-
Neighborhood Watch, Anyone?
May 14, 2013 | 19 comments
-
We’re Still Going Backward
April 18, 2013 | 30 comments
-
Street Level Anti-Capitalism
April 8, 2013 | 71 comments
-
Snazzy Sequestered Screeners
March 8, 2013 | 13 comments
-
Welfare’s Failure Amid Red Ink
February 7, 2013 | 23 comments
The Obama Watch
Give It to Me
“Giving something back” is Obama-speak for shaking down those who already pay twice their fair share.
“Why so much fighting about economics?” asked a friend recently. “Economics is just logic.”
Well, not exactly. The basics are logical, as in reasonable or to be expected. But things get very tricky and political when it comes to applications.
With the basics, for instance, drops in supply can be expected to raise prices. A freeze in Florida’s orange groves will generally reduce supplies and hike prices.
And decreases in demand can be expected to drop prices. Christmas cards are cheap on December 26.
But get past the basics and things get a lot more arguable — and less logical.
In the current fight about taxes, spending, and “fairness,” there are no clear answers in an Introduction to Economics book about what’s “fair.”
Some might say it’s not “fair” that the Obama administration defines “rich” as someone making $250,000 in Manhattan and $250,000 in Bonaparte, Iowa.
President Obama regularly admonishes “the rich” for not paying their “fair share” of taxes.
Peter Schiff, American investment broker, author, financial commentator, and CEO and chief global strategist of Euro Pacific Capital, holds a different view.
“After the tax hikes go into effect, more than half of my total income is going to the government,” said Schiff recently. “Now you tell me, what’s ‘fair’ about that? I don’t care what the majority voted to do. They don’t have a right to steal our money just because they voted for it.”
Schiff characterizes the November election as an “auction on the sale of stolen goods.”
Obama doesn’t see it as theft via the ballot. “There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans,” he says, “who agree with me because they want to give something back.”
Conversely, there are “a lot of wealthy, successful Americans” who think they already give back more than their “fair share.”
Internal Revenue Service data for 2010, as reported by the Tax Foundation, show America’s top 1 percent of income earners receiving 18.9 percent of the nation’s adjusted gross income and paying 37.4 percent of all federal income taxes — about double their share of total income.
Similarly, the top 5 percent of income earners received 33.8 percent of the nation’s adjusted gross income in 2010 and paid well over half the total federal income tax bill — 59.1 percent.
About the Author
Ralph R. Reiland is the B. Kenneth Simon professor of free enterprise and an associate professor of economics at Robert Morris University in Pittsburgh.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (14) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Ralph R. Reiland
More Articles From The Obama Watch
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/12/18/give-it-to-me
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
FUCKtheNRA| 12.18.12 @ 6:39AM
I almost have the feeling of sympathy for somebody making over $250,000 a year...wait, wait...there it is.... Nope it's gone.
I guess I have to try harder at hating the poor now.
Darin| 12.18.12 @ 6:44AM
Clueless comment. I'd respond, but you're likely too dullwitted to understand.
spike59| 12.19.12 @ 6:07AM
simply too stupid for words; but thanks for the illustration of the ProgLibDem 'mind' at work: the absolute need to hate SOMEONE
Appleby| 12.18.12 @ 6:58AM
I never join any conversation that starts with a filthy word.
FUCKtheNRA| 12.18.12 @ 8:00AM
There are deadly available weapons everywhere in America. There is obscene wealth while kids are homeless. But you think filthy language is a problem. Why? Because you are a christian? That makes no sense.
Darin| 12.18.12 @ 12:47PM
Use of profanity is a sign of an uninformed intellect. That means you're not smart enough to come up with non-profane words.
Petronius| 12.18.12 @ 12:59PM
My weapons and what little Wealth I have belong to ME. I do not belong to the U.S. Government or some mob of infantile ninnies who believe I owe them a living, a painless existence, or anything else. I have The Right to what I have Earned and is Mine, and according to The Constitution, the Right to Arm Myself for MY defense against predation, perversion, parasitism, and all who practice these heinous behaviors. I took an Oath to that Document and all its precepts as defined by the Men who wrote it. So taking My Freedom, My firearms, My wealth, and all I hold is theft and cultural Treason!
Trinacria| 12.18.12 @ 5:55PM
"There are deadly available weapons everywhere in America."
As weapons go, I generally find it redounds to one's benefit to use one that's deadly.
By the way, ditto Darin's comments above; there's no more reliable indicator of a marginal intellect than the use of profanity. Now run along and fetch me a slurpee...
TeaPartyNow| 12.18.12 @ 11:29AM
There is a real disconnect from conservatism in the right. Here, you guys halfheartedly oppose tax hikes, but when a conservative needs support to get elected, you abandon & attack that person. & it is not just the GOP, the whole right supported liberal romney.
What does it matter? The American
People expect for the right to sell out everything, like it always does. There is no real conservative force in America. The right is just the lefts shadow & one that concedes everything, always to the left.
Why would anyone in America oppose communism now when they know that they'll get kicked in the teeth from both sides?
Sure communism costs allot of money but without a conservative right, it doesn't really matter. We are more likely on the right to support a liberal Republican politically. No intelligent person is going to stick their neck out for that.
strawman| 12.18.12 @ 12:52PM
Everyone is familiar with the attitude of the relative or friend who always borrows and never repays. They used to be called 'bums'. The bums now have political power. It doesn't make any difference how high the debt, because there is no more intention of repayment than your unemployed sister-in-law has.
TLP| 12.18.12 @ 2:51PM
And, as he Campaigns against Millionaires and Billionaires, he is getting ready to Jet Off on a $4 Million Tropical Vacation.
$1.4 BILLION on Vacations, since taking office.
Hello?
cicero| 12.18.12 @ 3:44PM
This is not about "fairness". It never has been. In order for our fearless leaders to stay in power, and continue to be reelected, they have to plunder those with enough wealth to justify the plundering. But, they can't just come out and say that they want to steal from some to buy the votes of the others (the majority). So, they sing about fairness, and a level playing field. They need to keep stealing from the haves, so that they can continue to spend on the have nots, and keep those votes coming.
When the inevitable collapse occurs, those who have ammases tens and hundreds of millions will not miss ameal when the value of their share of the plunder is halved. Of course, those whom they purchased for tens and twenties will have a ough go ov it when their money value is cut.
Trinacria| 12.18.12 @ 5:46PM
I've never understood the phrase "Give something back" as it implies the return of something that first belonged to the party to whom I am returning it. How do I give something "back" to someone who never owned (nor earned) it in the first place? I can give to them; I cannot give "back" to them...
fmm| 12.19.12 @ 10:02AM
Fairness has nothing to do with economics, but is a political game.