The American Spectator : The Bueller Next to Me

Text Size

The Bueller Next to Me

By Ben Stein on 12.5.12 @ 6:11AM

Why the GOP is losing the tax argument.

Tuesday
Here I am in Scottsdale, again. I had a strange flight over on Southwest. A man named Bueller sat next to me. He could not stop talking to me, even when I was clearly sleeping. He was a pleasant fellow, good looking, intelligent, but why talk to someone who is sleeping? He was wildly jacked up over the fact that he was sitting next to a character from Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, and his name is Bueller. Plus, he had some idea about texting.

Plus, and this really upset me, he said he was shocked that I did not have my own jet. For the millionth time, I AM NOT RICH!!!! I am a hard-working guy but I am not rich. I wish I were but I am not. Plus, I am not a particularly good person. I never claimed to be, and I am a devil around flirty, pretty women. So, just get it straight. NOT RICH. NOT A SAINT.

However, I do not wake up the passengers flying next to me if they are sleeping. At least not intentionally.

I went to a hotel in Scottsdale. It was a depressing, grim place. Plus, it did not have working Internet. I was tired. I was disgusted. I was extremely down about my pal B. Not in a mood to put up with that nonsense. So, I checked out and went to the Fairmont Scottsdale Princess, which was HEAVEN.

Lit with spectacular Christmas lights, an immense tree, happy kids ice skating, just a riot of holiday cheer. My mood improved immensely. As Bob Bartley often said, we humans are highly influenced by our surroundings. It was funny when he said it because our offices at 22 Cortlandt Street could not have been more barren, uninspiring, and just plain dismal. Bob knew it was funny.

So, I watched the kids ice skating, and felt happy. A plump woman told me her son used to trick or treat at my house in Beverly Hills and she remembered how I had the huge lawn taped off from the kids. Of course, I don’t have a huge lawn and I have never had it taped off. Well, as my father used to say, if a man comes up to you on the street and tells you he is a fish, you don’t need to demand to see his gills. I think that’s a quote from Kafka, but it could be from someone else.

I sat at the beautiful outdoor bar and had a soda. I visited with two lovely women from a huge Minneapolis tech company who were visiting Scottsdale. They absolutely could not have been more pleasant. We talked about famous natives of the Upper Midwest, F. Scott Fitzgerald and Joe McCarthy. They were total delights. I like Midwesterners very much, almost as much as Southerners.

I wandered back to my room, which is cheery and airy. I felt happy until I started to think about my Grand Old Party.

How did we ever get into the position of fighting like madmen to keep taxes low on billionaires? How can we possibly win if our position is to sacrifice the welfare of poor and lower middle class people to make sure we keep the taxes of very wealthy people low? Let’s see: Obama is for keeping almost all entitlements and raising taxes on the rich (his definition of rich is insane but that’s another story). Our GOP position is low taxes on the rich and cut entitlements and medical care for the poor. Hmmm, which is a winning position?

My old boss, Mr. Nixon, used to say, “Honesty may not be the best policy but it’s worth trying once in a while.”

So, Let’s be honest: the ultra-rich do not need ultra-low taxes. The poor have a moral claim on the generosity of the nation if they are genuinely in need. Might we just try to align ourselves with the morally right position for fiscal policy?

Yes, government spends insanely too much. Yes, government is criminally wasteful. But the nation is racing towards bankruptcy. Do we right the course by taking from the very rich — while searching like Sherlock Holmes for waste to cut? Why not? I’d like to see the party win the next election and being the party of the billionaires does not help us.

Oh, well. Time to sleep.

About the Author

Ben Stein is a writer, actor, economist, and lawyer living in Beverly Hills and Malibu. He writes “Ben Stein’s Diary” for every issue of The American Spectator.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (117) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 12.5.12 @ 6:45AM

Ben Stein writes, " The poor have a moral claim on the generosity of the nation if they are genuinely in need. "

Wasn't that the thought process behind the War on Poverty, launched around 1967? Ten trillion or so later poverty won since poverty is allegedly higher now than when it started.

Why is it compassionate to take the hard earned dollars of one segment of society simply to filter it though a bureaucracy which keeps about 70 cents of every dollar?

The government hand outs have created dangerous cities where citizens are being mowed down by other citizens. There is no compassion there.

Is it not possible that the left gets away with their phony moral superiority precisely because Republicans are for the lack of a better concept, a circular firing squad, where misplaced compassion precedes cave ins to higher taxes?

I just read an article that showed that in 1967 a majority of the payment transfers went to the poor. Now, 64% go to the middle class.

There's your moral Ben. No government is wise enough or can be trusted enough to do it.

Jack in Wi| 12.5.12 @ 8:25AM

It is bad politics to try to cut benefits for the poor while leaving the taxes of the elites low. better to slash needless things like war, foreign aid, corporate welfare, and bloated government salaries and pensions before touching the entitlements. It is insane to do this in a nasty depression. The Republican elite politicians want all their own welfare and low taxes as well. The way to get to lower spending is to start by closing down the Afganistan war right now and eliminating all foreign aid. That would be a politically estute start. Then go after whole departments and eliminate stimulus spending.

James Baker| 12.5.12 @ 9:59AM

Jack,
If we are leaving Afghanistan in 2014 (which I still wonder), that really is the soonest we could wind the war down safely and not have massive casualties and leave arms and equipment behind for enemy use.

Jack in Wi| 12.5.12 @ 10:42AM

You could leave tommorow. It doesn't matter because they are planning to leave a large force there until who knows when. Just start pulling out troops as fast as possible. It could all be done in a couple months. The Taliban is going to run the place anyhow. Why keep wasting blood and treasure?

Rhoetus| 12.8.12 @ 5:17PM

Jack in Wi: That works for me. :-)

C. Vernon Crisler | 12.5.12 @ 9:48AM

"How did we ever get into the position of fighting like madmen to keep taxes low on billionaires? "

One of the essential things that distinguishes conservatives from socialists is that conservatives believe government should enforce formal equality but not material equality. IOW, government has no business enforcing equality of outcomes. Its sole duty is to enforce the rules of the game (life, liberty, property), not to choose the winners and losers.

Progressive taxation violates this fundamental axiom of conservatism. For that reason, Ben, you are not really a conservative. You are really a socialist at heart.

Occam's Tool| 12.5.12 @ 10:34AM

Taxes are to be used as a means of raising money to run the government, NOT as a form of social redistribution. That, by the way, is a Ron Paul position, correct me if I am wrong. It is also one that I agree with.

C. Vernon Crisler | 12.5.12 @ 11:09AM

I have always said Ron Paul makes a lot of sense on economic issues.

Rhoetus| 12.8.12 @ 9:42PM

It's about morality. When you start salami slicing groups like AGI over $10 million, AGI over $1 million and AGI over $500,000. - now substitute Russian-Americans for the fist group, Polish-Americans for the second and Jewish-Americans for the third. It's all purely arbitrary and just as amoral. Especially when it does not solve the problem - it does not stop reckless, unconstitutional government actions.

SUBVET| 12.5.12 @ 10:25AM

Ben my man your a theif...........if TAS is paying you for this "drivel".

What a crock of sh*t..........

SUBVET| 12.5.12 @ 10:43AM

Oh !!!! one more thing come's to mind I remember when I knew it all (at 18) when I would try to show I knew more than my dad he would say to me..."you talk like a man with a paper assho*le".......ben your old enough I sure you've herd that term before......maybe even from your dad.

cuban pete| 12.5.12 @ 11:52AM

Sub:
Are you from Cincinnati? My college roommate used the term," man with a paper a....." That's the first time I heard it and in the 45 years since college I have not heard it again until today.
All the best,
cp

SUBVET| 12.5.12 @ 4:19PM

Pete.............my parents were from the bronx, NY on my dad's side all sicilian.... tough crowd.

Some stories I can't repeat and others outragous.

Butch| 12.5.12 @ 7:23PM

All right, you two. I've always considered myself a pretty hip guy, but . . . paper a**hole? I don't get it. If you're still here, I'd like to admit my ignorance and respectfully request an explanation.

cuban pete| 12.5.12 @ 8:24PM

Butch:
My roommate used it and I never had it explained. I just know I wouldn't want to talk like one.
All the best,
cp

SUBVET| 12.6.12 @ 12:50PM

Pete/Butch.......maybe this can open the door on the term.....

Cassell’s Dictionary of Slang

MAN WITH A PAPER ASS/ASSHOLE: [1950s and still in use] (U.S. Black) A talkative fool – all talk and little or no action.
____________________________________________________________

Chapman’s Dictionary of American Slang

MAN WITH A PAPER ASS noun phrase, black, by1970s: A person whose ideas are not important; a trivial man; = lightweight
____________________________________________________________
good day to you...................

TLP| 12.6.12 @ 2:42PM

Rookies.

Seek| 12.5.12 @ 1:18PM

Actually, the War on Poverty was launched in President Johnson's State of the Union Address of 1964. He'd just been in office for a couple months following the JFK assassination.

As for government handouts creating dangerous urban neighborhoods -- not quite. More accurately, the presence of large numbers of blacks makes any neighborhood a dangerous one. While means-tested aid enables the worst of that race, it doesn't direvtly cause crime. Blacks, by nature, are pretty good at crime as it is.

Alan Brooks | 12.5.12 @ 10:45PM

"If we are leaving Afghanistan in 2014 (which I still wonder), that really is the soonest we could wind the war down safely and not have massive casualties and leave arms and equipment behind for enemy use."

A long way from the halls of Montezuma and the shores of Tripoli.

Rhoetus| 12.8.12 @ 5:15PM

Taxation has become a sordid game by cynical- insincere politicians. The progressive Income Tax is a moral issue, President Obama and most politicians are amoral and self-serving. The top 1% pays nearly 37% of the taxes; the top 10% pay 70% and the bottom 50% pay only 2.25%. Fairness it seems is rather subjective.
Who pays Federal Income Taxes by AGI (2009)?
Top 1% 36.73%
Top 5% 58.66%
Top 10% 70.47%
Top 25% 87.30%
Bottom 50% 2.25%

Obama wanting to raise the marginal rates on select individuals making more than one-million dollars won’t solve the deficit problem- so much for utility and practicality. What is his reasoning then? Envy.
Republicans need to make this a moral issue and link it to actually solving a problem- the only effective solution is to cut real spending as compared to slowing the rate of growth (of government spending). This salami slicing of citizens that destroyed equal treatment under the law effectively destroyed our constitution and the morality of the nation.

John786| 12.5.12 @ 6:47AM

Tax the rich and help the poor. Mr Stein are you sure you are in the right party. Don't get me wrong, I'm completely with you, but you know the entire raison d'être if the GOP is sought of opposite. I could really get to like you if wasn't for the ME thing.

TLP| 12.5.12 @ 7:35AM

You left out: Kill the Jew.

John786| 12.5.12 @ 8:16AM

You're so funny-Not.

TLP| 12.5.12 @ 9:21AM

Seriously.

You left out: Kill the Jew.

John786| 12.5.12 @ 9:51AM

You continue with your fairy tales, while we continue to struggle for peace and Justice. Victory may come tomorrow or it may not. It doesn't matter. We aren't going anywhere. Ever.We were born there, our fathers were born there and their fathers.... we are in our own house..as far as the eye can see. Welcome.

Occam's Tool| 12.5.12 @ 10:35AM

So are we, asshole. Next year in Jerusalem!

John786, stay away from my children, child rape supporting scumbag.

Al Adab| 12.5.12 @ 11:09AM

John:
Thank you for the kind thoughts of yesterday. Please overlook the fact that some of my friends here, including some I otherwise respect, no not understand the nuances of Islam. Believers tend to be social Conservatives if not, as you are nonetheless, fiscal ones as well. Your comment above regarding theft from the rich to "help" the poor is well taken.

None of us have a moral claim to the property, wealth or income of others. Sadly too many of our people prefer a gurantee of subsistence over the opportunity of success and are jealous of those who do succeed.

John786| 12.5.12 @ 12:21PM

Haji,
May God with you always.
The view of Government, that it is only an enforcer of rules , and takes care of defence, is somewhat of an extreme libertarian ( antiquated) position. The reality, is that the modern nation state, by necessity, takes a much more active role. This inevitably leads to a redistribution of wealth. Rightly so in my opinion. Warren buffet, would be extremely rich, even if 99% of his wealth was taken away. The vast majority of Americans are not in such an enviable position. Moreover, it Doesnt matter how clever or skilled Buffett is, his wealth is at these levels, because of the richness of American capaitilism. If fate had dictated, he be born a kalahari Bushman, he would probably have accumulated no-more than a few buffalos and maybe an extra wife!. It is right that he pay more for the privilege of earning more. And supporting the system that has made him emmensely wealthy. The issue for me is at what level we deem that fare rate to be. And who deserves to be supported. These will be always be shifting as politics and circumstances dictate.

Al Adab| 12.5.12 @ 2:38PM

Bismillah al rahman al rahim
John: Thank you of course for the reply, very decently stated. While I of course disagree that modern nation states have some obligation to redistribute, I do not disagree that they have a role in providing opportunity for the least of their citizens. Whether that opportunity comes best through direct action, taxation and redistribution, or through the promulgation of better economic conditions, as Ibn Khaldun noted in the 14th century, is the point of debate.

There is no question that many benefit from the capitalist economic system of free markets and enterprise upon which this nation was founded. Does is necessarily follow that government must play a role in somehow leveling the highs and lows? I think not. As you note, who gets to decide what levels are acceptable? Therein lies the danger.

Morally, I do not believe it defensible to treat income or property differently based on its volume or source. If income must be taxed, then the rate should be the same for all.

Salaam Aleikum

Al Adab| 12.5.12 @ 2:42PM

As Lincoln put it, "That some become rich means that others may become rich." That is the opportunity which government can rightly create.

TLP| 12.5.12 @ 3:38PM

We don't need the Government to "Create" anything.

This is a Country of Equal Opportunity. You just need to GET OFF YOUR ASS and go find it.

Unlike the Lands of the Religion of Blow Everyone to Pieces, America has always been The Land of Opportunity.

Anyone can come here and Make It.

Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, whatever.

Unlike your precious Muslim World.

The sooner ALL OF IT is turned into Glass?

The sooner this world can reach it's God Given Potential.

TLP| 12.5.12 @ 5:00PM

And, there are no Nuances to Islam.

Islam means SUBMIT.

And, rightly so.

Submit, or Die.

Nice Religion you got there.

Al Adab| 12.5.12 @ 5:50PM

Government "creates" the proper economic conditions for opportunity and success by defending prioperty rights and free markets. In that sense it creates. Otherwise no it need not take affirmative steps of any kind to further opportunity, as you rightly note, for all. Assimilation, not the worship of diversity, is the proper route to success.

John Navratil| 12.5.12 @ 6:22PM

Al Adab,

I beg to digger. Government creating these things is like saying increasing spending less than planned is a spending cut. Where is the zero?

Property rights and free markets can exist without govcrnments. You said it better when you described the government as a defender. The alternative is to conclude the government could take away property rights and free markets. Oh, wait! They are!

Rhoetus| 12.8.12 @ 9:45PM

ditto to what Al said. :-)

Joellen| 12.5.12 @ 7:22AM

Ben Stein, may I respectfully request you call Stuart Varney, Neil Cavuto Charles Payne, etc., and sit down and truly listen to these men on just how ineffective and even damaging these tax increases would be. Please, do that and then come back and write about how wrong you were and we be attending Fiscal Conservative lessons 101 for the new year.

TLP| 12.5.12 @ 8:15AM

You don't understand, Joellen. He's not Rich. Just ask all of the Valets at all of the Hotels that he stays in. Ask the Waiters and Waitresses at those Restaurants. They'll tell ya.

Who do you think he Voted For?

Obama did get 70% of the Jewish Vote. And, since Ben doesn't believe in Our Messiah, maybe he figured it was high time he latched on to one of his own. A Messiah who thinks like he does, instead of the other way around.

Why is this guy even here? Why isn't he at The Daily Beast or Salon? Any Salon.

I would love for someone to ask him if he thinks that Liberal Democrats are Soft on Crime, and Weak on Defense? And, if he does? And, if does, he also HAS TO KNOW that they are TAX and SPEND Liberals, with this guy being the Worst.

"The Rich should pay more."

I disagree. Everyone who pays NOTHING should pay more, and a Flat Tax is the only way. What could be Fairer than EVERYBODY having Skin in the Game? EVERYBODY chipping in, like the old woman who gave Our Messiah 2 pennies.

His final paragraph is like a Premonition of the Death of this Country, as we knew it.

The Country is thisclose to the Abyss. It's Hemhoraging Jobs. Its Cities are fast becoming Third World No Go Zones, if not outright Unlivable. Whole States are seeking Bankruptcy Protection, and each day we inch closer and closer to The Weimar Republic, if not Zimbabwe.

I know - LET'S RAISE TAXES. Why not?

What's the worst that could happen?

Appleby| 12.5.12 @ 7:22AM

Ben, the next time you are in one of those Upscale Hotels you frequent (and believe it or not, Regular Folk do not stay at the kinds of places you frequent), you need to pick up the Gideon Bible and read the Book of James. And then you need to go back and read Matthew. Then you should ask yourself, "Where exactly does Jesus say FORCE YOUR NEIGHBOURS TO FEED MY SHEEP?" What Jesus advocates, and what has always worked best, is PERSONAL CHARITY. That is, giving of YOUR OWN MONEY. The Poor can best be helped by their neighbours, who know them and know what they need and how best to help them. Check out the Good Samaritan. Notice that he assisted the man attacked by robbers and left to die, by personally dressing his wounds, taking him to a place of safety, and paying the landlord to look after him -- promising to make up the difference the next time he came through town -- AND THEN GOING ON ABOUT HIS BUSINESS. THAT is what Jesus answered to the question "Who is my neighbour?"

Tina B| 12.5.12 @ 8:39AM

There it is. The essence of loving one's neighbor. Thanks Appleby, you have nailed it. Ben only knows about Christ and what He said. He doesn't know Christ, or understand what He said. What He still says, to be more accurate. You know and I know the Word is a living word. Good job and Ben, I hope you follow the recommended reading.

Al Adab| 12.5.12 @ 2:41PM

The obligation to help the poor is a personal obligation on believers. It is not one which can be transferred to government thereby ridding the individual of his obligation. Sadly we now live in a pagan, idolotrous society where too many think it obligatory for government to confiscate and redistribute property and wealth. The collapse of that system will likely usher in a time of totalitarian government, even in this nation.

Stkman| 12.5.12 @ 9:48AM

There are a few versus in the Bible that say the lazy will not eat or the lazy should not be fed by others. Even Christ expected people to work for their keep, wages and food.
We need a complete overhaul on all of our social welfare programs. We need to weed out those that have fraudulent claims. We also need to imprison those that work at these government offices and assit the frauds with their claims.
That being said, we need to also realize there are different kinds of wealthy people in this country. There are those who are American, do there business here and don't do it at the expense of their fellow American. Then there are those who have no problem shutting down an American business and sending the jobs to some other country, yet make millions upon millions in profits, then expect to have very low taxes. We all need to understand what the exporting of jobs is all about, and it has very little to do with being competative. It has a lot more to do with profits margins and greed. Those that make their profits by laying off our brothers and sisters should be paying higher taxes to help make up for the loss to Social Security, Medicare, un-employemnt funds and income taxes that those laid off American won't be paying. You see that Chinese made tv isn't so cheap when you add up what it cost us in taxes to support a single American that has been laid off.

OP4| 12.5.12 @ 7:37AM

"low taxes on the rich"? Is this a joke?

I am very much in the middle class in New Jersey - and my incremental tax rate is around 35%. When I get my meager annual bonus, I mentally divide the amount by 2 to guess what the check will be. Do I get a tax cut if I make another $100k?

How high is high enough Ben?

NE-Conservative| 12.5.12 @ 7:38AM

Dear Ben, for someone claiming to be 1) a trained and informed economist and 2) concerned about the 'poor' the in the US - you make wildly ignorant comments. Read the following slowly, it may help you to understand: 'raising taxes will worsen the economy - historically EVERY reduction in tax rates has led to an increase in revenues - see Thomas Sowell - ANY increase in taxes will fall on the middle-class who are able to hang onto their jobs and pay their taxes - quit pretending to be a conservative or speaking for conservatives - as a supporter and promoter of class envy and conflict - you belong in 0's camp.We do NOT have a government REVENUE problem, we have a government SPENDING problem!

Albert Constantine Jr.| 12.5.12 @ 7:41AM

I have been ignoring Ben Stein’s articles here because I haven’t observed that he has anything worth reading in them. I made an exception today, and confirmed my earlier policy was correct. Ben doesn’t seem to think that he is rich, but those rich people over there should be taxed, to help the poor, apparently because that undefined status creates a moral entitlement to the property of others.

Ben Stein apparently writes because he wishes to expiate some guilt, and eschews logic, sense and consistency in his quest. My mistake was to break my fast and read this. Hopefully, in the future, I will revert to the previous good judgment to skip Mr. Stein, and should he call roll, it will be “Albert? Alberrttt?Alllbert?

Russel| 12.5.12 @ 8:36AM

AC , I myself soared clean over his drivel yet again , just to delight in what you all had to say about him , again . Saps , he never disappoints in disappointing . I wonder if he and Boehner are pals .....

Tina B| 12.5.12 @ 8:43AM

I know, I know, I shoulda skipped to the responses too, but got sucked back in a couple of weeks ago by a right thinking article he wrote. I won't make the same mistake again.

sockmonkey| 12.5.12 @ 7:42AM

Mr. Stein, do you not read any of the other articles on American Specator? Many good ones have been written by Thomas Sowell and Peter Ferrara. If the "rich" are paying such ultra low taxes why is it that they account for about 13% of earned income and pay 39% of federal taxes? Why is it that the bottom 51% pay nothing? Why is the top 5% pay more taxes than the bottom 95% combined? I absolutely believe it is the christian duty of the rich to help the poor, but it is not the governments job to redistribute wealth. As an economist surely you have seen the data that shows creating a tax environment that stimulates investment and growth results in more tax revenues rather than less. Surely you have seen the stories that say the increased taxes on the rich would only cover about 8 days of government spending. It is not a revenue issue it is a spending issue.

Stkman| 12.5.12 @ 10:17AM

Sockmonkey, you left a statistic out. That the top 2% of earners control 98% of the American economy. Look, I'm about as far to the right as one can get, but if the uber wealthy are paying an overall rate of 15% or less because of all the deductions they get, them I'm a bit bothered by it. Either lets go to a flat rate no deductions for everyone, or lets expect those that have more money than their great great great grandchildren can ever spend to help get us out of this mess.
As a middle class tax payer I'm paying 15%, now add up all the other taxes and government fees and I'm paying just under 60% of my income in government taxes and fees(city, county, school, state and federal). Most all of the middle class is in the same boat. Know this, those uber rich people that are bitchng because 20 million just isn't enough, have money stashed overseas that that has never been taxed.
We may have the highest corporate taxes in the world, and we shouldn't, but neither should we have some of the lowest individual tax rates on wealthy people when you include the deductions that they, and only they get. The Republicans are losing the fight because everyone sees their loyalty is to 2% of the population. Like Romney said, the wealthy will be just fine no matter who is President. It's the other 98% I'm worried about and it's time the rich stepped up. It's also time that the Democrats put an end to all the welfare fraud that goes on in this country.

Anti-Statist| 12.5.12 @ 12:17PM

I need to point out that this 15% rate you put forth is a capital gains rate on income from investments, which were secured by previously taxed income. Don't buy in to Warren Buffett's deception- his tax rate is based very largely upon dividends and not income like salary.

He's paid the 35%, and then another 15% on investments purchased by after-tax earnings.

I think taxation should be based upon efficiency and minimal distortion on economic decisions by the citizenry. The Marxist left (and Stein, apparently, and alas) consider taxation to be a re-distributive leveller. The purpose of taxation is to fund our government, which is now demanding to be our master instead of servant, and we're to be mere serfs sacrificing for the whims of the king. No thanks.

Stkman| 12.5.12 @ 1:02PM

I personally think everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, should pay 10% no deductions. Did i say no deductions, damn right I did.
Treat all income the same and tax it 10%.

Houdini| 12.5.12 @ 2:26PM

You are on to something. Everyone that earns income should have skin in the game. When I was a youngster earning $1.25 an hour there was a deduction each week for income tax (plus state and other) now you have to earn substantially more to have a dime of income tax witheld from your check. The rich always seem to get richer...but is it fair that they should carry the burden for the rest of us? I don't think so.

TLP| 12.5.12 @ 5:03PM

Yeah.

The top 10% already pay 70% of all income Taxes.

And, you want more?

How about we CUT SPENDING.

Hello?

Hardcard| 12.5.12 @ 7:46AM

Ben, wake-up and cash the checks. Thank uncle e.bob, now a nap.

JimH| 12.5.12 @ 7:47AM

As becomes more apparent in each of Ben’s posts, the rich can be best described as anyone having significantly more than you do.

Occam's Tool| 12.5.12 @ 10:37AM

Ben:

cries tears over scumbags that steal millions from others;
defends serial rapists;
and is generally a legal beagle asswipe.

TLP| 12.5.12 @ 5:04PM

Was that a Haiku?

NE-Conservative| 12.5.12 @ 7:51AM

Hey Ben - just scroll down and read the column by Mr. Peter Ferrara in today's American Spectator - I know it is 3 pages but it is well worth it - he lays out the details of how and why the 'tax the rich' class-envy argument is so much hot air (or worse).

Jacob McCandles| 12.5.12 @ 8:15AM

"Sacrifice the welfare of the poor.."
8 of government funding Mr. Stein.
Would you rather:
1. Forcibly take from a rich man to fund a poor man's disability payments, or-

2. Let the rich man keep more money so he can
a) Invest in a company that will hire the poor man
b) Hire the poor man himself.

I guess number 1 is what we voted for so screw it....

R Martin| 12.5.12 @ 8:44AM

“So, let’s be honest.”

Mr. Stein, you violate your own dictum. We are not fighting like madmen to keep taxes low on billionaires. We are working diligently to keep taxes reasonable on everyone who pays income taxes. A forty percent federal income tax, when added to other taxes one must pay, means leftists (and you?) think some people should surrender over half their income to the government.

“Do we right the course by taking from the very rich -- while searching like Sherlock Holmes for waste to cut? Why not?” This is right out of the Democrat playbook. First tax; then LOOK for spending cuts. Honesty would suggest you look at history to see how that has worked in the past.

“(his definition of rich is insane but that's another story).” That is the story. Your definition of “rich”, Mr. Stein, seems to be billionaires. Obama’s is middle income people who earn $200,000 per year.

“How can we possibly win if our position is to sacrifice the welfare of poor and lower middle class…” What rubbish! And highly offensive. The welfare of the poor, as has been noted above, has been supported for decades with trillions of taxpayer dollars (and not just from the rich). They even get free cell phones now, for Heaven’s sake. No, Mr. Stein, it is not us but our government whose misguided programs for the “poor” that have created the culture of dependency you think must be perpetuated.

This blurb is among your very worst addled thoughts.

Albert Constantine Jr.| 12.5.12 @ 8:54AM

"This blurb is among your very worst addled thoughts."

I concur. If I was Ben's physician, after reading this, I would start checking to see if Ben's medications needed to be adjusted, as the side effects appear to be clouding his judgment.

TLP| 12.5.12 @ 9:23AM

And, if I was his Veterinarian, I would Put Him Down.

SUBVET| 12.5.12 @ 10:33AM

I hope not face down............

Bob Grant| 12.5.12 @ 9:58AM

Leave Ben alone. All he wants to do is be in nice environments and oogle, and flirt with pretty women. It probably expends much of his available psychic energy.

Occam's Tool| 12.5.12 @ 10:38AM

Albert: I must disagree with you. It isn't the side effects, it's too low for the primary effect. Trust me on this one. :-)

Albert Constantine Jr.| 12.5.12 @ 12:13PM

I will defer to a man with M.D. after his name, OT. If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that we can't blame the meds, we have to blame the man.

Anti-Statist| 12.5.12 @ 12:21PM

And those demanding higher rates on the "rich", back to "just" the Clinton era rates never add that states raised their rates as fed rates went down, so the states could fund those unfunded mandates the federal government imposed upon the states.

I'm 100% certain that, if one went back and compared overall taxation by the governments taxes are imposed to fund- local, state, federal- that we pay far more in taxes no than when the top bracket was 91% in the '50s.

THAT is never acknowledged by the higher taxes pimps.

Butch| 12.5.12 @ 3:32PM

Good points, R. Martin. I read Ben's stuff, but, not being a Ben-basher, rarely comment (plenty of that after all his articles!). However, I also noted "his definition of rich is insane" and thought, Hell Ben, that IS the story, same as you. Great minds and all that. And you are right: Ben would profit from reading Robert Rector at Heritage who does a great job of pointing out how well our so-called poor live: roof over their heads, cars, many are homeowners, heat and air, cable, phones, consumer electronics, all the appliances, etc. Obama's brother would consider them rich.

Tina B| 12.5.12 @ 8:45AM

What mean we, kemosabe?

Stuart Koehl| 12.5.12 @ 9:00AM

"So, Let's be honest: the ultra-rich do not need ultra-low taxes."

Let's be honest, then, Ben, and say that raising marginal tax rates never raised revenues one iota. It's disingenuous to a fault to say that "raising taxes on the rich" can in any way close a budget deficit twice as large as all Federal revenues. It's sheer demagoguery to imply, first, that the rich "don't pay their fair share"; and second, that raising top marginal rates addresses the budget problem. If anything, raising the top marginal rate will affect small businesses much more than "the rich" and therefore will depress job creation and business startups.

Furthermore, just how stupid do you have to be to think that acceding to tax increases now will be matched by spending cuts later? Like trading land now for peace later ever did anything for Israel other than make it smaller and more open to attack. That's Wellington J. Wimpey logic.

How about this, instead: retain rates where they are, close or cap deductions, credits and exemptions on the upper income brackets, and link all changes in revenue to cuts in spending at a ration of $2 in cuts for every $1 in revenue increase? And while we're at it, tie it all up in a commitment to entitlement reform, without which no amount of discretionary spending cuts and tax increases will make one whit of difference?

Occam's Tool| 12.5.12 @ 10:39AM

Stuart! You're BACK! Yay!

And correct as well.

CJW| 12.5.12 @ 7:04PM

Obama, the Dem Senate, and the Rep House agreed last year to the sequestration which will have across the board cuts. We have been asking for this for years.

They also agreed to not extend the Bush era tax cuts. So that means we will revert to the Clinton era tax rates that the Dems at their convention said caused the boom in the 1990's.

Thus we have across the board cuts and the tax rates the Dems praised at the convention.

Why is it now called going off the cliff if we have the Clinton tax rates and the automatic budget cuts? Give Obama the law he signed last year.

Dodd2| 12.5.12 @ 9:29AM

You're probably right on this one, Ben.

Now good back to sleep.

Sleep is God's give to us, and a nap is the best medicine in the world.

Bob Grant| 12.5.12 @ 9:48AM

"Let's be honest, then, Ben, and say that raising marginal tax rates never raised revenues one iota. It's disingenuous to a fault to say that "raising taxes on the rich" can in any way close a budget deficit twice as large as all Federal revenues. "

....Absolutely!!!

We don't hear enough from conservatives that raising taxes on the ultra-rich would run the government for eight days, if that.

And so raising taxes on the Ultra-Rich, an income group I'm far, far removed from, serves only to punish for that sake of "fairness".

NO TRUE CONSERVATIVE WOULD HOLD THIS BELIEF.

The question is: is Mr. Stein a true conservative? ...it doesn't sound like it to me.

Anthony| 12.5.12 @ 10:01AM

Whoa Ben, does your shrink know you're not a nice person and that you're a devil around flirty women? Seriously Ben, what woman would be flirty around you??? You're sounding delusional, are you off your meds?
You must have been mumbling or drooling in your sleep, which got Mr. Bueller's attention. Probably you still dream about that hot actress who co-starred in "Bueller", or maybe the principal, or the Rotweiller.
Just remember Ben, it's those nasty rich folk that pay you big money to shill for their eye wash product. And, according to Obozo, you are a billionaire, even though you're only a lowly millionaire.
Well Ben, go back to sleep, we'll wake you after Obozo steals your blind., then you won't need to hawk eye products, will you?
Keep telling yourself in your deams, "I'm hot, I'm hot"!!!!

Minuteman78| 12.5.12 @ 10:20AM

Good thing you practiced law Ben, because you absolutely suck at Financial math. Someone who winds up with a $200,000 AGI (the latest point at which the Kenyan Muslim considers somebody "rich") would only get to be a "billionaire" if they (a) lived off of half of it, including taxes (good luck with that) and (b) invested the other half of their income at 8% annual (good luck finding that also) for 86 years.

Governments do not engage in charity. They forcibly confiscate and inefficiently redistribute income from people who created things of value.

Denver Todd| 12.5.12 @ 10:23AM

Whenever I think about how the rich deal with higher taxes, I get to wondering how many accountants Oprah has to help her avoid them. Many of us have an accountant to do our taxes for an hour every April; Oprah has a room of accountants and a room of financial advisors who work for her all year long. Even Ben does.

WhiteBikerTrash| 12.5.12 @ 10:26AM

Ben,

You seem to have fallen quite easily into the Communist rhetorical trap. Read The Communist Manifesto. To clear your mind. You also seem to have missed a few good books on economics. Try That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen. by Frederic Bastiat, and any thing else written by Bastiat. There are a couple of other good writers on the subject, Von Mises comes to mind. Pick up your old tattered copy of The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money and look for the contradictions within its pages then try and figure out what Keynes was really trying to accomplish. Any time you tax something you get less of it and any time you subsidize any thing you get more of it. So why in the world do you think that taxing the rich to "Help" the poor will do anything but give us less rich to tax and more poor to subsidize?

Ben, I don't agree with you, but I don't think you are really that stupid.

TLP| 12.5.12 @ 5:06PM

He is that Stupid.

Trust me.

Simon Templar| 12.5.12 @ 10:26AM

We are losing Benny, because people like yourself want to sleep and not be disturbed with reality.
It is interesting that you focus on taxes just as those that you criticize as being to obsessed with keeping rates low and reducing them at apparently, as you say, the expense of the poor and middle class. So, your answer is raise them. Problem solved, I guess? Spending too much and waste seem to be nothing you want to tackle and think is expected. Well, there is the rub and there lies your stubbornness and foolishness.
The reality is that it really is not about taxes as it stands now. Just what do you not get about the concept of bankruptcy and debt? Great, I suggest we tax at 100 percent anything income over 250000. Ben, I have some very sad news for you. We will be in the exact same spot and this tax increase will only get us through a few weeks of spending. But you do not want to face this reality.
Go back to sleep, Ben.

Simon Templar| 12.5.12 @ 10:33AM

Ben, yes, let us be honest.....
Can you do that?
Ben raising them will do nothing to stave off the inevitable collapse that this level of spending and waste will produce. Reality. So, got any other ideas, Ben?

Ralph Novy| 12.6.12 @ 12:27AM

Leave him be, Simon. He's metamorphosing.

Stkman| 12.5.12 @ 10:48AM

It's time that Congress figured out a way to seperate the income of small businesses and those individuals that are very welathy. There is a difference. The Republicans like to keep the two groups tied together so they can protect the very wealthy while using small businesses as their example. Since all taxing and spending must originate in the House, why don't they seperate the two. Small businesses should stand on their own, and Individuals should stand on their own. Then we can have an honest discussion about who is wealthy and who is not wealthy.

Petronius| 12.5.12 @ 10:53AM

The taxation argument is a nonstarter with most people because of their belief that life is supposed to be like a nursery school sand box where everybody gets a level pail full. They can't stand the Truth. Life is competition. Their goals and desires are far above their abilities and or willingness to achieve. So the impossibility of attaining it on their own is the rich man's fault. Facing reality is too painful. It's much easier to have government assume the role of "mommy" by plundering the earnings of their betters and holding their hands. The result is exactly what P.J. O'Rourke states in his manifesto: "hay and a barn for human cattle." Suits the beltway bastards just fine so long as the plebes don't get uppity and demand their fine living.

Ralph Novy| 12.6.12 @ 12:37AM

Not "fine living."

Just "living."

Hope you aren't eyeballed as "hamburger" someday by these "betters" of yours, Petronius.

"Golden Rule," pal.

holmegm| 12.5.12 @ 11:03AM

Ben:

1. Yes, you are rich. Relative to most people. A big value of "most". Rich is relative, but by any reasonable standard, you are it.

2. I have no desire to raise your taxes. The tax-raisers, though, *do*. They most certainly think that you are rich. They also think that about a lot of people who are not nearly as well off as you.

Dave Williams| 12.5.12 @ 11:53AM

As some of the greatest philosophers of our time, Ten Years After, so memorably put it: "Tax the rich, feed the poor / Till there are no rich no more." Ungrammatical, but spot on.

Kingofthenet| 12.5.12 @ 12:20PM

Ok if Ben get's the Hollywood Studios to make another Ferris Bueller's day off, I will forgive him. Maybe Ben could be Ferris's boss or something...

Seek| 12.5.12 @ 1:23PM

Matthew Broderick, I am sure, has other things to do.

Hardcard| 12.5.12 @ 12:42PM

Benny is an actor and a lawyer need I say more?

Peppermint Tea | 12.5.12 @ 2:12PM

Haiku for Ben

Day off, Mister Stein calls his
name, Bueller? Bueller?
Grown now he won't let Stein nap.

Criminal spending! Bankrupt!
Ben has an idea.
Hike taxes so Rich will leave.

TLP| 12.5.12 @ 3:43PM

Don't encourage him.

Jason in NYC| 12.5.12 @ 2:52PM

I love Ben Stein, he's a decent man, but the fact that he doesn't recognize an individual's money as his own property (regardless of his worth), not that of the government or the collective, means he is not a true conservative. That principle is of utmost importance in regard to protection from tyranny, not to mention the efficacy of endorsing taking more money out of the private economy and transferring it to the public sector. Furthermore, overwhelming evidence supports raising taxes lowers revenues, while lowering taxes increases revenues. Mr. Stein knows something about economics, so I fail to believe this is naivety on his part, and I hope it's merely misguided and misunderstood compassion. He's wrong, but I still like him, and will still read his Diary.

mike 3/505| 12.5.12 @ 5:08PM

"he's a decent man, but the fact that he doesn't recognize an individual's money as his own property "

The above statement is self contradictory. Anyone who does not recognize my right to property is NOT a decent person. He is inherently evil....as is anyone who supports slavery. Failure to recognize property rights is the same as forcible servitude.

Pikadon| 12.5.12 @ 2:52PM

Ben is always insisting that he isn't rich. And yet, he owns homes in Beverly Hills, Malibu, Rancho Mirage, and Sand Point, plus an inherited apartment at the Watergate and two boats. Amazing.

Ralph Novy| 12.5.12 @ 2:57PM

"So, Let's be honest: the ultra-rich do not need ultra-low taxes. The poor have a moral claim on the generosity of the nation if they are genuinely in need. Might we just try to align ourselves with the morally right position for fiscal policy?"

Bingo, Ben!

Perhaps you unwittingly had an epiphany during your attempted nap on the flight.

NVCardsFan| 12.5.12 @ 3:01PM

Typical Ben Stein column. I could care less about your personal escapades and I certainly am tuned out to your call for more taxes on the the upper income earners. You are making statements without thinking of the consequences which gives an indication of you "true" politics and intelligence.

Ralph Novy| 12.6.12 @ 12:42AM

No, NOT a "typical Ben Stein column" because he finally, at long last, uttered what he's long known to be true:

I think Ben is becoming ever more honest as time goes by. And I applaud him for it.

Archie| 12.5.12 @ 3:49PM

Ben: How did we ever get into the position of fighting like madmen to keep taxes low on billionaires?

Me: Not fighting like madmen, just fighting. And the reason is because you don’t punish the very people who already contribute the most to both the private economy and the government coffers. See England and France for what’s coming next; the rich will leave! So, fewer rich and more poor people in our future. Sounds great!

Ben: How can we possibly win if our position is to sacrifice the welfare of poor and lower middle class people to make sure we keep the taxes of very wealthy people low?

Me: You’re high. The welfare of the poor and lower middle class is fine. As has been said many times...”America is a great country, even our poor people are fat.”

Ben: Let's see: Obama is for keeping almost all entitlements and raising taxes on the rich (his definition of rich is insane but that's another story).

Me: No it’s not, it’s the same story. You just don’t recognize that you’re equating billionaires with families and small businesses making $250K per year.

Ben: Our GOP position is low taxes on the rich and cut entitlements and medical care for the poor. Hmmm, which is a winning position?

Me: GOP position is SAME taxes as have been in place for a decade. And if you don’t recognize that entitlement reform is needed, you’re a lost cause.

mike 3/505| 12.5.12 @ 3:54PM

Ben has fallen into the Liberal trap. The only person who is qualified to determine "need" in any case, is the person who is required to fulfill that need. It is in no way, right moral and proper for a third party to determine someone else's "need," giving them the right to appropriate my property to fill that need.

Any person who is brave enough to tell me to my face that I don't need a particular thing that I have paid for, either in cash or in kind, is gonna get a pop in the mouth. Problem is, there are so many Liberal/Statist types out there, I will probably have to run some sort of appointment system to fulfill that promise.

Ralph Novy| 12.5.12 @ 7:40PM

"Ben has fallen into the Liberal trap. The only person who is qualified to determine "need" in any case, is the person who is required to fulfill that need. It is in no way, right moral and proper for a third party to determine someone else's "need," giving them the right to appropriate my property to fill that need."

Very clear statement of anti-Americanism. Runs directly counter to "provide for the general welfare." Ain't too Christian, neither.

You need to find yourself someplace else to live, buddy. The U.S. isn't for you.

Albert Constantine Jr.| 12.6.12 @ 12:09AM

You're an insufferable jackass, Ralph Novy. I must have been away during the day when you were placed in charge of determining the meaning of the Constitution, or Christianity, much less citizenship.

If there was to be an election anywhere, be it this website, or any location in this country, where anyone got to choose between voting you or Mike off the island, you are gone every time.

Ralph Novy| 12.6.12 @ 12:31AM

Expressed my opinion, Albert.

No more.

No imperial edicts issued.

OK?

LOL

mike 3/505| 12.6.12 @ 12:27PM

You mean I gotta stay on this island with you & Pennell forever? I gotta start drinking....again...more.

Ralph Novy| 12.6.12 @ 2:04PM

Who the hell's Pennell?

TLP| 12.6.12 @ 2:46PM

He's your Mother.

mike 3/505| 12.6.12 @ 12:23PM

"Very clear statement of anti-Americanism. Runs directly counter to "provide for the general welfare." Ain't too Christian, neither."

1) There is nothing "American" about forcibly taking property from one citizen for the purpose of giving it to another. Absolutely not...Not in The Declaration, the Constitution nor the Federalist Papers.

2) The "General Welfare" clause is not applicable in this case. General Welfare applies to the body politic, not each and every specific individual. Just like local Law Enforcement of the Military. They provide protection from threats, within and without to the entire public, but do not stand outside your door to protect each individual.

3) It is Absolutely Christian. Christianity emphasizes voluntary contributions to charity, both cash and in kind. Nowhere does it imply that one group of people has the "moral right" to forcibly take from another for the purpose of giving it to a third.

Back to General Welfare....History has shown that the best method to promote the general welfare is to ensure individual liberty and property rights...where all have the opportunity to make best use of the talents that God has given them.

mike 3/505| 12.6.12 @ 12:25PM

** Local Law Enforcement OR the Military...

EDIT Button Please

Ralph Novy| 12.6.12 @ 2:10PM

1. No, "it" (taxation authority) is not in the Declaration. But it IS, bigtime, in the Constitution and Federalist Papers (remember Hamilton?).

2. " General Welfare applies to the body politic, not each and every specific individual." WTF is THAT supposed to mean? That's gibberish. Nonsense. 'Nuff said.

3. "Render unto Caesar...." That's a back-handed example, but still a counter-example.

4. "History" has shown, if anything, methinks, that humans are at their best when cooperating with each other rather than being at each others' throats.

mike 3/505| 12.6.12 @ 5:43PM

1) I didn't say anything about taxing authority...I was talking about forcible redistribution of income/wealth/property.

2) I was pretty clear...even "wrote it down to the 8th grade level.

3) Again, you are talking taxes for lawful/constitutional purposes, not forcible theft for unlawful purposes.

4) True. Voluntary cooperation...as in the free market is amazing. Forced cooperation, rarely if ever survives. Google "I Pencil," for a good explanation of this very simple but timeless concept. It too is written at the 8th grade level and easy to understand.

mike 3/505| 12.5.12 @ 4:01PM

"So, Let's be honest: the ultra-rich do not need ultra-low taxes. The poor have a moral claim on the generosity of the nation if they are genuinely in need."

The above is not only dishonest, but morally reprehensible.

1) Unless you are paying his bills, you have no right to opine in any manner whatsoever as to that person's "needs." The Government certainly has no rights in that arena.

2) "moral claim on the generosity...." Sorry Mr Stein, we damned near tore our great nation apart over that particular issue. The Civil War settled once and for all the issue of involuntary servitude (except for ex-spousal support). Nobody (except my current wife) has one iota of claim, moral or otherwise over my property that is not enumerated in the US constitution or State Law (as limited by the USC).

TLP| 12.5.12 @ 5:09PM

You are, and will always be, my Hero.

Now, go have yourself a Drink, on me.

mike 3/505| 12.5.12 @ 5:48PM

Already on my second...and it's the good stuff too. Had my own little issue with "forcible servitude yesterday." I got a 3-fer. P.O.'d The Judge, The Soon-To-Be-Ex AND her attorney, for not paying her temporary attorney fees. Heheheheheh.

charles hoffman| 12.5.12 @ 8:00PM

the taxes on the wealthy are going up
and Boehner is just trying to look like he's putting up a fight

Stevemmn| 12.5.12 @ 10:45PM

I worry about Stein. He usually writes good articles but he seems to have gone off the deep end lately with these rambling articles. If Stein really thinks this is all about raising taxes for the rich in order to reduce the deficit he then he has learned nothing over the last four years.

RJ| 12.6.12 @ 12:36AM

I agree.

Ben - raising taxes on the rich is a distraction from the very issue which you mention - "Yes, government spends insanely too much. Yes, government is criminally wasteful."

FYI - If I find myself sitting next to you in an airplane, I will have better manners than Citizen Bueller.

JP| 12.6.12 @ 10:07AM

The key here is that people really don't like the wealthy. Well, that is unless the wealthy is an entertainer, porn star, or athlete. Otherwise, the fact remains that the uber rich will still retain their wealth after they pay all of their taxes. Yes, Bob Kerry is still wealthy after he purchased his new yacht (and avoided paying the MA luxury tax); Bill Gates is so wealthy that he got Congress to change the tax laws that allowe him to erect the Bill and Belinda Gates Foundation (the biggest tax haven in history).

But, one doesn't have to be an uber rich person to by hated. A successful salesman (income of $600,000) is despised by those who earn $55,000 (and benefit from his success); the owner of 5 laundry mats (income of $250,000) is hated by those poor people who use his facilities.

It's all about envy and class warfare.

BTW, Ben you are rich. If you can afford to live in Malibu and have a vacation home in Idaho, then you are rich.

Rhoetus| 12.8.12 @ 5:22PM

Ben: You could stay at the AZ Biltmore next time. :-)
If I lived in Scottsdale - we'd gladly give up our master bedroom and have you as our welcome guest. Happy Hanukkah.