I loved Bernie's town hall meeting the other day. When asked to simply pay a bit more as a millionaire, he scoffed and claimed he paid what he owed.....
Maybe some of the statists here can learn from this article?
https://www.realclearmarkets.com/ar..._please_dont_pay_your_fair_share__103696.html
The left-leaning rich frequently complain that they don’t pay enough in the way of taxes. To right the alleged wrong they claim they’ll vote for politicians who will legislate higher rates of taxation on them. Apparently there’s nobility in self-flagellation.
The problem is that low-tax types on the right encourage the left's self-abnegation. Apparently they don’t see that their encouragement is more than a bit contradictory. Indeed, when they supposedly call the bluff of witless lefties by telling them to feel free to write a bigger check to the U.S. Treasury, they’re unwittingly reminding us that self-flagellation is very much a bipartisan concept.
They forget that we all suffer the burden of higher tax revenues. More specifically, a $1 billion tax increase on Jeff Bezos is a $1 billion tax increase on all of us. So is it a tax increase on all of us when the guiltiest of the Hollywood rich, desperate to be seen as more than “woke,” go out of their way to brag about how much they pay in taxes. Their stupidity is all of our burden.
To understand why this is true, readers need only consider why politicians tax in the first place. The answer can be explained through our own motivations in going to work each day. We work because we want and need things for ourselves. Our work is what we exchange for all that we don’t have.
Politicians are no different. They want things too. The tax laws they write are a veiled expression of their desire to enjoy a portion of what we produce. Translated, they want a paycheck too and they’re using the political markets to get paid.
To the above, some will reply that politicians tax in order to “help people.” They want to help those who can’t help themselves, or those who are “forgotten,” but they’re dissembling. If it’s about getting things to people, politicians are more than superfluous. How do we know this? We do because the path to wealth in the private sector is most explicitly one of mass-producing former luxuries. And if readers are wondering what “former luxuries” constitute, they include most everything you own, including the computer on which you’re reading this opinion piece.
The above can be best explained by the Budweiser Light tag line, “for the many, not the few.” The slogan is an apt description of how people get rich in a free society. They do so most often by meeting the needs of the many. Walmart made it possible for the common man to have access to the world’s plenty, while the late Steve Jobs quite literally put supercomputers in our pockets for several hundred dollars. Not too long ago, the technology produced by Jobs for us at low cost would have set us back millions. In Travis Kalanick’s case, he made it possible for the everyday among us to quite literally summon a driver at any time, and from nearly anywhere.
So if it were about getting us things, politicians would do nothing but protect individual freedom. No one gets us things as well as the profit-motivated, which means politicians more truthfully want to fail to adequately supply us with resources in as inefficient manner as possible, during which time they’ll take a piece of the action.
Thinking about all of this in terms of the rich paying more, it’s all so very counterproductive. Let’s not encourage this. The federal government is not staffed by the magical; rather it’s filled with people who used to not work in government. By virtue of them choosing government, they in many instances are revealing a lack of ambition or imagination. Basically they want a paycheck without the stresses and strains that come with earning one in the profit-motivated world.
Maybe some of the statists here can learn from this article?
https://www.realclearmarkets.com/ar..._please_dont_pay_your_fair_share__103696.html
The left-leaning rich frequently complain that they don’t pay enough in the way of taxes. To right the alleged wrong they claim they’ll vote for politicians who will legislate higher rates of taxation on them. Apparently there’s nobility in self-flagellation.
The problem is that low-tax types on the right encourage the left's self-abnegation. Apparently they don’t see that their encouragement is more than a bit contradictory. Indeed, when they supposedly call the bluff of witless lefties by telling them to feel free to write a bigger check to the U.S. Treasury, they’re unwittingly reminding us that self-flagellation is very much a bipartisan concept.
They forget that we all suffer the burden of higher tax revenues. More specifically, a $1 billion tax increase on Jeff Bezos is a $1 billion tax increase on all of us. So is it a tax increase on all of us when the guiltiest of the Hollywood rich, desperate to be seen as more than “woke,” go out of their way to brag about how much they pay in taxes. Their stupidity is all of our burden.
To understand why this is true, readers need only consider why politicians tax in the first place. The answer can be explained through our own motivations in going to work each day. We work because we want and need things for ourselves. Our work is what we exchange for all that we don’t have.
Politicians are no different. They want things too. The tax laws they write are a veiled expression of their desire to enjoy a portion of what we produce. Translated, they want a paycheck too and they’re using the political markets to get paid.
To the above, some will reply that politicians tax in order to “help people.” They want to help those who can’t help themselves, or those who are “forgotten,” but they’re dissembling. If it’s about getting things to people, politicians are more than superfluous. How do we know this? We do because the path to wealth in the private sector is most explicitly one of mass-producing former luxuries. And if readers are wondering what “former luxuries” constitute, they include most everything you own, including the computer on which you’re reading this opinion piece.
The above can be best explained by the Budweiser Light tag line, “for the many, not the few.” The slogan is an apt description of how people get rich in a free society. They do so most often by meeting the needs of the many. Walmart made it possible for the common man to have access to the world’s plenty, while the late Steve Jobs quite literally put supercomputers in our pockets for several hundred dollars. Not too long ago, the technology produced by Jobs for us at low cost would have set us back millions. In Travis Kalanick’s case, he made it possible for the everyday among us to quite literally summon a driver at any time, and from nearly anywhere.
So if it were about getting us things, politicians would do nothing but protect individual freedom. No one gets us things as well as the profit-motivated, which means politicians more truthfully want to fail to adequately supply us with resources in as inefficient manner as possible, during which time they’ll take a piece of the action.
Thinking about all of this in terms of the rich paying more, it’s all so very counterproductive. Let’s not encourage this. The federal government is not staffed by the magical; rather it’s filled with people who used to not work in government. By virtue of them choosing government, they in many instances are revealing a lack of ambition or imagination. Basically they want a paycheck without the stresses and strains that come with earning one in the profit-motivated world.
