Posted by: As I See It by Arnie | July 15, 2007

Democrats try to define the "rich" to tax.

The democrats are debating what is the magic number that separates the rich from the middle class, and the middle class from the poor. There is a one size fits all, one time solution, but I’ll get to that later.

“Though most of the 2008 Democratic candidates have made clear whom they would target with tax increases, they stop short of defining the wealthy or the middle class in concrete terms. A spokeswoman for Obama said that the senator “feels that wealth or the lack of it is defined not by a number, but by the ability of a family to provide food, pay for healthcare and afford to send children to college.” Dems grapple with ‘rich’

Pelosi says it’s $500,000. Schumer says it’s $400,000. Obama and Clinton appear to agree on $250,000. Edwards advocates $200,000. The Democrats feel that tax hikes on the wealthy is necessary to pay for policies needed to help the poor and middle class, who, according to Gov Richardson, are the people who must work for a living. Richardson thinks the rich is defined by the upper 2% of income. What a quandary it is to define a relative term.

It’s a real problem to redistribute wealth. It’s a real problem to come off as “fair” to all. Everyone wants a Robin Hood, but no one wants to be Robin Hood.

If there ever was a magic number that separated the rich from the middle class, it’s never been considered fair by the group having to pay up. It’s always changing. The 80’s was less than the 90’s and now it’s much less than just that short decade ago. In New York City, it certainly would take a heck of a lot more income to live on the same economic level and sense of comfort, as someone from Omaha, Oklahoma City, or Mena, Arkansas. The really poor would readily agree to tax everyone above poor. The middle middle class would agree to tax the really rich. and the upper middle class would go along with additional taxes on the filthy rich. Terms. terms. terms. How can they raise taxes and keep the most votes? How can they raise taxes and buy more votes?  Oh, and not to leave out the Al Gore bunch who desire that everyone anties in for carbon offsets.

It’s a real problem to steal from one group of Americans and give to another group and not be considered a criminal. How do you do all that and remain “popular” to get the most votes? How do you do all that to fund another pet project that will get some more votes without alienating those paying for the pet project?

There is a one time solution. If reporters and the mainstream media would take the time to read and comprehend the solution, then they could ask the democratic politicians about this program that has already been introduced into the House and the Senate. But, they don’t even question the democrats about this program. How can they? They have not even tried to understand the solution. Simple as that.

When it comes to governing, the thought of taking a government bureau (IRS) that has been made incomprehensibly complicated and turning it into simple is just, well, ah, too simple.

Try it. Read it. Digest it. Do not argue with it until you comprehend it.

It’s called The Fair Tax. HR 25.(62 sponsors) S 1025. (4 co sponsors)


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: