The Logic Lifeline

A logical approach to sorting out world events. Where logic, opinion and speculation are combined to produce a reasoned, but entertaining reading experience. The unofficial hometown conservative blog of Woodridge, Il

Monday, October 17, 2005

Raise taxes on the rich on one condition and even then ...

While I fully recognize the US is not undertaxed at any class level, liberals in this country seem obsessed with sticking it to the rich in this country. While there are circumstances where some are withheld from reaping the benefits of what the US offers, most are in poverty due to their own choices. I don't lightly or hard-heartedly berate the poor, but the fact is almost all have opportunity in this country to be anything they want to be if they work and apply themself. Almost all who don't make good choices end up in a lower class income situation. Most who make good choices have a good income level all the way up to extreme wealth. Liberals always want policies that reward those who make poor choices and punish those who make good choices.

For years liberals have been inciting class warfare against the rich by claiming they don't pay their fair share. While a modest progressive tax may make sense, asking for 40% or more of anyone's income is confiscatory and punitive. In addition, the claim that the rich don't pay their fair share has been blown away as seen on Rush Limbaugh's website that shows the top 50% wage earners pay 96.54% of all taxes and the top 1% wage earners pay 34.27% of all taxes. If this is not paying your fair share I don't know what is!

While I would fight any tax hike tooth and nail, if the liberals were bound and determined to steal more from the rich and had the votes to do it there is one compromise I would entertain. In exchange for raising taxes on high income individuals, I propose we irradicate ALL corporate taxes across the board. Hang on liberals, don't leave yet! When you think about it, corporations are not people they are pieces of paper; a legal entity. Why should the corporation pay taxes? Because "they" make a lot of money? They don't think or act or do anything; "they" are simply a container, a shell. Taxes should only come from individuals.

Corporations are opportunity centers that give individuals the chance to make a living and/or create wealth. So much energy is focused on sheltering wealth from taxes by this loophole or that instead of doing what they are supposed to be doing. If no taxes are levied against corporations, what will be done with that money? Anything done with the money will almost inevitably become a taxable event:

  • By spending it on the companies needs and investing in itself, corporations can expand to provide more jobs
  • By providing dividends to investors and owners, a taxable event is created and the money is taxed at the end level
  • Even if it is held as cash for a future need, eventually it will either be spent or distributed
Whether used as a bargaining chip as described above or not, this is the right thing to do. The economy would soar in this environment and tax revenues would skyrocket.


  • At 12:18 PM, Anonymous Nostradamnthem said…

    "So much energy is focused on sheltering wealth from taxes by this loophole or that instead of doing what they are supposed to be doing"

    So, you're suggesting what? A system of all progressive personal income taxes for everyone, with no deductions? I'd buy into that, because I believe that most Americans would actually benefit.

  • At 2:12 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    The Rush example you cite is a textbook example of how to lie with statistics. This is not a matter of opinion. His numbers are meaningless in the context in which uses them. To someone who is moderately curious and open minded, this should be apparent even without a detailed analysis.

  • At 10:40 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    nos: by stripping out taxation from corporations all taxes would then be paid by individuals. I don't have a problem with some progressiveness in the tax system. I think a percentage is inherently progressive. If a compromise is needed, though we could have some brackets. Nothing above 40% and I would prefer it to be nothing above 25%.

    If they were to go to a straight flat rate tax system I would be in favor of no deductions.

  • At 10:41 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    paw, I'm listening. Please explain.

  • At 1:14 PM, Anonymous BLKN said…

    "Why should the corporation pay taxes? Because "they" make a lot of money? They don't think or act or do anything; "they" are simply a container, a shell. Taxes should only come from individuals."

    Corporations don't think or act or do anything? They dump toxic waste all over the place, don't they? That's doing something, and one could argue that polluting is not a good or ethical thing to do that harms our country and its citizens. Please explain which individuals should be held financially responsible for toxic cleanup from corporate polluting, and how their contributions are to be determined.

    I'm assuming that you post such an idea as a joke, since there is no way that anyone could take it seriously. Really. Did you really think that one through?

  • At 7:34 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    blkn, corporations do not do the things you state. People do. Corporations will still be liable for their misdeeds for lawsuits or fines. They just won't be taxed.

    No joke. It makes perfect sense.

  • At 3:15 PM, Anonymous BKLN said…

    Well hey, if corporations pay proportionate use fees for infrastructure, then there might be an honest discussion here.

    For example (hypotheticals of one American and one American corporation):
    I use 10 gallons of city water per day.
    Kodak uses 35,000 gallons of city water per day.
    Aside from direct per gallon use costs, the wear on the pipes and delivery systems should be metered accordingly, and Kodak should thus pay 3500 times what I do for upkeep of the public water works.

    I put 5 gallons of organic wastewater into the sewage system every day.
    Kodak puts 15,000 gallons of highly toxic wastewater into the sewage system every day.
    All toxic filtration costs should be borne entirely by Kodak.

    I don't drive on the roads, I use the subway every day.
    Kodak drives a fleet of 8,000 6-ton tractor trailers on the roads every day.
    The entire cost of road development and maintenance should be borne by Kodak.

    Do we have a discussion?

  • At 4:55 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    bkln, in the example of water works I would say if it is just normal usage a per gallon charge should be the same for the individual or corporation.

    If there is an unequal usage per gallon such as highly toxic material that would cause more aggressive corrosion of the pipes I could see placing the charges in a higher bracket. How the corporation benefits the government (in water works usually local gov) may mitigate their liability here.

    There are several facets to evaluate, not just how the corporation is benefitted. How the corporation benefits must also be a factor.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home