The Tax Debate That Should Have Taken Place Before the Election

I’m not one of those conservatives who feels inclined to blame Mitt Romney for President Obama’s re-election victory. Sure, he wasn’t my first pick to represent the Republican Party, and there were times when I found myself annoyed with the decisions made by his campaign, but I think he was a strong and competent leader who promoted himself and his vision well. He was a good candidate, and was certainly qualified to sit in the Oval Office.

What did bug me about Romney, however, was something that has bothered me about the Republican party as a whole in recent years: A reluctance to challenge President Obama’s premise of tax fairness, thus allowing him to promote taxation as a moral issue.

A lot of people forget this, but until President Obama began incessantly talking about the rich paying their “fair share” about two years ago, the concept of tax fairness wasn’t even on the public’s radar. No one was calling their elected representatives and complaining that the rich weren’t meeting some moral or patriotic obligation to fork over more of their money to the government. When national polls asked voters which political issue was most important to them, tax fairness wasn’t even on the list. Why not? The answer is simple: It wasn’t on anyone’s mind. People were worried about the effects of a stalled economy…Not tax rates.

Of course, the Democrats have long tried to make the case for higher taxes, but they’ve traditionally done so by tying increased revenue to government programs or other spending initiatives. Tax fairness – the idea that middle and lower income people are somehow bearing a disproportionate tax burden compared to the rich – is something new. It was concocted by the Obama administration to play off of people’s frustrations during a tough economic time. Obama needed a villain to deflect the results of his failed economic policies onto, and rich people were a convenient scapegoat. The class warfare strategy not only worked for the president politically, but it perverted the public’s understanding of what taxation is supposed to be about.

One of the byproducts of this societal shift was the vile Occupy Wall Street movement, which the mainstream media and even prominent Democrats initially embraced but later distanced themselves from.

The Republicans would have served themselves well if they had aggressively called out the president on his sanctimony and reminded Americans what taxation is really about.

The debate finally did come, but not until after the election. It took place not between politicians, but between political commentators Bill O’Reilly and Charles Krauthammer last week on The O’Reilly Factor. I don’t believe the segment was quite designed to turn into the philosophical debate that it became, but viewers were treated to the most honest, mature discussion on taxes I’ve heard in years.

O’Reilly opened the segment by stating that the bottom-line tax rates for wealthier Americans (taking into account deductions and creative accounting) seemed a little low to him, in the interest of fairness.

Krauthammer rejected the premise of tax fairness on its face, and opened with this profound statement: “Taxation is not a moral issue. It’s an issue of necessity.”

It was a very simple and accurate point – one I believe we have lost total perspective of in our society.

Krauthammer argued against the idea that we should decide what people should pay based on what someone thinks is a fair amount to be taken from them. He stated that in a pure, ideal world, a fair share of taxation is zero. He explained that the founding fathers instituted our republic with zero income tax, and instead taxed transactions. They did so to pay for protectionism and our military without any concept of fairness in mind.

“Tithing to the church is a fairness issue,” said Krauthammer, citing it as an example of people giving willingly to demonstrate their moral conviction. He described taxation, on the other hand, as merely a question of how much the government is spending and how they’re going to pay for that spending.

Krauthammer described the modern day liberal view of taxation as the government having a moral claim on people’s earnings to dispense with it as it wants. He explained that if you apply the concept of a “fair share” to taxation, you’re giving the government, by right, a share of your earnings to do whatever they please with it.

The mindset he described is how I believe the majority of the country currently views taxation, and they’re dead wrong. It’s that new consensus that is allowing President Obama to promote what I’ll refer to as an envy-tax, that he is using as a punitive measure against wealthy people. It has nothing to do with any semblance of fairness despite what the president says. It also has nothing to do with paying down our national debt, but that’s a topic for another column.

President Obama’s view of personal income is whatever amount of earnings the government decides to leave you with after it has taken its share. That is completely backwards.

Conservatives, and anyone who believes in a free America, can’t afford to play on Obama’s field any longer. They need to explain to whoever will listen that taxation is NOT a moral obligation, but simply a mechanism used to fund our government’s spending. It wasn’t all that long ago that most people understood this, at least in broad terms. But to really drive the point home, the case needs to be laid out boldly and without reservation.

If tax fairness can effectively be exposed for the gimmick that it is, people will come to realize that the only truly moral issue related to how our government manages taxpayers’ money is that of how it spends it. The government – not taxpaying Americans – will accurately be identified as the problem, and we can start having serious national debates on our country’s fiscal state again.

For those of you who see importance in the topic I’ve drawn attention to here, I would suggest that you share the cited O’Reilly Factor segment with others, whether it be through email, social media, or word of mouth. Both sides of the argument are well laid out, and I think listening to the discussion would be in everybody’s best interest.

Here’s the link:

Author Bio:

John Daly couldn't have cared less about world events and politics until the horrific 9/11 terrorist attacks changed his perspective. Since then, he's been deeply engaged in the news of the day with a particular interest in how that news is presented. Realizing the importance of the media in a free, democratic society, John has long felt compelled to identify media injustices when he sees them. With a B.S. in Business Administration (Computer Information Systems), and a 16 year background in software and web development, John has found that his real passion is for writing. He is the author of the Sean Coleman Thriller series, which is available through all major retailers. John lives in Northern Colorado with his wife and two children. Like John on Facebook. Follow John on Twitter.
Author website:
  • bobemakk

    A flat tax has not been discussed by our politicians in a long time. I believe that this would solve raising taxes. The more you make, the more taxes you pay. Now that is common sense to me.

    Why should we pay income/payroll taxes on our salaries, and then if we are able to save money, pay taxes again on the interest we earn? Double dipping government is the answer. We are Taxed Enough Already!

  • Stephen Boone

    My God! Another Alzheimer’s victim. A strong and competent leader? Oh, I get it. Just a slip of the tongue. You MEANT to say “A total boob”. Right? After all he WAS beaten HANDILY by McCain, the worst candidate EVER. Oh, that routine of making believe he was considering Condi and all those other minority candidates and then HA HA HA I’m REALLY picking Ichabod Crane Jr. Oh THAT was genius. If YOU are a pundit… go LOOK UP THE WORD. It’s NOT a guy that make bad jokes like this column is. It is supposed to mean you KNOW something. DUH.

  • Chris Matthewson

    Yes, as I pointed out above, an unsophisticated thinker (or a child of ten) might think that way. But a High School graduate would probably realize that it is fair to tax people based on their ability to pay. That’s one of several reasons why it’s so egregious to make the argument that wealthy people should pay at a lesser rate than the average person.

    It’s truly disturbing when those with higher education like you basically advocate for theft from the rest of us because you don’t want to pay for the many governmental services you receive. It’s reminiscent of Ayn Rand applying for Social Security and Medicare benefits in her dotage.

  • Chris Matthewson

    Fortunately, I’m not a Democrat!

  • Wheels55

    This is another reason Obama and his supporters were brilliant in the use of smoke and mirrors. They used the phrase “fair share” in a way that is not easily defined and explained but is easy for people to feel emotional about. But it still remains as “feeling” that we must deal with. Educating people about taxing the rich not adding up to enough tax revenue is a must. If a liberal were to win the Whitehouse in 2016, they will have to deal with this issue – so game on Republicans – now win it.

  • FloridaJim

    You are correct they allowed Obama to direct the debate subjects and he obfuscated everything. Boehner, McConnell, Graham, McCain, Ryan, et al still do not have the conversations that are meaningful they allow Obama and his media to control the message, the timing of the message and the content of the message instead of demanding time on every outlet to state their case and defend it. Weakness permeates Republicanism.

  • G. Daylan

    I saw Rep, Van Hollen (D, MD) discussing the inheritance tax and how, if we go over the cliff, that tax rate will return to the Clinton era levels. He said “The wealthy will get a five million dollar exemption from taxes on their estates and, after that, they will pay only 45% taxes on the remainder of it. That is extremely fair. Why do they need so much money?” This statement opened my eyes to the Progressive opinion of property. In their view, government can take property by force and give it to others if it is deemed by government that this property is in excess of the individual’s need. And, who shall determine what an individual’s need is? Why government of course. When this kind of underlying principle was presented to the founders of this nation they revolted and explained their reasons for revolting in our Declaration. I am sure that Rep. Van Hollen has read the Declaration but apparently he doesn’t choose to understand it. Now, at least, I see where he and Obama have validated their positions.

    • John Daly

      Van Hollen is a hack, and always has been. Anytime a commonsense idea comes along that would actually help the economy, he’s one of the first Dems to run to the cameras to demagogue it. It’s all he’s good for.

  • Gizmo

    And you guys are just NOW figuring this our!?!?!? Of course it should have been dealt with… YEARS AGO!!! Not just THIS election! The irresponsibility of this government goes back at least a couple decades, if not even longer. We lost sight of Constitutional roles & separation of governments (State vs Fed) at least 2 generations ago.

    • Switchlight13

      Actually it was in 1865. Some might argue that the United States that was born in 1776 died in 1865.

  • cjeeden

    I think O’Reilly is embarassed by his wealth and should not be – his taxes have to be immense. But he needs a simpler explaination than that brilliant response by Krauthammer.
    A simple expanation for a “simple guy” is – should O’Reilly pay more for a loaf of bread than I because he can afford it? Of course not. Fair share and being able to pay more are not taxation justification but excuses to shame someone into capitulation.

  • catholicvoter

    Oops! Just realized Bernie didn’t write the piece. Sorry John. Great article.

    • John Daly

      lol. No problem.

  • catholicvoter

    I saw the interview Bernie speaks of and, as usual Krauthammer was right. It was an exceptional segment on the program and if you haven’t seen it you might want to check it out.

  • Shane

    I agree that Romney missed out by not challenging Obama’s nonsense about the rich not paying their fair share. How is it fair that some workers actually get free money from the government (the earned income tax credit) while others pay almost 40%, which is what Obama wants. I agree that we could eliminate some deductions to make the system fairer. Obama played the class warfare game and he won.

  • Bob Cordon

    The “fair-share” theory comes directly from Socialism 101. The only power that should be vested is in the government, not individuals. Those with wealth are an
    obstruction to total control by government. Make the people dependent on the government, disarm them, and turn them against each other. Sound familiar?
    Good article.

  • Switchlight13

    If the average American were smart enough to read Bernie’s site we wouldn’t have these “tax problems”. Sadly, the recent election indicates that the majority of voters are idiots. Besides, it appears gun control is now priority number one with the Democrats & Obama. Forget the fiscal cliff. Hopfully they do some kind of useless feel good ban and we can do to them what we did in 1994 after their last “ban”.

  • Patrick H.

    Good point, now that I think of it, I never heard the term “fair share” used in relation for taxes before President Obama and too often taxes have become a moral issue rather than a necessity issue, a necessary evil if you will.

  • Chris Matthewson

    The undercurrent to your & Krauthammer’s argument is your apparent dissatisfaction with our hundred-year-old Sixteenth Amendment (granting authority to the federal government to levy an income tax) and even our Constitution’s original grant of power to Congress to provide for the general welfare of the people (beyond “roads and bridges” and a few other things you will grudgingly concede). When called on your anti-constitutional views, you will agree that Congress should provide a “safety net,” but you do not explain that your version of that net would result in widespread misery and entail a repeal of much of the anti-poverty legislation of the last half century and even a significant scale back of the Social Security and Medicare programs. Rather than face those debates head-on (a debate that you would surely lose, leaving you even more politically impotent than you are now; but which could help push the liberals to accept more significant cuts), you take the coward’s approach, advocating for policies that would, if adopted, ultimately cause those programs to wither and die on the vine.

    You, and no doubt the vast majority of those who inhabit this website, believe we are all egregiously over-taxed; but the logical extension of your argument is that the poorest working day laborers should pay the same tax rate as the wealthiest billionaires. Even children could appreciate why that argument is not only “unfair,” but not correct and, more importantly, not in our nation’s best interest. And it is a sad irony how you supposedly fiscally responsible conservatives continue to scoff at the alleged insignificance of another $80 Billion a year in the federal till?

    The other disastrous result, should your cynical taxation arguments prevail, would be to hasten the day when our economy collapses under the weight of our yawning federal deficits and National Debt, already of epic proportions. Of course, your secret agenda may be, in fact, to do just that. But you do so at the risk of marginalizing yourselves to such an extent, that you will lose whatever grip you currently have on political power.

    You are currently hanging on by your fingertips in this debate. That is a cliff from which you, and only you, can save yourselves.

    The truly moral question, which you and many on this website ignore, is the immorality of stealing from our children and future generations to pay for the perceived needs of the current generation, including the wars (that you supported), social programs and the like. We have already bequeathed them a world with many horrors. I hope we have the moral courage to make the sacrifices necessary to right the many financial wrongs we have already committed.

    • trailbee

      I believe you missed the entire point, Sir.

      • John Daly

        He absolutely did, and quite stunningly so. I don’t think he read any of my column beyond the title.

        • Chris Matthewson

          You are quite stunningly shocked, like Captain Renault when he “discovers” gambling going on in Rick’s joint, when you are called out to face the clear implications of your own arguments.

          • John Daly

            Chris, all I ask is that you read my columns before replying to them. You clearly did not. Every argument you made either agreed with me, or had nothing to do with what I wrote. It makes me think you’re copying and pasting your stuff from somewhere else on the web.

          • Chris Matthewson

            I guess I’ll have to connect the dots for you: At base, your argument is that Obama’s call for a higher tax rate on the wealthiest among us is couched in terms of “fairness.” Your (and Krauthammer’s) glaring blind spot is your failure to recognize that, given the extraordinary lack of parity between revenue (what the government takes in) and expenses (what the government spends), it is exceedingly “fair” that some of that a larger proportional burden be borne by those who can most afford it.

            Your failure to see the implications of your own arguments is astounding; but not really surprising, since you, and many who opine on this site, repeatedly attempt to narrow the issues to avoid an overt discussion of those implications. I believe you actually understand this very well.

            But you are welcome to keep asserting that it is I who am completely missing your point.

          • John Daly

            Missed it again, Chris. In repeatedly assuming that I’m against a progressive tax rate (which I’m not), you’ve spent a considerable amount of time arguing with yourself. I’m talking entirely about how changes to our tax code are rationalized to the public. With that hint in mind, give it another read and see if anything new jumps out at you.

          • Chris Matthewson

            I am glad to hear you are not at all against a fair, progressive tax. Next, you’ll be saying how reasonable & fair it would be to return to the Clinton era tax rates for the upper 2%.

            I’m sure you’ve surprised a few of your readers with your last comment.

          • John Daly

            I never called it “fair”, Chris. The progressive tax code is anything but fair. It’s clear you don’t have the capacity to understand the simple point being made in the column. People who aren’t rich and are paying little or no taxes should be endlessly thanking rich people (not vilifying them) for carrying the burden. Taxes aren’t about fairness.

          • Chris Matthewson

            It is evident that YOU need to go back and read what you’ve written–a mass of contradictory obfuscation worthy of a Philadelphia trial attorney. But I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt: that you are simply confused.

            You write, “People who aren’t rich and are paying little or no taxes should be endlessly thanking rich people (not vilifying them) for carrying the burden.” You could just as truthfully have written instead, “People who ARE rich and are paying little or no taxes should be endlessly thanking the majority of the country (not vilifying them) for carrying the burden.”

            Taxes, like everything else involving governmental policy, IS, at least in large part, about fairness. Your failure, and the failure of other dinosaur conservatives like Krauthammer, to recognize this plain fact, brands you as out of the mainstream of the political debate–even the mainstream of conservative thought.

            You can continue making your farcical assertion that I simply can’t understand the points you are trying to make. But you and I both know very well the snake oil you are attempting to sell here.

          • John Daly

            Chris, I understand that you’re frustrated over not being able to follow logic that no one else here seems to be having any trouble with. I’m sure it’s not easy being the last guy in the room to ‘get it’. School was probably pretty rough on you. You have my sympathy. If only you could bring yourself to understand that this “who’s on first?” exercise is only happening because you continue to debate false assumptions and wrong conclusions that you’ve drawn about me, rather than anything I’ve actually written. You’re desperate to create a false argument, and because I’m not playing along with it, you’re getting fussy. You complain that I’m contradicting myself when I’m only contradicting a phony narrative you’ve created on your own.

            I’m going to try this one last time, just because I’m feeling particularly charitable tonight and I’m really hoping (probably naively) that a light-bulb might actually switch on in your head. Please read it carefully, because it will be my last attempt.

            Taxation isn’t about fairness or morality. It’s purely a mechanism to pay for government spending. Tax revenue should be applied to specific spending, not merely “the greater good”. Making taxation about “fair shares” gives the government a moral claim to people’s money to do with it whatever they want. We don’t work for the government. They work for us.

            I’m not opposed to a progressive tax code, but not because I think it’s “fair”. It’s not fair. There’s nothing fair about the top 1% of income earners pay 40% of the total taxes. There’s nothing fair about the top 10% paying close to 80%. There’s nothing fair about half the country not paying taxes at all. A progressive tax code cuts a break to people of less means. It is “charitable”, not “fair”. There’s a big difference, and I’m not opposed to being charitable in this way.

            The government has no moral claim to my money or yours. It is a legal claim. Making a moral case for taxation absolves the government from having to ever control spending, and that is what is absolutely killing this country.

          • Chris Matthewson

            Simply quoting from your last reply will expose your continuing obfuscation and denial of the obvious:

            You write: “Taxation isn’t about fairness….”

            Of course it is. Ever since pre-Revolutionary times, with its Stamp Tax and Boston Tea Party, a key component of American tax policy has been FAIRNESS.

            “It’s purely a mechanism to pay for government spending.”

            Pure rubbish. Actually, the tax laws promote all sorts of governmental policies, some of which even you might support, such as encouraging charitable giving and home ownership.

            “Tax revenue should be applied to specific spending, not merely ‘the greater good’.”

            A false argument. The issue is how to raise sufficient revenue to pay for the ongoing expenses of the government. When the government is spending much more money than it is taking in, either taxes must be significantly raised or spending dramatically reduced. The only reasonable option is to do both. This will take a COMPROMISE, a word apparently offensive to you (and many others on this website).

            You write: “Making taxation about ‘fair shares’ gives the government a moral claim to people’s money to do with it whatever they want.”

            No it doesn’t. You again confuse and conflate the two issues (raising revenue and spending). The essential problem in Washington is that money is spent without much regard to the amount of money actually raised! You appear to believe (if you actually believe what you write) that our government simply raises as much money as it can, without regard to the needs of the nation, and then sits on this giant pile of cash, doling it out to various interest groups. The truth is actually must worse: The government is NOT raising anywhere near enough revenue to pay for all its perceived needs. In a real sense, you anti-taxers are as bad as the over-spenders, as you BOTH want to suck from the political teat, but in different ways: You and your crowd want to avoid paying for the programs our democratically elected representatives have voted for. The Big Spending liberals want to keep doling it out without regard to the actual tax income of the nation. Both sides are equally irresponsible (and dishonest).

            You write: “I’m not opposed to a progressive tax code, but not because I think it’s ‘fair’. It’s not fair.”

            Like Lewis Carroll’s Humpty Dumpty you believe you can re-define the word “fair” and have everyone accept your twisted definition. The word, in the context you have used it, actually means “In accordance with established rules or standards; legitimate; without cheating or trying to achieve unjust advantage; free from self-interest, prejudice, or
            favoritism.” That is exactly what our nation’s tax policy should be trying to achieve. We can debate how well it achieves that goal, but it is irrational to assert (as you repeatedly have done above–and no doubt will attempt again) that tax policy should not be about fairness.

            You continue, “There’s nothing fair about the top 1% of income earners pay 40% of the total taxes. There’s nothing fair about the top 10% paying close to 80%. There’s nothing fair about half the country not paying taxes at all. A progressive tax code cuts a break to people of less means. It is ‘charitable’, not ‘fair’.”

            Alas, fairness is in the eye of the beholder. Your argument would no doubt appeal to the unsophisticated. Yet, anybody who gives the matter a little thought would see the fallacies in your assertions. For example, it is not the percentage of top earners that must be compared to the rest of the earners, but the TOTAL AMOUNT of income earned by that percentage that should be compared to the total of the remainder. Here’s another mistake you make: Your taxation argument is akin to saying that a rich man who performs the same illegality should be fined the same amount as a poor man: for example, that a $1000 fine for each is perfectly fair, without regard to the financial wherewithal of each. In addition, you totally ignore the fact that the tax in question taxes only income–it does not at all tax wealth, a fact which certainly does implicate fairness to a huge degree. Finally, you ignore how many wealthy individuals take advantage of our Tax Code to pay taxes at rates LESS THAN those with average incomes (the Warren Buffet scenario). Of course, you would probably justify a lower tax rate for passive income (capital gains), even for multi-millionaires and billionaires; however, most reasonable people would see this squarely as a FAIRNESS issue.

            You write: “The government has no moral claim to my money or yours.”

            Of course it does, unless you believe (and perhaps you do!) that you should have absolutely no financial responsibility for the many government services and benefits you receive. Not recognizing your (shared) moral responsibility in this regard makes you worse than the “freeloaders” you are probably so quick to condemn.

            Now, finally, we will see if your assertion that your above reply “will be [your] last attempt to” explain the unexplainable, to justify the unjustifiable and to deny the undeniable was just another lie.

          • Joel Wischkaemper

            “..glaring blind spot is your failure to recognize that, given the extraordinary lack of parity between revenue (what the government takes in) and expenses (what the government spends), it is exceedingly “fair” that a larger proportional burden be borne by those who can most afford it.”

            The Federal Government needs to withdraw from micro-management of State Economies in any form. That is not happening, and the money demanded by the Federal Government to continue being a major player in the State Affair moves well beyond the common good, and moves to the benefit of the individual states, and groups within those States. And so when we ARE looking at Federal Expenses, we ARE looking at irrational demands by the Federal Government, and nothing seems to be stopping that move to micro-management. I seriously and strenuously challenge your assumption that there is a legitimate expense that needs to be covered by drawing from one group rather than drawing from all.
            Move Governmental costs to the State level, and any lack of funds for necessary State expenditures can far more easily be dealt with in a manner that is not punitive to any single group.

          • Patrick H.

            John’s right, Chris. Also, could you please keep your posts a little shorter? It’s hard to read such a large block of a comment. Keep in mind that you’re writing a comment, not an article. If you have that much to say, get your own website and write your own articles.

          • Chris Matthewson

            Patrick, please exercise your freedom not to read any of my longer posts. On the other hand, I will try to keep them shorter.

          • Patrick H.

            *rolls eyes* Gee, you think I was trying to infringe on your First Amendment Rights.

          • Chris Matthewson

            Not at all. You were just expressing your opinion, which you have every right to do. As you can tell, it would take a lot more than that to shut me up!

    • Stephen Boone

      The general welfare clause is PART OF the taxing authority, NOT A GENERAL POWER. Learn to read. If I say you may buy a rug to redecorate the house that does NOT mean you have general powers to do anything you want to redecorate my house. The constitution says that the congress can tax to do certain things that provide for the general welfare. That doesn’t mean they can do anything they think of that might make things, in their feeble opinions, better. GET IT???

      • Chris Matthewson

        I cannot dispute your authority to speak on behalf of those with half a brain. But for those of us who can think rationally, I can say that your extremely narrow view of the general welfare clause has been repeatedly rejected ever since 1936. In fact, Justice Roberts’ recent opinion in the Obamacare decision quite neatly refutes your position.

        I suppose you would also like to see the substantive due process doctrine resurrected from its disgraced tomb. Unfortunately for you and the other dinosaur conservatives, you were born about 100 years too late.

  • Bill

    The original term was Taxmageddon which accurately portrayed the upcoming problem. The liberals changed it to fiscal cliff to deflect the blame onto the Republicans. It should be called the tax cliff and place the issue back onto the liberals. The whole idea of fairness is thus avoided. As with everything in politics, presentation is what is important to the public and not the issue.

  • Brhurdle

    I also don’t blame Romney for the loss since I had the same misconception that people would realize that the Obama Admnistration had been a dismal economic failure – but for some reason unknown to me many people chose to stay home and not vote for a new approach. O’Reilly is a strong street fighter with basically good intuitions, but he is not the sharpest tool in the shed and sometimes falls prey to straw man arguements. The progressive movement has been pursuing the fairness/equity/victim agenda for decades and it has resonated with lower income levels since they now have someone to blame for their circumstances. I personally believe the pursuit of this issue during the campaign would have alienated more voters. The “47% remark” was not intended to cast aspersions on these people but was a recognition that their votes were not obtainable – look how it was used to great effect against Romney.

    • Joel Wischkaemper

      I believe a great many of the problems Mr. Romney ran into in the election could have been dealt with very well with a good web page. I hate hind-sighters, but but ..facts.. beat the unceasing parade of street gossip coming out of the left. Links prove points to people who thoroughly distrust Government.

      • John Daly

        I wish you were right, Joel, but facts have very little to do with how the public approaches issues these days. The media has made certain of that.

  • iammlr

    Have you ever noticed how when you ask liberals what a “fair share” is, they will never give a number? I have NEVER been able to pin any of my liberal friends down on this. I finally came to the conclusion that it is different for every person. The liberal version of “fair share” is never based upon what someone is paying or has already paid in taxes, it is based on what you have left in your wallet and if they think it is too much (and it always is), they want it!

  • Mike in Stamford, CT

    For the life of me, why not do the simple math and show it to the people?? I did. According to the latest IRS figures I could find, (2009), income from the over $200K folks in that bracket alone was about $570B. The current tax rates took about 1/3 of that, leaving about $380B. Going back to Clinton tax rates (say 5%+ for simplicity), only brings in another $30B OR each incremental 1% point raises $6B, the proverbial drop in the bucket on a debt of $16T and an annual deficit of over $1T. How difficult would that have been???

  • trailbee

    This is an incredibly good article. Thank you. Personally, I went berserk, ballistic, nuts, call it what you will, when Mitt did not address the fact of taxes as a moral issue. Charles K. was correct – we need taxes as a necessity, (Andrew Mellon, 1924). However, there is no end to creating necessities! O would have been brain-dead if he had not won with this little scheme!

    Like good Socialists, the French have taken their cue, and following O in pick-pocketing American investors. The lifespan of the golden goose is not infinite!

  • RickonhisHarleyJohnson

    I tend not to watch O’Reilly beginning to end, but try to catch Bernie Goldberg, Charles Krauthammer, and others like them. Wasn’t surprised that O’Reilly thought tax rates were low. He doesn’t get economics for the most part. Loved Charles Krauthammer’s schooling of him. Fantastic – though probably lost on O’Reilly still.

  • SeattleSam

    Once you posit that it is a role of government to equalize outcomes among the population (e.g. racial quotas), equalizing income is a logical, albeit destructive, extension.

    • Shane

      Comrade Obama wants us all to be equal, and he will make that happen by redistributing wealth.

      • Wheels55

        Except Obama does not want us to all be equal, he wants conservatives to be less than liberals.

      • bobemakk

        I agree, but pray you are wrong.

  • nickshaw

    Perhaps a question to pose in conjunction with this argument, where I agree with the good doctor, by the way, is “Why?”
    Why does a citizen of Texas have to pay for the mistakes made by the legislatures of Illinois, for example?
    Why does any citizen have to pay for studies of liquor and hookers in China?
    I could go on and so could you.
    Ask those who want to raise taxes on anyone, why do you want your money spent on these things? Does it do you any good?

    I think it’s time someone was brave enough to stand up and say this is madness. Every dollar spent by the federal government needs to be examined to assure it will be spent for the common good of all citizens.

    That we should be our brother’s keeper is fine at the local or state level but, when applied nationally, with every bureaucrat striving to protect their own personal fiefdom, it becomes nothing more than a scam.

    • m444ss

      Your going-in question is exacttly why the tax deduction for state income taxes should be abolished. This deduction serves only to force citizens of states like NH & TX subsidize citizens of high income tax states (generally the more leftist states) like CA & NY.

  • gbandy

    Just like the dozens of new job killing regulations the EPA is dumping on us. Seems from Benghazi to taxes everything will wait until after the election. I guess Obama knew he could keep his followers as ignorant as he needed to get their votes. It worked. Now with taxes just wait Obama does not have to worry about re-election so just wait and see what he has in store for all the People.

    • Joel Wischkaemper

      Just like the dozens of new job killing regulations the EPA is dumping on us.


      This idea requires a link. I do not want the EPA to abuse the American People, but I also don’t want individual investors telling us “’s no problem.. we can fix it later.” We have a huge number suppurating wounds in our country by very bad decisions about the country and how that part of it affects this part of it. We need the EPA and if some don’t like it, let them go drink the Jet Fuel that was leaked into the Albuquerque Water Supply. Better yet, eat the crops where the irrigation water comes from the plutonium plume moving south from the Hanford Nuclear Repository.
      I believe.. I do believe, a rational argument against irrational regulations work. In the meantime, we need every regulation I have seen and much, much more.

  • WallyC

    Unfortunately the O backers mostly do not understand this or have any desire to change their viewpoint. The only way this will change, is when it starts hitting their wallets, or government checks in this instance.