Tax Cuts Should Favor the Rich from Planck's Constant

When the Feds lower taxes for everyone by 1%, liberals in this country go berserk. They cry and wail that the tax cut disproportionately favors the rich. But you may ask, "If everyone gets an equal 1% cut how are the rich being favored?" Here is how the complaint goes: When Joe Sixpack gets a 1% cut, instead of paying $1,000 in taxes, he pays $990 for a savings of a mere ten bucks. When Joe Billionaire gets a 1% cut, instead of paying $1,000,000 in taxes he pays a piddling $990,000 for an unfair savings in the egregious amount of ten thousand dollars. That's right, wealthy people in this country get tax cuts that are one thousand times more than the poor or middle class.

Is that fair?

I'll tell you what's unfair: taxing the rich at all. It is well established that rich people have fewer children than others [UNFPA] and so use fewer services from the government. Fewer children means fewer schools and the richer you are the less likely it is that your kids go to public schools anyway. Rich people rarely burden their local hospitals with unpaid medical bills. Rich people commit fewer crimes that cost the state money, and even when they do go to prison, they pay for the costs of their incarceration.

People who are poor tend to have too many kids, fill up too many classrooms, consume too much emergency health services, commit most of the crimes, and rarely if ever pay income taxes.

Now is it fair that those whose contribute the least and burden the state the most pay nothing in taxes? Is it fair that those who burden the state least and contribute the most (by their enormous consumption which sustains businesses and generates jobs) should pay the most in taxes?

Is it fair that people who pay nothing in income taxes can vote for more and more oppressive taxes on the wealthy so that they can get more and more in government handouts and services? At present 50% of Americans pay nothing in income taxes. Each passing year, more and more Americans pay no income taxes while a dwindling number of Americans are saddled with paying more and more.

Meanwhile leftist morons like David Lightman and William Douglas ask you to believe that Obama's tax plan is not socialism because we have had high taxes in this country before. And since we have had progressive taxes before there is nothing wrong with making them more and more progressive.

Listen, you idiots, we had welfare before and it didn't work. We had price controls under Nixon and they didn't work. Just because we tried something socialist doesn't mean we have to stick with it when it fails. The progressive tax system has failed. Taxing corporations more than every other country in the world except for Japan has certainly killed us as an industrial nation. Any states that allows Unionism damages its economic health. Look at what unions have done to Michigan: it's an industrial basket case. Meanwhile, states that spit on unions have vibrant auto industries.

I should mention that I am voting for Obama this year because there are too many Americans that have accepted his share-the-wealth philosophy. They need to be taught a lesson.

If Obama wins, come back here in four years and I will write, "I told you so."

Since I am hoping he wins, I have already taken measures to make sure that I will not be sharing my wealth with any of you. In fact, I hope to lower my reportable income to a point where I will be one of the 95% to get a check from the government. It's only fair.

When this government regains its sanity, removes all corporate taxes on my business I will return the profits back to America where they can be used to finance more business, hire more people, and contribute to the economic prosperity of this nation.

As I wrote in my previous post, "I do not mind paying my fair share, what I object to is paying everyone else's share." If you are asking me to be part of this great new change in America, I'll just watch, if you don't mind. But if you're looking for more tax revenues from me, just deal me out.