'What do we want?' 'Free stuff!' 'Who's gonna give it to us?' 'The government!' 'Who's going to pay for it?' 'The One Percent!' "What can't we do? 'Basic arithmetic!'
Right now, we're running a catastrophic 18 trillion dollar deficit. If all of Bernie Sanders' proposals were implimented, they would cost another 18 trillion.
How to pay for it? Easy Soak the rich. Make that demonic "One Percent" step up to the plate and pay its "fare share!"
Except that the top 50% of all taxpayers currently pay 97.2% of all Federal income taxes; the top one percent pay 38.1%, and the bottom 90% pay 29.7%. Which is as it should be. The principle of a graduated income tax has behind it the reasonable idea that the burden of paying for the work of the Federal government should lay most heavily upon the shoulders of those best able to bear that burden. But on the other hand, when one percent of the population pays 38.1% of the taxes, it's hard to make the case that they're not carrying much more than ther weight!
Sorry, Mike Huckabee and all you Flat Tax advocates, but it's a matter of simple fairness.
But what happens when you point those statistics out to a "progressive?" Invariably he or she will simply refuse to accept them, and will consider that an adequate response to them. Like the ostrich sticking its head in the sand, they seem to think that if they deny reality it will obligingly go away. Except, of course, that the world doesn't work that way. Unless you're a Christian Scientist (or a Democrat), it's patent that reality doesn't care very much one way or the other about whether one acknowledges it.
Reality says that the Left's numbers when it comes to soaking the rich almost never add up. And it also says that somebody will still have to pay for all those goodies. Therein lies the problem. As Margarent Thatcher pointed out, the problem with looking to the government to provide for every aspect of your life is that "sooner or later you run out of other people's money!"
The response of the woman in the video below upon being confronted with the economic facts of life is fairly typical of the response of "progressives" generally to having their wholly imaginary "reality" challeged by mere facts.
Mrs. Thatcher was right. Eventually you do run out of other people's money, and it is simply not true that the resources of the "one percent" are either infinite or sufficient to pay for all the goodies the Left keeps thinking they can be made to pay for.
And another thing: when tax rates reach a certain level for the rich, it will no longer make sense to become rich. What, after all, is the practical difference between having one cookie and having ten if having ten means that nine of them are going to be taken away from you? And if the percentage of the cookies you are allowed to keep keeps dropping the more cookies you have, there comes a point at which you gain nothing by baking any more.
Among the probems this creates is that you no longer have people to take cookies from to give to the cookie-deprived. Everybody goes hungry.
But what does that matter? Those greedy SOB's don't have more cookies than we do anymore!
A word of warning: watching this video will be painful. As Herman Cain points out, as ridiculous and foolish as this young woman's position is, nobody should be embarassed this way, especially on national TV.
But on the other hand, at some point somebody has to break it to the "progressives" that in the real world all those goodies have to be paid for- and the One Percent can't even begin to pay for them.
And neither can the rest of us.
How to pay for it? Easy Soak the rich. Make that demonic "One Percent" step up to the plate and pay its "fare share!"
Except that the top 50% of all taxpayers currently pay 97.2% of all Federal income taxes; the top one percent pay 38.1%, and the bottom 90% pay 29.7%. Which is as it should be. The principle of a graduated income tax has behind it the reasonable idea that the burden of paying for the work of the Federal government should lay most heavily upon the shoulders of those best able to bear that burden. But on the other hand, when one percent of the population pays 38.1% of the taxes, it's hard to make the case that they're not carrying much more than ther weight!
Sorry, Mike Huckabee and all you Flat Tax advocates, but it's a matter of simple fairness.
But what happens when you point those statistics out to a "progressive?" Invariably he or she will simply refuse to accept them, and will consider that an adequate response to them. Like the ostrich sticking its head in the sand, they seem to think that if they deny reality it will obligingly go away. Except, of course, that the world doesn't work that way. Unless you're a Christian Scientist (or a Democrat), it's patent that reality doesn't care very much one way or the other about whether one acknowledges it.
Reality says that the Left's numbers when it comes to soaking the rich almost never add up. And it also says that somebody will still have to pay for all those goodies. Therein lies the problem. As Margarent Thatcher pointed out, the problem with looking to the government to provide for every aspect of your life is that "sooner or later you run out of other people's money!"
The response of the woman in the video below upon being confronted with the economic facts of life is fairly typical of the response of "progressives" generally to having their wholly imaginary "reality" challeged by mere facts.
Mrs. Thatcher was right. Eventually you do run out of other people's money, and it is simply not true that the resources of the "one percent" are either infinite or sufficient to pay for all the goodies the Left keeps thinking they can be made to pay for.
And another thing: when tax rates reach a certain level for the rich, it will no longer make sense to become rich. What, after all, is the practical difference between having one cookie and having ten if having ten means that nine of them are going to be taken away from you? And if the percentage of the cookies you are allowed to keep keeps dropping the more cookies you have, there comes a point at which you gain nothing by baking any more.
Among the probems this creates is that you no longer have people to take cookies from to give to the cookie-deprived. Everybody goes hungry.
But what does that matter? Those greedy SOB's don't have more cookies than we do anymore!
A word of warning: watching this video will be painful. As Herman Cain points out, as ridiculous and foolish as this young woman's position is, nobody should be embarassed this way, especially on national TV.
But on the other hand, at some point somebody has to break it to the "progressives" that in the real world all those goodies have to be paid for- and the One Percent can't even begin to pay for them.
And neither can the rest of us.
Comments