googlef87758e9b6df9bec.html A Sure Word: Some People Aren't Paying Their Fair Share

Monday, September 24, 2012

Some People Aren't Paying Their Fair Share

After months of listening to Democrats whine about Romney not releasing all of his tax returns, we now get to listen to Democrats whine about Romney's tax return. There's really no surprise about what was in his return, was there? I mean, we all knew he's very rich and that most of what he makes now is income from the investments he's made in the past. He paid an effective tax rate of around 14% ($2MM taxes on $14MM income) which is typical for investment income. What is also not a surprise is how liberals are using Romney's returns as a prop in their class-warfare rhetoric.

I've never learned to sympathize with the liberal idea of fairness. Obama has talked ad nausuem about making the rich “pay their fair share” as though the rich haven't been paying their fair share already. According to, The top 10 percent of income earners paid 71 percent of all federal income taxes in 2009 though they earned 43 percent of all income. The bottom 50 percent paid 2 percent of income taxes but earned 13 percent of total income. About half of tax filers paid no federal income tax at all.” I just can't get my head around the idea that it's “fair” for 10% of the people to pay 3/4 of all the taxes while 1/2 of the people aren't paying any.

One “fix” Obama has suggested is the so-called “Buffet Rule” where millionaires would be required to pay the same tax rate as “everyone else.” That's rather laughable since we've already seen that 1/2 of the people already don't pay any taxes. But besides that, why must “fairness” be accomplished by increasing the tax rate on millionaires' investments? Why not reduce the rate on working people's income to 14%? Better yet, why not make EVERYONE pay a flat tax of 14% of their income? That would certainly be the most fair thing.

The purpose of the tax code is supposed to be providing revenue to the federal government. However, the Feds see the tax code as an opportunity to engage in social engineering. The want to bludgeon the rich with abusive taxes and then hold themselves up as champions of the poor. Liberal Democrats are bringing back the caste system and want to create a perpetually poor voting base which is totally dependent on the charity of the political aristocracy. Tyrants!! Every one of them is a tyrant.

There's an old saying that when you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can count on the support of Paul. The current level of class-warfare goes well beyond that. Democrats are telling Paul to hate Peter.


freebobafett said...

it's his 2010 return that has the surprises, because he took advantage of the Tax Amnesty that year.

He hid money in offshore accounts, which was a crime until all those crimes were wiped clean in 2010...simply because he reported the income that year.

Imagine if you could commit crimes your entire life and then pay a fine today which wiped all your crimes away?

Does it mean that you didn't commit all those crimes prior to today?

Of course not.

I don't like the president either, but Romney is a criminal, and he is a criminal of finance, and that is about the last thing we need in this country at the moment, heading it.

RKBentley said...


Thank you for your comment – it's lack of substance, notwithstanding.

You've misunderstood the liberal spin. There was no tax amnesty offered in 2010; there was nothing surprising in Romney's returns for that year. The tax amnesty was offered in 2009. Romney did not release his returns for 2009 (BTW, he did not release any returns for any prior year, either). Therefore, some people allege he did not release 2009's returns because he chose to take advantage of the tax amnesty offered that year.

There is ZERO evidence that Romney has ever done anything illegal in his investments or in paying his taxes. There isn't even any evidence that he claimed tax amnesty.

This is nothing more than the logical fallacy of an argument from silence. “Romney didn't release his returns so he must have something to hide. It's must be because he must not have filed taxes on his offshore accounts and then filed for amnesty.” It's a stretch, don't you think?

Thanks for visiting, though. I mean that sincerely.

God bless!!


Carvin said...

Wow... nothing quite like totally missing the point.

The problem with the rich is multifaceted. Romney was/is a grand example, but I'll give that Obama is likely not much different.

The rich are the leeches. First, they don't do things, usually, and the few things they do should be criminal. Unfortunately, since they own our political system, they aren't. That would be the first thing that they do that should be illegal.

Those who underpay in terms of taxes are undoubtedly the rich and corporations. Many of our biggest corporations pay little to no taxes due to their corporate welfare. This money does not go to anyone who works, but the richest people in the company that merely own it, often through nepotism. Meanwhile, they pay their employees so little that they will either starve and/or fall ill because of it. Since the rich control almost all areas of occupation, they can agree that no one should be payed enough, and do. Our minimum wage is criminally low, a point of utter shame. Our healthcare system is set up so only the rich can be healthy. The ACA has improved this some, but it is still a Heritage Foundation failure of an idea. We have many countries that have better and cheaper systems we could model ours on. Sweden, Canada, France- which, by the way, is not socialized.

Let's be frank- the Heritage Foundation is a conservative think tank created by the ultra-rich to fool poor people into agreeing to give them more money. They have a long history of disastrous idea and rarely tell any truth.

This is an excellent example. The problem isn't entirely income inequality, it's wealth inequality. The rich have many more ways to obtain wealth than the poor, and far less debt, if any. These are the ways that the rich get out of paying taxes and hold on to money longer.

Which brings us to the worst thing about the rich. If they in fact spent all their ill-got gains, the economy might still work. But they don't. They have so much that they can't spend it all. So, they invest in assets and hide money away overseas.

And let us realize that the rich, and more specifically, corporations, use more of what the government does. They save on wages thanks to food stamps. Medicare covers the cost of healthcare they don't give to employees. They make the greatest use of roads, since they transport their goods on it. They have the most to lose from crime, thus depend on the police more. And of course, industry profits quite a bit off of the wars our government starts. So they should be paying more.

I think you don't get liberals because you don't challenge yourself to think critically. And that's a shame, you have some wonderful passion.

RKBentley said...


Nearly ½ the people in the US pay NO income tax at all. The wealthiest 10% of Americans pay 71% of all income taxes. How can you possibly say that the rich “underpay in terms of taxes”?

To you point about “wealth inequality,” I have to wonder: where is written that wealth must be equal? Most millions in the US are older. They've saved their money their whole life. Shouldn't an older person have more wealth than a younger person? What is “unfair” about that? If another older person saved no money while they worked, and have nothing to live on but their social security, whose fault is that?

But even if we tried to be ultimately fair, wealth “fairness” can never be achieved. If every person starts their first job is given a starting wage of $20K, if they are forced to save 10% of their salary every year, and if they are given a mandatory 3% raise every year, then a 50 year old will make more, have saved more, and be worth more than a 25 year old.

Finally, I'm sorry that you see employers as the bad guys. They're the ones who not only pay the salaries of the majority of people, but also the ones who pay the majority of the taxes that build the roads and pays the benefits given to people who don't work.

You're the one not thinking critically. The government has NO MONEY. It doesn't produce anything. The government can only do anything because it takes money away from the people who have it in the form of TAXES. And, like I've already pointed out, the wealthy people pay most of the taxes. The poor people pay none.

Thanks for your comments. God bless!!


Carvin said...

First, we must realize that our government does not tax its citizens enough. That is why we are getting further and further into debt.

The concept that so many 'don't pay taxes' is based on faulty statistics. Here is a more truthful evaluation of 'who doesn't pay taxes'. The short answer is that the elderly and the very young end up not paying taxes. This doesn't consider sales, state and local taxes.

Don't believe the conservative media? Here's some independent research on it.

Point is, statistics are only as meaningful as they are relevant. And the statistics you show are misleading.

I also find it strange, though reoccurring, that conservatives are so upset at equality and fairness. I recently watched a documentary which talked about a 50's news investigation, I believe CBS, into the state of racism in the deep south. It is shocking how similar the arguments against fair taxation are to those against school integration. To give the short version, deep south whites said that it would be mistreating blacks to have them in the same schools because they wouldn't be able to keep up. Strikes me eerily similar that excuses are being made to justify those working, and those who wish to work (which is the vast majority), being unable to get the same deals in their overall tax burden as the rich.

I personally believe that equality and opportunity are the things we must secure if we wish to consider ourselves Americans.

At any rate, just because employers are the ones who pay those who work doesn't mean that they should be given excuses for their behaviour. Paying the labour force is a basic function of economy, not something to be praised. Providing food is an essential part of life, but a grocer isn't immune to unfair behaviour just because we depend on them. If the grocer tricks you into buying bad food, that is wrong. If all the grocers work together to raise the price of food to beyond what the poor can afford, that's very wrong- it is actually evil. Employers do this in reverse. There is no excuse for paying someone under twenty dollars an hour given our economic strength and the productivity of our workforce. But, employers have, though denying raises to minimum wage, worked together to see that the poor are under payed for their work.

This is evil. The Bible is clear about how wrong it is to not give a man the fair share of the work he gives.