Boss
Take a Memo:
- Apr 21, 2012
- 21,884
- 2,773
Over the past decade or so, the cries from the left have become incessantly loud, that we must dramatically increase taxes on the rich, who supposedly "don't pay their fair share," and have "more money than they need." When you attempt to have a civil conversation with these people, they tune you out, and insist that rich people are greedy bastards who all fit some stereotype of Homer Simpson's boss. They fail to realize one key fundamental, we don't tax wealth in America. We tax incomes.
Now, this doesn't matter to the left, they presume that people who earn high incomes are rich folk, like Homer Simpson's boss. These rich people get paid outrageous amounts of money to sit around drinking bourbon and yucking it up at the country club about who they screwed over this week, while their wives blow money like Paris Hilton in a little dog shop. They buy their kids Hummers for graduation, and go on lavish vacations to Barbados or Fiji. The left has developed this false perception based on stereotypes, and nothing can penetrate the prejudice.
The truth of the matter is, there are all kinds of different people who earn a lot of income, and not all of them are wealthy. There are also very wealthy people who earn very little income at all, and simply live off of their wealth and investments. There is no stereotype which applies to everyone, we don't live in a cookie-cutter world. This is the biggest problem I have with setting any arbitrary amount at which we determine is "enough" without regard for what the individual does, or the value of their contribution.
I want to present a few examples for your consideration, in order to illustrate what I am saying. First up, John Hannah, the All-pro offensive lineman who played for the New England Patriots in the 70s. Arguably, the greatest OL to ever play the game. When he signed with New England, his base salary was in the neighborhood of $400k per year. He played for 12 years, 183 games. Of course, he renegotiated his contract a few times along the way, but Hannah never made the kind of money stars of today make in the NFL. After his career in football, he held several jobs in coaching, making considerably less income. Currently, he works for a friend of mine, and makes less than $40k per year. The wealth he enjoyed while playing football is gone, he literally came begging my friend for a job. Big John made decent money in his day, but pro football careers are relatively short, and the lifestyle you are expected to maintain is very expensive. In any event, the man was never "wealthy" and for his entire career, probably earned less than an average #4 draft pick signs for these days.
Next up, a man you don't know, is name is David Hilliard. He works as an underwater welder on oil/gas pipelines in Texas. David knocks down a cool $240k per year, but he works his ass off and takes extreme risk to his life and health, every day. Aside from the dangers related to diving, he also faces a risk of electrocution, and there are a number of high health risks from the environment itself. In my opinion, he is underpaid for what he does.
Finally, a woman I know, named Lisa. She started a cleaning business in 1992, following the death of her husband, and being left to raise 3 children with no experience or work history. She slowly built a small business from the ground up, starting with a shoestring budget, eating mac-and-cheese for dinner every night, her children qualifying for government assistance, and living in low income housing. Twenty years later, she oversees 6 crews of 4 people each, and files her taxes as an individual, showing an income of around $200k per year. However, that is the income from her business, and she has to pay for everything related to the business, including her employees wages and benefits. Now, she did manage to send all three of her children to college, and she owns a modest home, but she is not a 'wealthy' person, by any stretch.
The point here is this; None of these people fit the stereotype of the left, they aren't "wealthy" individuals, they are talented, hard working, determined, but not rich. Taking a larger piece of their pie because you are jealous that they make more money than most, is just plain boneheaded and immature. We don't have ANY way of determining the "worth" of what someone brings to the table. There is a vast difference between an income of $200k earned by Lisa, who paid her dues, ate mac-and-cheese, suffered and struggled to make it... and some jerk off who wins $200k pulling a slot machine lever in Vegas, isn't there? So why do we feel compelled to tax them at the same exorbitant rate? There is a difference between David, who earns $240k a year risking his life every day, and some ingrate who inherited the rights to his father's music royalties, which earn $240k per year.
Are we supposed to put people like Nancy Pelosi in charge of determining who deserves what they earn and who doesn't? Or should we leave this up to the capitalist system, which always seems to manage paying people based on value? What in the hell gives ANY liberal the right to determine what is a fair amount to earn in income? Based on WHAT? How can anyone arbitrarily establish a dollar amount that is "fair" in all cases and circumstances?
The dirty little secret in this whole deal, is that the "super rich" have no real NEED to earn incomes anymore. They only do so because they can, and if you start taxing them outrageous amounts, more and more of them will simply stop doing it. They didn't become wealthy by being idiots. The people you hurt by jacking up taxes on high incomes, are the people who are trying to become rich, the people who are still working on it, who haven't yet arrived at where they want to be. Kill their dream, and you effectively kill the dream for everyone. But the liberal left is poised to take the hacksaw to their own nose, consequences be damned.
Now, this doesn't matter to the left, they presume that people who earn high incomes are rich folk, like Homer Simpson's boss. These rich people get paid outrageous amounts of money to sit around drinking bourbon and yucking it up at the country club about who they screwed over this week, while their wives blow money like Paris Hilton in a little dog shop. They buy their kids Hummers for graduation, and go on lavish vacations to Barbados or Fiji. The left has developed this false perception based on stereotypes, and nothing can penetrate the prejudice.
The truth of the matter is, there are all kinds of different people who earn a lot of income, and not all of them are wealthy. There are also very wealthy people who earn very little income at all, and simply live off of their wealth and investments. There is no stereotype which applies to everyone, we don't live in a cookie-cutter world. This is the biggest problem I have with setting any arbitrary amount at which we determine is "enough" without regard for what the individual does, or the value of their contribution.
I want to present a few examples for your consideration, in order to illustrate what I am saying. First up, John Hannah, the All-pro offensive lineman who played for the New England Patriots in the 70s. Arguably, the greatest OL to ever play the game. When he signed with New England, his base salary was in the neighborhood of $400k per year. He played for 12 years, 183 games. Of course, he renegotiated his contract a few times along the way, but Hannah never made the kind of money stars of today make in the NFL. After his career in football, he held several jobs in coaching, making considerably less income. Currently, he works for a friend of mine, and makes less than $40k per year. The wealth he enjoyed while playing football is gone, he literally came begging my friend for a job. Big John made decent money in his day, but pro football careers are relatively short, and the lifestyle you are expected to maintain is very expensive. In any event, the man was never "wealthy" and for his entire career, probably earned less than an average #4 draft pick signs for these days.
Next up, a man you don't know, is name is David Hilliard. He works as an underwater welder on oil/gas pipelines in Texas. David knocks down a cool $240k per year, but he works his ass off and takes extreme risk to his life and health, every day. Aside from the dangers related to diving, he also faces a risk of electrocution, and there are a number of high health risks from the environment itself. In my opinion, he is underpaid for what he does.
Finally, a woman I know, named Lisa. She started a cleaning business in 1992, following the death of her husband, and being left to raise 3 children with no experience or work history. She slowly built a small business from the ground up, starting with a shoestring budget, eating mac-and-cheese for dinner every night, her children qualifying for government assistance, and living in low income housing. Twenty years later, she oversees 6 crews of 4 people each, and files her taxes as an individual, showing an income of around $200k per year. However, that is the income from her business, and she has to pay for everything related to the business, including her employees wages and benefits. Now, she did manage to send all three of her children to college, and she owns a modest home, but she is not a 'wealthy' person, by any stretch.
The point here is this; None of these people fit the stereotype of the left, they aren't "wealthy" individuals, they are talented, hard working, determined, but not rich. Taking a larger piece of their pie because you are jealous that they make more money than most, is just plain boneheaded and immature. We don't have ANY way of determining the "worth" of what someone brings to the table. There is a vast difference between an income of $200k earned by Lisa, who paid her dues, ate mac-and-cheese, suffered and struggled to make it... and some jerk off who wins $200k pulling a slot machine lever in Vegas, isn't there? So why do we feel compelled to tax them at the same exorbitant rate? There is a difference between David, who earns $240k a year risking his life every day, and some ingrate who inherited the rights to his father's music royalties, which earn $240k per year.
Are we supposed to put people like Nancy Pelosi in charge of determining who deserves what they earn and who doesn't? Or should we leave this up to the capitalist system, which always seems to manage paying people based on value? What in the hell gives ANY liberal the right to determine what is a fair amount to earn in income? Based on WHAT? How can anyone arbitrarily establish a dollar amount that is "fair" in all cases and circumstances?
The dirty little secret in this whole deal, is that the "super rich" have no real NEED to earn incomes anymore. They only do so because they can, and if you start taxing them outrageous amounts, more and more of them will simply stop doing it. They didn't become wealthy by being idiots. The people you hurt by jacking up taxes on high incomes, are the people who are trying to become rich, the people who are still working on it, who haven't yet arrived at where they want to be. Kill their dream, and you effectively kill the dream for everyone. But the liberal left is poised to take the hacksaw to their own nose, consequences be damned.
