that has the “right” language in it to make it “look” like you’re raising their taxes but when you read the fine print, has enough holes in it to allow any sufficiently rich person’s accountant to bypass the the new tax laws. After all, has anyone out there really read and understand the existing tax code? I’ve heard that it runs thousands of pages of densely packed double talk. If there is, there’s a very lucrative job awaiting you at Mitt’s estate!!

You seem to conveniently forget that corporate profits are taxed by the government and only after the taxes are subtracted do the remaining profits get passed along to the investor. He then pays taxes on those exact same dollars a second time.

So pretend you are on social security and get $2000/month. First you pay 25% corporate taxes leaving you $1500 and then pay an additional 15% Federal Income Tax on that. You then take home $1275. Is that what you really want?

There is moral repugnancy on both sides of the fence: the indifference of SOME of the haves versus the greed — to the robbery — of SOME of the have-nots.

Erratum: There is moral repugnancy on both sides of the fence: the indifference of SOME of the haves versus the greed — to the point of robbery — of SOME of the have-nots.

Fairness is not something objective and obvious and unquestionable. What’s fair to one person is not necessarily fair to another person. Here’s an example that struck me some years ago. How should public bathrooms be apportioned? It would clearly be unfair if all public bathrooms were men’s rooms and there were no women’s rooms, and it would clearly be unfair if all were women’s rooms and there were no men’s rooms. Are we agreed? Well, should the division be half and half? One might think so. In the city where I was living about twenty years ago, it was noted by the people who note such things that women spend more time (need to spend more time?) in the bathroom than men do. So there was a city ordinance that there must be three stalls (or whatever) provided for women for every two provided for men. If the premise is granted that women do need more time in the bathroom, which distribution is more fair? Half and half? Or some proportion which favors women? You can make up many such examples. How much food should each person at a table get? Should an infant get as much food as a growing adolescent? It’s because of problems like these that I reject the simple idea that it’s obviously “fair” for rich people to be taxed at the same rate as poor people. That position hides an ideological commitment.

“…If churches actually DID help the poor…” I suggest you look at the federal research on the effectiveness of govt welfare programs. It turns out that,on average: $2 of govt assistance gets as much done as $1 of church assistance. The results vary considerably- some local organizations do better than others. . I cannot get access to Canadian statistics- maybe you Northern Neighbors can teach the USA a thing or two. . I would be grateful for help on getting 23 million families on their feet. But, I cannot speak for the ‘not invented here’ mind-set.

Head start- funny you should mention that. total abject failure.

HHS “http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/head_start_can_a_failed_program_ever_be_killed.html”

After 2 years no differences in test results from those children in head start and those not in the program. Waste of billions.

I say we do to the rich what was done to them in the Soviet Union and take their wealth from them.

“If Head Start isn’t working, then it needs to be replaced with a program that does. Big Oil does not need our taxpayer money, that should be stopped immediately.”

Wow, we agree. Stop crony capitalism from both Republicans and Democrats. Also before spending millions try pilot programs.

So the $64 question is "Has the program been discontinued, funding stopped and alternatives being searched out?

I don’t know but my guess is nothing has changed, still pouring dollars down the drain. Once a federal program is initiated it seems to have a long long life of its own.

BTW, as a libertarian we strongly support our constitution. You know this already but where in Article 1 Section 8 does it allow the feds to spend even one penny on education. That is 100% a state/local responsibility.

Next paragraph is bragging but factual. I ran for and was elected to our local Board of Education. (7 years) I was a big spender. In the 90s Newsweek voted my school district the #1 school district in the entire US. The day after the article came out property values jumped massively. In the NJ Supreme Court school funding decision my district was named as the epitome which other districts should strive to emulate. Every time I write here I oppose federal spending but support local spending- when researched- There should be 50 state laboratories trying to work out what are the best programs for the entire country.

We could cut federal taxes by 50%, substitute state taxes penny for penny (no tax cuts for the rich) and spend the money locally. Our country would be far far better off. Between 25-50% of every penny collected by the feds is wasted. Both Dems and Republicans.

Well said. But that question has been answered by Heller. All 9 Justices including the 4 liberals ruled it was an individual right. We know longer have to have that discussion. The “collective right” people have lost.

However, the 4 liberal justices continue to want very strict limitations on those individual rights.