Sunday, October 30, 2011

Should more Americans have "skin in the game", or should more get a free ride?

Michael McAuliff, a very far left liberal who writes for Huffington Post put forth a laughable story today that concerns the growing call for more Americans to "pay a fair share". Many conservatives feel it is an obligation for any working American to pay at least a little something in income taxes, for several reasons. The biggest reason, of course, it to broaden the tax base to reduce the deficit. But it also gets the 47% who pay ZERO taxes to have skin in the game, and that is extremely important.

You see, liberals want more than 50% of Americans to NOT have skin in the game, because if they pay no taxes, they will always favor higher taxes on others and more government benefits for themselves. This empowers liberals, and gets them elected. Look at it this way - if someone is feeding you, housing you and providing you with free medical care, are you going to vote AGAINST them? Of course not. So Democrats are determined to get "dependent" Americans past the 50% point, to insure they will always retain power.

Conservatives, on the other hand, realize that making people dependent upon government only feeds the government at the expense of personal liberty. For example, if the government provides you with food, that gives them the right to determine what you can and cannot eat, if they so choose.

By making every American pay at least some income tax, every American becomes an interested stewart of tax revenues - we all have an interest in our taxes being used wisely, and not wasted. If you do not pay taxes, you just don't care if they are wasted.

So, here are some of McAuliff's "points" in his story, and my uptake on comments are in bold italics:

"It's most often expressed in the growing complaint that about half the nation's households pay no federal income tax -- an accurate figure that varies from 46 percent to 51 percent, depending on which set of statistics are being used."

[REPLY] McAuliff admits that nearly half of all Americans pay no taxes, but goes on to claim that those who pay no taxes are "the poor" (see below). Seems to me that "the poor" do not constitute 50% of Americans.

"It also ignores the fact that the half who pay no federal income tax do pay sales taxes, federal payroll taxes, state and local taxes, and -- if they own a home -- property taxes."

[REPLY] I see. Although they are "the poor" according to liberals, they obviously earn enough to buy stuff, and many even own homes. That does not sound like "poor" to me. In fact, government statistics show that the majority of the lowest income families in America own TV's, computers, cellphones and even iPads. Pardon me for saying so, but America's "poor" are actually wealthy by the standards of most of the world, where "poor" actually means poor.

"Hatch and Cornyn were opposing a nonbinding Democratic resolution that would have done nothing more than declare that the wealthy should share the burden for digging the country out of its economic ditch and reducing the deficit. Yet they were hardly alone in the pushback against the poor."

[REPLY] Yes, Republicans oppose taxing the wealthy even more, for several reasons. 1) if you take EVERY DOLLAR on income from the wealthy, it would not have much impact on the deficit; 2) money taken from those who we depend upon for our products, services, product development and jobs is money that cannot be used for those things; 3) the top 1% of earners already pay 40% of all taxes, so I don't want to hear the BS mantra about "paying a fair share"; and 4) giving the government MORE money to waste only insures they WILL waste more, putting us in a deeper hole.

"Advocates for a progressive tax system hear in Sessions' words a return to anti-welfare arguments that, while they were ultimately proved to be false, nevertheless had impact."

[REPLY] The "progressive tax system" was actually a violation of the Constitution until the turn of the 20th century when a progressive President and Congress pushed through a Constitutional amendment to change it to a progressive system - the first socialist step to destroy "home rule" - government by the people. And that is when America's troubles began. But McAuliff's absurd assertion that "anti-welfare arguments" were "proved to be false" is, itself, a falsehood (a lie). The Gingrich tax reform plan of 1996, which was "anti-welfare", resulted in more people working than ever before, and greater tax revenues because of it. So, anti-welfare arguments actually were proven to work.

And that's the real point here. McAuliff and his Democrat/liberal/progressive/socialist buddies want everyone to be on welfare of one kind or another, because that empowers government. And that is what socialists need if they are to succeed. As long as the people run government, socialists cannot win. Socialism is built upon the premise that government needs to control the people, not vice versa. And that is as un-American as it gets, because we are founded as a government OF the People, BY the People and FOR the People.


No comments: