-
Senator Frank Lautenberg, R.I.P.
June 3, 2013 | 8 comments
-
Activist Saves Colorado From Massive Tax Hike
May 28, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Updated: NBC News: Holder Personally Approved Fox Reporter Warrant
May 24, 2013 | 10 comments
-
Obamacare is a Big and Growing Problem for Democrats
May 24, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Dismantling Networks, Preventing Footholds
May 23, 2013 | 3 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Not just because we both write for these pages, I generally enjoy Ben Stein’s work. It’s personable, obviously sincere, and conveys actual human emotion extraordinarily well.
But with increasing frequency, Ben’s bombast regarding Republicans and tax policy is driving me up a wall. And since I have the privilege of being able to post my thoughts about this in a separate blog note where it might be seen by more people than a comment to Ben’s note would be, I’m going to use that privilege.
In particular, I’d like to respond to these thoughts of Ben’s from his American Spectator article today. I quote his tax-related paragraphs in full, to prevent any question of my taking his words out of context:
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.
Wow, I was really enjoying the article until I got to this leftist muddle.
What part of “the taxes of the rich are not low” does Ben not get?
What part of “the top 1% pay nearly 40% of all federal income taxes” does Ben not get?
What part of “the top 1% pay more than the bottom 90%” does Ben not get?
What part of “need for ultra-low taxes” being not just the wrong standard, but a horrifyingly dangerous one, does Ben not get?
What part of “we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem” does Ben not get?
What part of “from the inception of the War on Poverty, increased government spending has never substantially decreased poverty because welfare encourages the disease it purports to treat” does Ben not get?
I do have to thank Ben for distilling his deep errors down to one fundamental claim, that “the poor have a moral claim on the generosity of the nation…”
But “the nation” is not and cannot be generous since “the nation” does not have its own resources. It only has what it takes from its citizens. This means, therefore, that Ben believes the poor have a moral claim on the earnings of every non-poor individual in this country. Such an argument is morally false, but it’s more than that. It is also the basis on which many regimes have not only failed to improve their citizens’ well-being but have resorted to the worst atrocities imaginable to further their goals. It is a stance which gives moral sanction to almost any government action which claims to redistribute wealth.
Ben, you may be trying to cover the true nature of your views on taxation by harping on billionaires, for whom few have economic sympathy, and by repeating in capital letters that you are NOT RICH. But your statements about tax policy, about who “needs” low taxes, and about a “moral claim to generosity” are not just drivel; they are evil.
View all comments (57) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Ross Kaminsky
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/12/05/bustin-ben
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
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
RJ| 12.5.12 @ 5:24PM
Good job, Ross. We need more of our elected officials to make the case as you have stated. Unfortunately, either they don't believe it or are too scared of the liberal press' response. As for Ben, he is a nice guy, but he has said too many things like this to view him as a conservative.
Derek Leaberry| 12.5.12 @ 5:34PM
The deficit problem is that spending has risen from $ 2.6 trillion in 2008 to $ 3.6 trillion today. Why does the GOP leadership not explain this? Or Ben Stein, for that matter?
Although I support some elements of the safety net due to the "creative destruction" caused by capitalism, I agree that a "moral claim to generosity" is an evil notion. Unfortunately, a clear majority of Americans would disagree.
Ross Kaminsky| 12.5.12 @ 7:52PM
http://taxfoundation.org/blog/.....ys-deficit
mike 3/505| 12.5.12 @ 5:40PM
What part of No One has a "moral claim" to my property, does he not get?"
Also...please see my comments on your other post today. :-)
DRed| 12.5.12 @ 6:11PM
If taxes on the rich are not low, how is it that Mitt Romney pays a smaller percentage of his income in taxes than I do? As a historical fact, taxes on the rich are about as low now as they have been in modern American history. They are low compared to most of the rest of the developed world. By what standard would you say that they were high?
mike 3/505| 12.5.12 @ 6:56PM
DRed...he doesn't. He pays the same rate on earned income as you do. He also pays the same Capital Gains rate(s) that you do. I can absolutely guarantee it and I don't even need to see your returns or his.
mike 3/505| 12.5.12 @ 6:58PM
Also...he most likely pays a higher overall effective rate than you do. On top of that, I'm pretty sure from his history and your previous comments, he most likely gives a higher percentage of his income to charity than you do...over and above what he tithes to his church.
DRed| 12.5.12 @ 7:29PM
Romney paid an effective tax rate of something like 14% of his income. I pay a lot more than that.
mike 3/505| 12.5.12 @ 11:36PM
No you don't. It's damned near impossible for you to do so...unless you are a "hugely salaried" employee filing a short form.
JD| 12.6.12 @ 12:17AM
85% of Americans have a lower effective tax rate than Mitt Romney. If you're a single person making $50,000/year or less, or a married couple making $80,000/year or less, it's actually IMPOSSIBLE to have a lower effective rate than Romney, because even with only the standard deduction, you're taxes become less than 14% of income (I'm including payroll taxes!)
But most people can go far higher than that because they don't take the standard deduction. Just having a mortgage saves you thousands more.
Where Leftists go wrong is in, frankly, being stupid. They compare Romney's effective rate to their marginal rate, or include their state and local taxes while comparing to Romney's federal taxes. Some even exclude their own deductions from the comparison.
Trinacria| 12.6.12 @ 7:05PM
You do know the definition of "effective tax rate", don't you?
By the way, if you pay a higher effective tax rate than Mr. Romney, well, that's a YOU problem. The same laws that apply to Mr. Romney apply to you; if you'd like to pay a lower effective tax rate, put your capital at risk like Mr. Romney, donate a third to charity, and take advantage of the fact that capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than wages (for now). If you have neither the stomach for the risk nor the intellect for critically evaluating potential investment opportunities, again - that's not Mr. Romney's fault.
P.S. DUMBASS!
Ross Kaminsky| 12.5.12 @ 7:54PM
DRed,
How much tax has Mitt Romney paid on the income he earned which then went into investments which he later paid capital gains tax on? How much revenue did the government get in corporate income tax from those companies he invested in, and how much revenue from all the taxes generated by the people he employed? By the way, I bet you paid a lower effective rate than Romney, at least if you back out his enormous charitable deductions.
DRed| 12.5.12 @ 9:26PM
First, a good chunk of Mitt's income would have been carried interest and only taxed at the capital gains rate originally. So to answer your first question, a good chunk of his original income was taxed at 15%. Second, Mitt's investments were not subject to the capital gains tax. The profits on those investment were taxed. That's money Mitt didn't have before. It's income, but Mittens didn't have to pay social security and Medicare taxes on it, like I do. So please, Ross, don't insult me by trying to make me pity poor Mittens for paying less in taxes than I do. It's great Mitt is rich. He's a smart guy and he deserves it, but it's ridiculous that he pays less in taxes on his income than I do, and even more ridiculous that you somehow think he's overtaxed.
Ross Kaminsky| 12.5.12 @ 10:02PM
I didn't say he's overtaxed. But he is not undertaxed. The real debate here, although there should be more talk about capital gains rates, is about marginal income tax rates. And on that score, the Dems' position is outrageous.
By the way, what do you mean that his investments were not subject to capital gains tax, which is basically what carried interest amounts to?
Also, you do not address the fact that corporations pay corporate income tax, and what's left to pay dividends or as retained cash which then translates into capital gains is then taxed again. So the capital gains tax rate massively understates the tax taken by government which was allowed by Mitt's investments.
DRed| 12.5.12 @ 11:36PM
" So the capital gains tax rate massively understates the tax taken by government which was allowed by Mitt's investments." pish posh. The issue ins't how often a given dollar is taxed in it's lifetime. The issue is how much Mitt Romney is taxed on his income. The answer is he's taxed a lot less than I am, despite making much, much more money. My employer, after all, was taxed on their income before they paid me. And their customers were taxed on the money they used to pay them. So what?
Ross, you asked "How much tax has Mitt Romney paid on the income he earned which then went into investments which he later paid capital gains tax on?" What difference does it make? He's not paying capital gains on that money.
Ross Kaminsky| 12.5.12 @ 11:41PM
No, your salary was deducted from your employer's income before tax was calculated.
Of course he's paying capital gains tax on that money. What are you talking about?
Don't bother answering...this is a fruitless conversation.
DRed| 12.6.12 @ 12:11AM
You don't pay capital gains taxes on your principal Ross. You pay capital gains taxes on gains. It's not very complicated.
JP| 12.6.12 @ 9:51AM
The Corporate Tax is levied on Corporations before dividends or retained cash are calculated. Therefore, the amount of money available for capital gains is reduced accordingly. Thie pie is smaller. If an investor put some of his after tax income in a corporation, that income will either yield a profit or a loss. The government does cover losses, but it does tax profits. The income derived from capital gains has already been taxed at least once before it is even invested. The government take a slice at every step of the way.
What your upset about is that Mitt is so wealthy that even after all of his taxes are paid he is still very wealthy. You want him to hurt in the same way you are hurt.
So, this thread has more to do with class warfare and eny than taxes - like they always do.
Trinacria| 12.6.12 @ 6:58PM
And where did the principle come from, dumbass?
DRed| 12.6.12 @ 7:44PM
It doesn't matter.
aware| 12.6.12 @ 6:24AM
Ross, if I make 120,000 bucks I pay 15.30% on every buck in Fica and Medicare(self employed). If a Romney makes 1.2 million bucks he pays the same rate on only 10% of his income.
I pay 15.3% on ALL my income, he pays 15.3% on 10% of his income. Now you do the simple math. If the Romneys make even more then the % is even worse. 100% of mine is subject to this plundering while 90 or even up to 99% of his is not.
This doesn't even begin to touch on the additional boons granted the connected through corrupt incorporation laws.
Now give me the right to have 90% of my income exempt from this legal plunder or make them pay on every single dime they make, including capital gains. These kind of convoluted defenses of the privileged and connected while the working middle class is being ground to powder means continued stomping at the polls.
DRed is right and you Beltarians are wrong.
Mike W| 12.6.12 @ 8:57AM
I can see why Kaminsky gave up trying to explain this. It is akin to talking to a brick wall.
Romney's wage income for 2011 was zero therefore he did not pay the higher rate. Romney's income was from dividends and capital gains which , as we know until Jan 1st is at 15 percent rate (short term cap gains).
For various reasons our government has chosen to reward investors and investment income with lower rates. It encourages investment in businesses and stimulates the real estate market (lower cap gains tax).
You can wail about Romney's lower rate all you want but both parties have encouraged this investment favoring tax philosophy for years.
JP| 12.6.12 @ 9:55AM
My grandmother's husband invested in Coke and some railroads. When she retired she had some $100,000 worth of stock. It continued to grow to almost $400,000 in market value and produced enough dividends for her eventually go into a very nice assisted living place. People like you would like nothing to make sure people like her end up in some crappy nursing home filled with bed bugs and lice - just like you will end up. Envy is not a good thing.
Trinacria| 12.6.12 @ 7:33PM
Aware:
Simple solution. You too can avail yourself of this opportunity; earn more money.
Problem solved.
Next?
JD| 12.6.12 @ 12:21AM
I used to get upset when I heard conservatives say, "Democrats want us all to be dependent on government."
Now I know better. It's not that they want us all to be helpless. It's that they want government to be able to claim that we all owe it an open-ended debt.
That is how people like DRed will say that someone like Mitt Romney owes more taxes, even though he's already paid tens of millions in his lifetime. By forcing government into Romney's life, without his requesting it, they've set up their claim that all his wealth is a gift from government. They'll keep asking him to repay that gift until it's gone.
The simple truth is that Romney hasn't benefited from government more than you, DRed, so if he hasn't paid enough, then you are WAY behind.
And please, don't bother with today's most fashionable leftist retort - that not paying as much as you think he should pay equates to receiving a gift from government.
Trinacria| 12.6.12 @ 7:05PM
You do know the definition of capital gains, right?
montovine| 12.5.12 @ 6:23PM
I have to agree with this. Taxing the rich has never, nor will it ever help the poor. The poor remain poor, and more poor are added to the pot, as jobs are lost, and incentive to work goes away. It was an out and out lie when Obama said he would only raise taxes on those making 250,000 a year. What happens when taxes are raised, the cost of every thing goes up, and it is stuck to the lower and middle class. I am sick of the republicans fight, just turn around tell the President to kiss their big toe and let the cliff fall. The sooner we get it over with the better.
mike 3/505| 12.5.12 @ 6:59PM
You are correct....which is why we need to eliminate all corporate taxes and instead, tax the money at regular rates when the profits are realized by individuals in the way of dividends or capital gains.
Butch| 12.5.12 @ 7:16PM
See you and raise you one, Mike. No taxes on dividends and capital gains, either. The money used to acquire those has already been taxed as ordinary income. And yes, no corporate income taxes. America can be America with taxes on ordinary income only. The problem is spending for extra-constitutional purposes exclusively.
Occam's Tool| 12.6.12 @ 11:57AM
I look forward to going off the cliff, as all the Democrats I know in the SEIU Union will hurt worse than I will.
Trinacria| 12.6.12 @ 7:11PM
Amen! The quicker John Bonehead realizes this simple fact and walks away from negotiations the better.
Those of us who have the skill and intellect to make it into the one percent will apply said skill and intellect to survive the pending economic malaise; those who have only the requisite skill and intellect to fill a gubmint job...well, not so much. Let them eat Obama cake!
Bob K| 12.5.12 @ 6:59PM
The biggest problem for the middle class is the amount of state taxes, local taxes, municipal taxes, highway maintenance taxes, sales taxes and school taxes they pay. For most of them the total of these taxes far exceeds, as a percentage of their incomes, the federal income taxes they pay on their earnings. And many of these taxes can't be lowered because they are tied to federal government mandates and whether or not they qualify for partial federal grants to these mandated programs which are overseen by Leviathan in Washington DC.
That is one of the big problems why Republicans are not getting as big a share of the middle class vote as they should be getting. We send Republicans to congress and they end up arguing with the Democrats about the amount of federal income taxes that are paid by "the rich."
The middle class doesn't give a crap about this! It is a class warfare sucker ploy by the Democrats and the Republicans bite on it! Instead they should be addressing the problems of big government, big bureaucracy and "Big Ideas" that the Democratic party has on the way Americans should live their lives.
It's time to get serious and stop playing games.
Bob K| 12.5.12 @ 7:03PM
And what do you know? The writers here at A. S. keep writing articles and encouraging this class warfare which Republicans will surely lose!
Pecos Pete| 12.5.12 @ 7:11PM
Thank you, Ross. Well said!
Dimitry_Aleksandrovich| 12.5.12 @ 9:20PM
Attempting to dismantle the welfare state in a time when working class people are most definitely struggling economically would also be evil. If you want to end welfare and cut unemployment and medicaid then you first have to bring manufacturing back to America and pay the American worker a decent wage. When we have 100% 40 hour a week employment for able body American citizens then we can start talking about cuts in the welfare state. Until then let the rich who lobbied Washington for these B.S. globalist policies that destroyed places like Youngstown, Cleveland and Detroit pay for the welfare of those they made unemployed and their families. We were once the greatest manufacturing country in the world with the highest wages, the highest rate of working class home ownership and the best benefits. The Wall Street elite destroyed our America so let them pay for it.
Ross Kaminsky| 12.5.12 @ 10:03PM
What about the millions of Americans who can buy tens of millions of products for lower prices by buying from foreign producers, if American producers, hampered by unions and overregulation, are inefficient?
Dimitry_Aleksandrovich| 12.5.12 @ 10:20PM
In the long run who's can afford to buy those products if they're unemployed or only making minimum wage? That's not a good long term economic plan and it has absolutely destroyed small business who's lifeblood was the workers in those steel mills, auto plants and various other factories. One day will we have an economy built on working for and buying from Walmart?
Ross Kaminsky| 12.5.12 @ 11:43PM
You are ignorant of the lessons of history. If your view were correct, why aren't we also calling for a return to the 19th century's nearly full employment -- on farms? Why don't we ban John Deere and power tools. Then everyone would have a job...and a low standard of living.
By the way, manufacturing is doing quite well in America overall. Not so well in some industries, particular heavily unionized industries, but they are simply reaping what they have sown.
Occam's Tool| 12.6.12 @ 11:56AM
Ross: Dmitry voted for Democratic candidates in California.
This is the really simple answer: taxes are used to generate revenues to fund the legitimate uses of government. They should NEVER be used for social engineering, because the government generally is clueless about appropriate incentives to generate decent societies.
Incidentally, as a State employee, I have had no raises since 2008. I have also voted straight Republican, as if gas prices were still at what they were in 2008, and other inflationary pressures reflected that, and no one raised my taxes, I would not NEED a pay increase.
Obama and socialism has been a disaster for this country. Nice article, Ross, as usual.
DRed| 12.6.12 @ 12:50PM
Taxing capital gains income differently than other forms of income is a type of government social engineering.
Trinacria| 12.6.12 @ 7:30PM
No; it's a type of economic wisdom.
Dimitry_Aleksandrovich| 12.6.12 @ 5:02PM
OT you remind me of the teachers pet. When have I advocated social engineering? What I have advocated is keeping the American working class in the American Middle Class and what could be more conservative than that. I'm trying preserve a way of life and the remaining blue collar communities that are left in this country.
Also OT at what point do YOU connect the dots and see that foreign and domestic policies of George W. Bush and Barrack Obama combined especially in regard to the Federal Reserve printing the dollar as if it was Charmin toilet paper that has resulted in the inflation that is hurting your family and mine. When I started my job back in 2001 a union deckhand in San Francisco made $22-23 an hour at the company I work for. Now it is $25-26, but with inflation a union deckhand in 2013 will be making less than he did twelve years ago. That's when $1.50 a gallon was expensive even here in the San Francisco Bay. With the price of gasoline soaring the price of everything has gone up, but our wage increases don't cover our losses on the inflation front.
Has Obama been a disaster? Yes of course. He has no real solution to bring jobs back to America. It's all lip service and without the manufacturing base the millions of jobs and thousands of small businesses such a base supports there is no hope for an economic recovery and there won't be a large enough tax base to cover the welfare state.
Dimitry_Aleksandrovich| 12.6.12 @ 5:05PM
What I want to know is what's the end game of the political and business elite in this country because Republican and Democrats alike seem to walk in lockstep deeper and deeper into this globalist free trade nightmare.
Trinacria| 12.6.12 @ 7:22PM
If you were one of us you'd know....
Pity.
Dimitry_Aleksandrovich| 12.6.12 @ 4:42PM
I'm not talking about job losses to technological advances. There's a big difference to job losses do to mechanization and millions of jobs that were shipped overseas to Red China and Vietnam to maximize profits for the stockholders. If what you say is true about unions destroying American industry then those manufacturers would have simply relocated to right to work states. That didn't happen though instead they relocated to Japan, South Korea and Taiwan and when those labor markets got too expensive they went to our former enemies in Red China and Vietnam.
The service sector jobs that are left...Walmart, Starbucks, Taco Bell, even the warehouse and security jobs that are left provide a very low standard of living to those who work those jobs. If the good paying manufacturing jobs are gone and the union construction jobs are gone because of a sluggish economy and or competition from contractors who hire non-union immigrant (many times illegal immigrant labor) and the tech jobs are being "outsourced" to India. Who's going to buy the products to keep the economy growing?
Trinacria| 12.6.12 @ 7:17PM
You've got it all figured out, haven't you? And yet one does find it curious that you've failed to ask the central question: Why would a company move manufacturing operations overseas? Why have so many of your beloved low skilled jobs departed from the mother land? That's your homework for tonight, Lenin...give it some thought and the get back to us.
Dimitry_Aleksandrovich| 12.7.12 @ 1:40PM
I don't care what reasons they give for leaving and setting up shop in Indonesia, China or Vietnam. It's wrong it shows absolutely no loyalty to the very nation and people who made such companies a success. We have to be part of this globalist system? Why? The only reason I see is so huge corporations can completely cut out American labor. Also Trin my motherland is here. I was born and raised in the U.S. of A., so you were saying "If you were one of us you'd know". So if you are one of the business and political elite explain to the rest of us what's the end game?
Is it to completely destroy the unions and then bring manufacturing back and if we don't bring manufacturing back where are working class Americans going to find employment so they can continue buying the products that keep our economy going?
Trinacria| 12.6.12 @ 7:28PM
How dreadfully sad that the scope of your world view is limited to the boundaries of your pitiful experience. Labor, labor, labor...blah, blah, blah; the worker, the worker, the worker...blah, blah, blah. Sweat of my brow...blah, blah, blah. The Man keeping us down...blah, blah, blah.
Just because you perform the work of an ox doesn't mean you have to think like one; c'mon, man...think outside of the ox!
Dimitry_Aleksandrovich| 12.7.12 @ 1:42PM
Maybe I should ask for a pay cut and a cut in benefits. Then I can help my company and its shareholders maximize their profits. Then will I be a good American in your eyes?
JD| 12.6.12 @ 12:23AM
Leftists speak of the "evil" of leaving government short of the money they think it needs, but their funding comes directly from leaving private individuals short of the money they need.
But of course, they start by blatantly lying about the cause of the "need" for welfare, which is them, not us.
Trinacria| 12.6.12 @ 7:14PM
Cue the theme to Lenin's march.
Dumbass...
Minuteman78| 12.6.12 @ 9:31AM
It's this damn simple: Governments do not engage in charity. They forcibly confiscate and inefficiently redistribute income from people who created things of value. When the government does it, it's called "Taxing" (with all due respect to John Robert's quite-muddled thinking that the government being involved in my medical care decisions is somehow a Tax...) When individuals do it, it's called THEFT. So the more people are taxed, however it's done, is bad, because it is basically at it's core, THEFT. But since Ben and 'his people' work from a different book when it comes to beliefs and principles, maybe that's why he's OK with it.
JP| 12.6.12 @ 9:58AM
The government of Norway suspended federal income tax for all of its citizens in order for them to have more income for the Holidays. Norway is the 5th largest producer of energy in the world. It also reduced its entitlement state by 20% during the 1990s.
Is there a lesson in all of this? Can anyone imagine Congress doing something similar?
Whig| 12.6.12 @ 10:15AM
There are several unexamined assumptions that underlie the idea that the poor have a moral claim to other peoples' income. First, that all of the poor are poor through no fault of their own. Second, even if some of the poor are not virtuous, noblisse oblige requires society to overlook their faults and subsidize them regardless of their errors. Third, individuals voting through majoritarian structures have the absolute right to compel others to provide their labor and wealth in order to provide income for others, virtuous or not.
Thus, Ben seems to have forgotten his John Locke and instead adopted a more medieval idea that the labor (or even the life), and the fruits of that labor of one individual are morally at the command of the state which is to be dispensed according to the fashion of the governing elites. It is no less than reinstating serfdom which requires a large share of your production to be given to the lord of the manor--even if the lords are elected by a majority. That the income received represents portions of a person's precious life seems to be of little consequence to the lords.
This stands Locke's idea of a social contract on its head where governments are instituted to protect property and lives. In Ben's case, government exists to take the wealth and property of despised others (the wealthy) in order to redistribute it to the virtuous poor. In other words, Ben's policy prescriptions follow Marx rather than Locke.
Simon Templar| 12.6.12 @ 12:46PM
No offense, but you give Ben too much credit. He simply wants to be seen as a nice guy, liked, and on the winning side as it will insure continued movie roles, television appearances, and invitations to parties. Ben could care less about Locke, social contracts, or Marx.
The only reason he is even being talked about is because he is smart enough to know how to keep himself in the media limelight and controversial enough to get some attention.
Of course, get 15 minutes of fame and celebrity and you can bleed that dry and provide an income for yourself for the next 40 years.
Simon Templar| 12.6.12 @ 12:29PM
As long as he and you keep the focus on taxes, perceived unfairness, and moral sanctity of one kind or another, the REALITY of crushing government pensions, wages, waste, graft, entitlement spending, explosive war funding, free "stimulus" money, bailouts, and ever growing big government expansion will continue unabated to the point that taxes, tax rates, and moral sanctity will become irrelevant.
The only way out of this is through reduction in spending, ending the fraud and graft, and economic growth.
Simon Templar| 12.6.12 @ 12:39PM
By the way, this IS EXACTLY what the Left WANT you to be focused on, NOT the spending, waste, graft, business regulation, government control and fraud. Of course, you will keep doing it as you are so easily played, it is nauseating and disgusting. Keep talking about taxes, arguing with useful idiots about how much tax Romney payed, and the moral sanctity of the poor over other's wealth. Perfect recipe for disaster and for them to push us even closer to socialism.