LttE: What is fair about taking more taxes from the labor of the rich?

It will be a cold day in Hades before I will cross that threshold where Progressives want a select group of Americans to pay more taxes on earned and unearned income. This is a bucket of foul smelling waste the Washington elite is spreading across the landscape. I don’t buy, and neither should you.

The leftists call it the “rich’s fair share.” I call it the Progressives’ class warfare and a Balkanization of America stepping well beyond the boundaries of America’s heritage. Who thinks it’s okay to divide the people along the lines of race, sex, age, income, education and the many other ways the political hacks devise? Who believes it is right to create envious conflict pitting the interests of one against another?

Rather than working for justice for all citizens, and adhering to a unique, dying, American accomplishment of “equality before the law,” Progressives have segregated the wealthy as citizens with an obligation to pay more in taxes. They have sold the idea to a majority that the rich must pay more in taxes because they can. Following the old line of progressive taxation, the Washington leeches continue with their divide and conquer assault on the principle of equality before the law.

Just what is fair about the state forcibly taking more from the labor of the rich than they confiscate from the rest of us? Just how is it a good idea that Americans are treated differently with some bearing the bulk of the burden of paying for a wasteful and extravagant over-promising government, while others with no skin in the game carrying none of the load?

An individual’s property comes at the expense of the time and effort invested to create wealth. In essence, your property is the fruit of your life. Who can believe that in America it is right for the state to take more of one person’s life than of another’s? It will probably be many of the same leftists who believe it is right to take human life in-utero, limit your life choices, and inculcate your children in school with political correctness.

Michael Lewinski
Dubois, IN





  1. 1. When earnings below $250k get a tax break the rich get the same tax break on their first $250K. For example, if the tax on earnings below $250K drop, it does so for ALL citizens. As for increases on earnings above $250K, the rich do not ALL OF A SUDDEN pay a higher tax rate on all their income when they reach $250,001. They pay the higher rate ONLY on the $1 ABOVE the $250K. This is how a marginal tax rate system works. HOWEVER, the rich want to reduce their taxes due at EVERY bracket. In essence, the rich are asking for more in reduced taxes by asking for a reduction at every bracket.

    2. You ask “what is fair about the state forcibly taking more from the labor of the rich than they confiscate from the rest of us?” Well, to begin, they have received more benefit from the society that got them there so they “owe” more. As much as some want to believe, the rich did not get where they are in a vacuum We all pay for the roads their trucks travel, the public education their employees received, the government contracts they pursued, the reduced interest loans they borrowed, the tax abatements they are granted, and more… that the rich used to create the business they got…if they indeed created a business and are not simply rich because of dear old dad or living off interest income.

    3. you ask, “Who can believe that in America it is right for the state to take more of one person’s life than of another’s?” A millionaire’s last $50k is worth less to him than a single mother’s first $50K. Why do you ask that those two values be treated equally when they are not.

    I propose we let the tax breaks expire. Then maybe we can approach this more reasonably.

    • You and most others are arguing the wrong point – you are trying to somehow justify or explain why the rich should or shouldn’t be taxed at higher rates from some sort of a moral-ethical perspective. It should really be from the standpoint of how much it will help matters – something Obama himself has indicated is necessary for that very reason, but it keeps getting lost or ignored because he fails to provide the numbers for what that will really mean and do. The answer is: not much – almost nothing – which to me shoots the whole argument for doing it full of holes unless you’re part of those p.c. have-nots and sympathizers who just can’t stand rich people being successful and therefore believe that just in principle they should be punished or penalized for “having,” when poor people “have not.” To wit: Studies show that the extra tax from all the rich under the proposed plan would only sustain the government for six days. Forget it on that alone.

      • You missed the point where I mention that by giving the rich a decrease across all tax brackets they got a bigger tax break than the REST of us.

        I am not try to make a moral argument to justify this. The point is when ALL earnings below $250K got a tax break WE ALL GOT IT. This includes the rich. But that was not enough. They also got a tax break at every level of income bracket.

        You also talk like the tax increase is in the double digits? It is less than 5% and is only on the earnings above $250K.

        The only option is to increase the load on those that actually MUST spend their money. Reduce spending on medicare and medicaid, get rid of tax deductions and so on. Who will bare the brunt of that, do you suppose?

        You assert, without citation, that raising taxes on the rich will do “almost nothing” but what happens if we extend the tax cuts.

        Extending the tax cuts for the next 10 years we WILL ADD $3.8 trillion to the national debt. The current proposal would reduce that by $700 Billion (almost 20%). (

        Furthermore, this will have little impact on small business owners. Less than 3% of small-business owners have income in the top two income tax rates.

  2. Loljoe, Democrats like you are the problem in this country. They want the government to give them handouts so they can sit on the couch and smoke cigarettes all day that taxpayers like me have paid for. What is fair about the top 2% paying 44% of the taxes? The United States does not have a revenue problem, they have a spending problem and Obama’s solution to this is to spend more money. Obama thought he had it bad after he took over for a real president. Look at how worse he made this country in just four years and Americans were stupid enough to reelect him to a second term. He’s not even sworn is and he is already breaking his promises of working together with Republicans.

      • My view isn’t of the world, it is of the United States. I’m only scared of the direction this country is heading. Massive debt will destroy this country. Yes I do watch FOX because I like to get news that is not edited to make liberals and Obama look like he can’t do anything wrong and when he does, blame it on someone else.

    • I don’t smoke. I very rarely drink. I work 40+ hours a week. I have never collected unemployment.

      You ask, ” What is fair about the top 2% paying 44% of the taxes?”

      The top 5% represents about a quarter of the nation’s total income.
      The top 1% represents about 15% of the nation’s total income.
      The bottom 50% of income earners only earned slightly more total income than the top 0.1% income earners. (That is some serious income inequality.)

      Yea, it’s the democrat’s fault. /sarcasm

      • Ok, so the people that make 25% of the nations total income should pay 44% of the taxes. That seems unfair to me when the bottom 50% pays 2.25% of taxes. This is still the United States where people have the freedom to make as much or as little as they strive to make. There are some countries that have income equality like you are talking about, they are China, Cuba, Russia, and North Korea. Do you honestly think that they have it better than we do?

  3. We need a flat tax. Everyone pays X percent of their income, period. No loopholes or bailouts or buyouts. It’s time this whole country starts paying its fair share, and receiving what they deserve.

    • It is fair. It is based on what can be afforded by each bracket.

      A person earning only $30K needs as much of it as possible to survive. Why should that person pay the same tax on his only $30K that a millionaire pays on their last $30K.

      On that first $30K earned, the rich and poor do pay the same amount (avoiding deductions, interest income, etc).

      As well, your idea needs to consider how to handle dividends, interest income, etc. because many rich do not get the vast majority of their money from wages.

  4. “When one-tenth of one percent (the top 0.1%) make nearly as much as 50% of the all the nation’s wage earner together…no, I don’t have a problem with…” forcing those who pay most of the taxes pay more for a bloated government that wastes and redistributes because that’s where the money can be confiscated.

    This is the thinking of those who believe in communal property, not private property. It is the attitude of those who reject the rule of law and liberty in favor of those who believe in the rule of man and the tyranny of the state.

    • The 1% make MORE than 50% of the wage earners and pay LESS than 50% of the taxes yet somehow I am the one that believes in “communal property”?

      • Communism: a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuatingpolitical party.

        I thought you might like to know the definition of what it is that you’re preaching.

        • I am preaching communism?
          Who do you think is in control?

          The top 1% that makes more income than the bottom 50%.
          or the bottom 50% that is struggling to make ends meet.

          The top 1% or the bottom 50% that can’t afford to take a day off.

          When department stores are run by the state then we have Communism.

          • You keep preaching about the top 1%…Let’s pretend for the sake of discussion that they are under taxed…let’s go ahead and whack ’em with double the tax rate they currently pay…I guess I’ve got no problem with that since I’ll never be in the upper tier.

            Okay…will that take care of our massive deficit?? NO it won’t!

            So I guess maybe we should go for the top 2%…problem solved?…NO

            4%…8%..16% NO NO NO

            If we want to fix the deficit it’s going to call for higher taxes on the ones that pay most of the bill…the middle class(that’s you and me, my friend). And with our massive spending programs we still won’t cover the deficit.

            So unless you’re prepared to have Big Brother take over you life and you want to deposit your check with the IRS, I hope you realize that we’ve got cut government spending to make a difference.

            I’m always amazed at how many people think the government bureaucracy can do a better job than free enterprise…

          • “If we want to fix the deficit it’s going to call for higher taxes on the ones that pay most of the bill…the middle class”

            Why does the middle class need to foot most of the bill? Why can’t that top 1%,2%,5%, etc of the nations income earners pay more? They are making more than 50%-75% of wage earners. Why can’t corporation that have record profits while having smaller taxes, pay more?

            Increased taxes does not necessarily mean increased federal revenues. It means the wealth re-invest rather than hoard the wealth and pay taxes. When this happens we need less government spending because we have more wage earners. and so on.

            If we want to talk about spending programs, lets ask why we subsidize the oil industry? Why is our military spending so much higher than other nations? Why do farm subsidies go to big farm corporations?

            The Walton family (Wal-Mart fame) has more wealth than the bottom 40 percent. Just one family.


            • Federal revenue today, at 15.8 percent of GDP, is lower today than it was 60 years ago. During the last year of the Clinton administration, when we had a significant federal surplus, federal revenue was 20.6 percent of GDP.

            • Today corporate profits are at an all-time high, while corporate income tax revenue as a percentage of GDP is near a record low.

            • In 2011, corporate revenue as a percentage of GDP was just 1.2 percent — lower than any other major country in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, including Britain, Germany, France, Japan, Canada, Norway, Australia, South Korea, Switzerland, Norway, Italy, Ireland, Poland, and Iceland.

            • In 2011, corporations paid just 12 percent of their profits in taxes, the lowest since 1972.

            • In 2005, one out of four large corporations paid no income taxes at all while they collected $1.1 trillion in revenue over that one-year period.

  5. I have a question. If the poor and middle class receive entitlement, don’t you think paying a lower tax rate if you make over 250k is an entitlement? I do. As much as the upper class “work” hard (more work hard to screw over the middle class), the middle class and poor work just as hard (if not harder). The middle class and poor, built the roads that everyone uses. When those roads need repair, who pays more to fix them? The middle class and poor. This country was built on the backs of the everyday working man and women, why must they get punished for not having more?

  6. loljoe,

    It sounds like you don’t believe individuals should be free in their person and property. It appears you believe the lowest among us, the politicians and their bureaucrats, can and will do what is best, and are capable of acting responsibly and competently. Is this not so?

    • People can’t be free in the person and property if the wealthiest among us will continue to do their best to deprive the rest of us of what little there is left to get.

      Let me illustrate the reality of the income gap this way:
      Assume $100 dollars is all the income earned for a group of 1,000 people.
      The income tax is about 12% of AGI ($100 in our example) or $12.
      If the distribution of wealth among this 1,000 reflects reality (circa 2009) we would see:
      1 person with $8. Minus $2.04 in tax.
      9 people sharing $9. Minus $2.40 in tax.
      40 people sharing $15. Minus $2.52 in tax.
      50 people sharing $11. Minus $1.32 in tax.
      150 people sharing $23. Minus $2.04 in tax.
      350 people sharing $21. Minus $1.32 in tax.
      500 people sharing $13. Minus $0.24 in tax.

      As well, taxation need not always be about increasing federal revenue. The best thing it could do, in this case, is prompt the rich to reinvest their money rather being taxed on it. Reinvest in technologies, industries, etc, and thus creating jobs without the need of gov’t intervention. Instead these guys hoard their money and hide it overseas. Obviously, in lieu of reinvest, taxation would increase federal dollars.

      As for trusting politicians…I trust them maybe a bit more than the wealthy if for no other reason that we can vote to remove them from office.

  7. What is fair about rich people getting money from tax loopholes that the rest of us can’t afford to take? What is fair about about businesses getting tax breaks when they offshore American jobs to communist countries? What is fair about capital gains being taxed at a lower rate than work-based income?

    No Mr Lewinski, the rich are taxed LESS than the rest of us. Why do you think Mr Lewinski that the rest of us should have to pay the rich’s taxes for them- on top of our own taxes? I for one am sick of it, and I WANT MY MONEY BACK!