Site Meter
Share

The most recent excuse for not raising taxes on the poor one tenth of one percent who have figured out a way to scam their way into not paying for the honor of living in the US, is if they are taxed, they will leave the US.   The Pink Flamingo has recently been castigated, that if the wealthy are required to pay taxes, they will pack up and go somewhere else.  The other day on FOX Monica Crowley expressed the same sentiment.  The top earners will simply leave the country.

“...By European standards, yes. Compared to the developing world, not really. The top U.S. marginal tax rate — 35 percent — is low by the standards of developed countries. It’s about 51 percent in Britain, 47.5 percent in Germany, and 40 percent in France. Until recently, Denmark’s highest tax rate was a whopping 63 percent, but that’s been recently cut down to about 51 percent — good news for billionaires like Lego tycoon Kjeld Kirk Kristiansen. Not all rich countries tax heavily however. At 29 percent, Canada’s top rate is actually lower than the United States.

But what about the dynamic growing superpowers of the developing world? Things are a little easier for the Learjet set there. Brazil’s top income tax rate is 27.5 percent and India’s is 30.9 percent. China’s is a relatively high 45 percent; however tax evasion is pervasive, so it’s unlikely that most of the country’s 115 billionaires actually pay that much.

But income is only part of the story. The reason why Buffett’s taxes are allegedly lower than his secretary, Debbie Bosanek, is that the vast majority of his income comes from investments, which in the United States is taxed at a rate of only 15 percent. The fact that making investments is, in fact, what Buffett does for a living is irrelevant. …”

Umm….

Where the H – E – Double Toothpick are they going to go?

Are the ultra wealthy simply going to pack up and move to some third world nation where they can be promised low tax rates?  Are they going to live on their yachts or their planes 24/7?  Are the idiots of the far right now so superficially stupid that they think people with wealth are simply going to pack up and leave the US?

Are they so ignorant that they don’t comprehend the immigration process?

Do you know how long it takes to establish residency in a new country?

No matter how the far right panders and lies, people are not going to dump the US for life in the third world and play  like some stupid James Bond villain with an exotic lair complete with Jaws, bimbos, and a plot to destroy the world?

There are some absurd excuses for not requiring those who are ultra wealthy to pay the same percentage as everyone else.  This may be the dumbest there is.  The Pink Flamingo suspects that those who keep telling us that the wealthy should not be required to pay the same percentage because they already pay a lot, don’t really know a small business person who struggles to pay their fair share of 33-35%.

What is so difficult about this:

  • $1000 profit = $323
  • $10,000 profit = $3200
  • $100,000 profit = $32,000
  • $1,000,000 profit = $320,000
  • $10,000,000 = $3,200,000
  • $100,000,000 = $32,000,000
  • $1,000,000,000 = $320,000,000

Why is requiring someone who makes a tremendous amount of money to pay the same percentage rate as someone who doesn’t?  Sure, it looks like a lot, but it is the same.  It is equal.  It is called Noblesse oblige – privilege entails responsibility.

“…“Noblesse oblige” is generally used to imply that with wealth, power, and prestige come responsibilities. The phrase is sometimes used derisively, in the sense of condescending or hypocritical social responsibility. In American English especially, the term is sometimes applied more broadly to suggest a general obligation for the more fortunate to help the less fortunate. In ethical discussion, it is sometimes used to summarize a moral economy wherein privilege must be balanced by duty towards those who lack such privilege or who cannot perform such duty. Finally, it has been used recently primarily to refer to public responsibilities of the rich, famous and powerful, notably to provide good examples of behaviour or to exceed minimal standards of decency. It has also been used to describe a person taking the blame for something in order to solve an issue or save someone else….”

Andrew Carnegie went even farther:

“...In Wealth, Carnegie examines the modes of distributing accumulated wealth and capital to the communities it originates from. He preached that ostentatious living and amassing private treasures was wrong. He praised the high British taxes on the estates of dead millionaires, remarking that “By taxing estates heavily at death the State marks its condemnation of the selfish millionaire’s unworthy life. It is desirable that nations should go much further in this direction.” His “gospel of wealth” earned much praise, but did not win many converts.

Carnegie made it clear that the rich were best suited for the recirculation of their money back into society where it could be used to support the greater good, given that they are presumed to have a penchant for management of capital. However, he shunned aristocratic chains of inheritance and argued that dependents should be supported in moderation, with the bulk of excess wealth to be spent on enriching the community. In cases where excess wealth was held until death, he advocated its apprehension by the state on a progressive scale: “Indeed, it is difficult to set bounds to the share of a rich man’s estate which should go at his death to the public through the agency of the State, and by all means such taxes should be grated, beginning at nothing upon moderate sums to dependents, and increasing rapidly as the amounts swell, until of the millionaire’s hoard, at least the other half comes to the privy coffer of the State.”  He claimed that, in bettering society and people here on earth, one would be rewarded at the gates of Paradise…”

Either the far right is out of its minds, has no regard for the history of this nation, or doesn’t really know what having money is all about.  The Pink Flamingo suspects we’re dealing with all three reasons.   We need to face the fact that we’re dealing with intellectually dishonest media.  They are defending the ultra wealthy who pay their salaries.  The ultra wealthy, like everyone else, don’t want to pay any more in taxes than they need to pay.

There is a point though, where their constant demands not to pay the same rate as everyone else is damaging the country. Their pathetic little defenders, little men and women who have just slithered out from the evolutionary slime of life, don’t quite comprehend that when much is given, much is required.  They think the concept is socialism.  It’s not.  It’s nobility.  It’s also called humanity, human decency, and being more than just a rich jerk.

 

Share

4 Comments

  • jose maria says:

    Unless they do something about reducing government spending it won’t make much difference whether they tax the rich or not. I happen to agree with some members of the GOP that raising taxes should be accompanied by spending cuts. They couldn’t reduce the deficit when they were spending billions of dollars. They can’t reduce the deficit now that they are spending trillions of dollars, so only a nitwit is going to believe they can reduce the deficit by raising taxes on 2% of the population without some kind of spending cuts. Britain’s recent experiment with raising taxes may have some lessons for the USA. The UK is already learning the hard way that raising more taxes can actually bring in less revenue for the government. There’s an economic principle called the Law of Diminishing Returns. Taxes can be raised until a point is reached where the government takes in less revenue than it did before taxes were raised. The Obama administration thinks that raising taxes on the wealthy is going to solve all the economic problems in the country. I am beginning to wonder what the real reasons could be for all the belly aching. Are they insisting on raising taxes for the practical purposes of bringing in more revenue or is it for reasons of ideological class warfare?

  • SJ Reidhead says:

    Raising taxes must be accompanied by cutting spending. Believe it or not, Obama has done just that! (I know, I didn’t believe it either).

    In fact, what I found has shocked The Pink Flamingo so much, I’m doing a post on it for tomorrow. I knew Obama was not a big spender, but when faced with cold blooded stats, I’m totally blown away!

    SJR

  • jose maria says:

    I read about Obama’s proposed spending cuts. MSNBC is trying to blow everybody away with the so called cold blooded stats. His spending reductions under the Budget Control Act of 20ll are not going to work.

  • SJ Reidhead says:

    The only way any of this is going to work is for the whole blasted lot of them grow up and start acting like statesmen. I am not holding my breath.

    SJR


WordPress SEO fine-tune by Meta SEO Pack from Poradnik Webmastera