We've all heard Warren Buffett complain (or brag) that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary.
Now, I'm betting that his secretary is making at least $200,000. Which is enough to ensure she (or he, not to be sexist) can expect to pay even more if Obama's "Buffett Tax" goes into effect!
"Thanks boss!"
Maybe Buffet is feeling a tad bit guilty after his $5 billion investment in Goldman Sachs, I just hope he thanked the taxpayers for propping his investment up long enough for him to clear his multi-million dollar windfall.
But let's think about this "paying your fair share" approach our President and many others take in regards to pushing the wealth envy warfare:
A) What do you get for the taxes you pay? The government's responsibility is to protect us from attack, guard our borders. They do a lot more than that, but that is basically the federal governments constitutional responsibility.
B) What more would the rich get for paying more? Would they be protected more? Protecting the borders protects all of us.
So my question is, what would the rich get for their money if they paid more? They already pay more in dollars for the same benefits.
How is that fair? That is what they would think. Many are contemplating a "Going Galt" approach if they can. But many in the bullseye of this new tax, are small business owners who are stuck with big loans for buildings, equipment, possibly union contracts. They are stuck. But they have options.
So ask yourself this: have you ever worked for a poor person? Would you want to? Don't you think your boss is going to cut expenses SOMEWHERE to make up for this increase in taxes? There is no benefit to him/her to pay more to the Federal Government.
And then there's the regulation avalanche.... that's a discussion for another day.
Joyce Maurer
Libertarian Woman
Travelling With Mises
7 hours ago
Posts
