Skip to main content

Pay your fair share

The current pitch from the Clinton/Kaine ticket is that those making more, doing well, and those with good incomes, should pay more. They should pay their fair share. Fair share sounds reasonable.  That is until you chalk up who will pay.

Most of us, at least those reading this, think of our personal situation as middling.  We are not rich, not poor, but getting by, some better than others. We think, let's get the million a year rich.  YES. These people drive luxury cars, take luxury vacations, and enjoy the benefits of household maids, gardeners, servants at parties, and the like. These are the folks that should pay more.  YES.

The only problem here is that these so-called "folks' have already taken care of their money.  It is gone, already exported to save havens, untouchable by the taxman. The stronger the hint that the money will be taxed, the more motivated they have become. There are agencies supporting their cause, offering remedies for shelter in the coming storm. Some are in Panama - haven't you heard?   The "let's get em" mantra we all support is null and void. That money is gone. The IRS can try to tax, but only try.  It makes good press.  Nothing will come.

Yet, money to support adventurous new programs must be found.  From where?  From us. From us with far less resources than a million per year.  It will be found from those in the 100-300K range.  A large pool of resources it may be. But not enough. We have more than the poor, a lot more.  Most are on salary, in most cases money they've worked hard to get. Bump them up to a 50% tax rate, and there is a bunch of dough, but more resentment.    More big loans will be needed. We will long for the days of only a twenty trillion of debt. 

Bottom line.  Don't count the on the truly rich to help, to contribute, and to make redistribution possible.  It is you and I that will. And we will at a far higher rate than you can imagine.

"Blame it on the rich" is a battle cry for votes. Even those rich, Buffet, Bloomberg, Cuban and more, make the cry, These sanctimonious rich have protected their cash.  They pay maybe 15%. in taxes.  Do you?

Bernie Sanders, the champion of the poor, upon seeing Aetna* pulling out of the Obama care exchanges, has signaled the need for a single payer plan, namely the federal government.  It may be possible if the government was just a little bit efficient.  It is not. It will never be.  If you believe otherwise, or believe it can be made to be so, this is more than delusional. Bernie, like so many others, believe the cash cow of the rich will continue to generate taxable money no matter what.

*http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/08/17/490202346/aetna-ceo-to-justice-department-block-our-deal-and-well-drop-out-of-exchanges

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

UNCERTAINTY IS CERTAIN

  Uncertainty is Certain G. Donald Allen 12/12/2024 1.       Introduction . This short essay is about uncertainty in people from both secular and nonsecular viewpoints. One point that will emerge is that randomly based uncertainty can be a driver for religious structure. Many groups facing uncertainty about their future are deeply religious or rely on faith as a source of comfort, resilience, and guidance. The intersection of uncertainty and religiosity often stems from the human need to find meaning, hope, and stability in the face of unpredictable or challenging circumstances. We first take up the connections of uncertainty to religion for the first real profession, farming, noting that hunting has many similar uncertainties. Below are groups that commonly lean on religious beliefs amidst uncertainty.   This short essay is a follow-up to a previous piece on certainty (https://used-ideas.blogspot.com/2024/12/certainty-is-also-emotion.html). U...

The Devil and Artificial Intelligence

 In Stephen Vincent Benét’s allegory, The Devil and Daniel Webster , the Devil comes to collect a soul, armed with the fine print of a contract and the inevitability of human weakness. Daniel Webster, the great orator, wins the day not by denying humanity’s flaws, but by appealing to its higher nature. The story warns us about the bargains we make and the price we might pay when power comes too easily. Consider the allegory of Goethe’s “ Faust” as a substitute if Benét’s story is unfamiliar. Today, Artificial Intelligence stands in a position uncannily similar to the Devil in the old tale. It offers dazzling speed, vast knowledge, and seemingly miraculous powers, always at just the right moment when we are tired, overwhelmed, or greedy for an advantage. It whispers I can solve your problems, do your work, make your life easier; just trust me. Playing the role of Daniel Webster is only these few pages, but it is you or me that have signed the contract. The “gifts” AI offers ar...

Principles of Insufficiency and Sufficiency

   The principles we use but don't know it.  1.      Introduction . Every field, scientific or otherwise, rests on foundational principles—think buoyancy, behavior, or democracy. Here, we explore a unique subset: principles modified by "insufficiency" and "sufficiency." While you may never have heard of them, you use them often. These terms frame principles that blend theory, practicality, and aspiration, by offering distinct perspectives. Insufficiency often implies inaction unless justified, while sufficiency suggests something exists or must be done. We’ll examine key examples and introduce a new principle with potential significance. As a principle of principles of these is that something or some action is not done enough while others may be done too much. The first six (§2-6) of our principles are in the literature, and you can easily search them online. The others are relatively new, but fit the concepts in the real world. At times, these pri...