The Right Opinion
Eat the Rich
I've often said that I wish there were some humane way to get rid of the rich. If you asked why, I'd answer that getting rid of the rich would save us from distraction by leftist hustlers promoting the politics of envy. Not having the rich to fret over might enable us to better focus our energies on what's in the best interest of the 99.99 percent of the rest of us. Let's look at some facts about the rich laid out by Bill Whittle citing statistics on his RealClearPolitics video "Eat the Rich."
This year, Congress will spend $3.7 trillion dollars. That turns out to be about $10 billion per day. Can we prey upon the rich to cough up the money? According to IRS statistics, roughly 2 percent of U.S. households have an income of $250,000 and above. By the way, $250,000 per year hardly qualifies one as being rich. It's not even yacht and Learjet money. All told, households earning $250,000 and above account for 25 percent, or $1.97 trillion, of the nearly $8 trillion of total household income. If Congress imposed a 100 percent tax, taking all earnings above $250,000 per year, it would yield the princely sum of $1.4 trillion. That would keep the government running for 141 days, but there's a problem because there are 224 more days left in the year.
How about corporate profits to fill the gap? Fortune 500 companies earn nearly $400 billion in profits. Since leftists think profits are little less than theft and greed, Congress might confiscate these ill-gotten gains so that they can be returned to their rightful owners. Taking corporate profits would keep the government running for another 40 days, but that along with confiscating all income above $250,000 would only get us to the end of June. Congress must search elsewhere.
According to Forbes 400, America has 400 billionaires with a combined net worth of $1.3 trillion. Congress could confiscate their stocks and bonds, and force them to sell their businesses, yachts, airplanes, mansions and jewelry. The problem is that after fleecing the rich of their income and net worth, and the Fortune 500 corporations of their profits, it would only get us to mid-August. The fact of the matter is there are not enough rich people to come anywhere close to satisfying Congress' voracious spending appetite. They're going to have to go after the non-rich.
But let's stick with the rich and ask a few questions. Politicians, news media people and leftists in general entertain what economists call a zero elasticity view of the world. That's just fancy economic jargon for a view that government can impose a tax and people will behave after the tax just as they behaved before the tax, and the only change is more government revenue. One example of that vision, at the state and local levels of government, is the disappointing results of confiscatory tobacco taxes. Confiscatory tobacco taxes have often led to less state and local revenue because those taxes encouraged smuggling.
Similarly, when government taxes profits, corporations report fewer profits and greater costs. When individuals face higher income taxes, they report less income, buy tax shelters and hide their money. It's not just rich people who try to avoid taxes, but all of us -- liberals, conservatives and libertarians.
What's the evidence? Federal tax collections have been between 15 and 20 percent of the nation's Gross Domestic Product every year since 1960. However, between 1960 and today, the top marginal tax rate has varied between 91 percent and 35 percent. That means whether taxes are high or low, people make adjustments in their economic behavior so as to keep the government tax take at 15 to 20 percent of the GDP. Differences in tax rates have a far greater impact on economic growth than federal revenues.
So far as Congress' ability to prey on the rich, we must keep in mind that rich people didn't become rich by being stupid.
COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

13 Comments
Bruce
Wednesday, April 13, 2011 at 7:21 AM
Just like the income tax when first introduced nearly a century ago, only the very wealthiest people would have paid them. Thanks to socialists in our government indexing taxes to the inflation they created, nearly everyone pays tax. And thanks to their further efforts since, we're back to a small percentage of "wealthy" Americans paying the majority of taxes out of their pockets for the 50% who pay nothing. The naked Marxist barry soetoro is implementing his plan for total redistribution of wealth in the United States. This scam today will be nothing more than continued payoffs to those who contribute to his $1B campaign fund for re-election while appearing to be a "moderate". This government will stop at nothing to steal every last dime by destroying the middle class, forcing those who have the means to invest and build the nation to flee, and enlarging his socialist, collectivist power base. Poor people never wrote someone else's pay check. And when the government took over that role they had to steal it from the ones who did. Anyone who doesn't think that is a recipe for destroying America, is making it happen. This government is run by traitors to America and is at war with every citizen and legal immigrant. And they are winning. It's past time for payback.
Doktor Riktor Von Zhades
Wednesday, April 13, 2011 at 8:11 AM
"Confiscatory tobacco taxes have often led to less state and local revenue because those taxes encouraged smuggling."Indeed so, and likewise it is so that when the price (via the constant imposition of endlessly increasing the taxing of tobacco products), of smoking a good cigar, or having that morning cigarette reaches a point wherein it causes more people to quit, there is less purchase of the aforementioned tobacco product and by extension less tax revenue. I could never quite understand the zealousness of those who would love to see a total ban on tobacco, (equating it to an illicit drug status), but fail to realize that there'd be less government revenue if such a ban were implemented.
TruthInAction
Wednesday, April 13, 2011 at 8:42 AM
Thank you, Dr. Williams. Don't you just hate logic and evidence?Of course, those who covet these "riches" will simply dismiss this as "there are lies, then there are damn lies, and then their are statistics".This is more preferable. Always enjoy seeing your Wednesday publication. It's right up there with the Federalist Papers.
Melisa
Wednesday, April 13, 2011 at 9:20 AM
Where are all the celebrities? They should be outraged! They are affected by this too- or I guess they will have some kind of exemption status? I'm sure just like the companies that support the send all got exempt from the new health care rules - they will fund an excuse to give them a way around it too. Seems like they would speak out against- but I guess as long as they know they are being forced to be charitable they are ok with it.
Dewdus
Wednesday, April 13, 2011 at 9:25 AM
I rather enjoyed your article, Mr. Williams. It always baffles me beyond description how leftists and our current administration believe raising national tax rates will make our nation's deficit magically disappear. Rather than focusing on taxing the more well-off (rich) citizens of this country, The Hill should focus on NOT SPENDING. Taxation through envy is no answer to our debt...and Obama is no answer to our country's leadership requisites.
KN
Wednesday, April 13, 2011 at 9:26 AM
"The problem is that after fleecing the rich of their income and net worth, and the Fortune 500 corporations of their profits, it would only get us to mid-August."One other problem is what to do the following year when there are no rich left to fleece? I guess we could redefine rich as being anyone making over $35,000.
Robert Risko
Wednesday, April 13, 2011 at 9:32 AM
Are we guaranteed free trade among the States?So why is "shopping in a more economically friendly community/State" called "smuggling"? I suppose the restriction on this statement is ONLY if those purchases are being resold in the high-taxing community without being reported as retail sales.Otherwise, I can shop wherever I am willing travel within the United States for the best price/lowest tax rates, right?!
Ronald Woodhouse
Wednesday, April 13, 2011 at 3:39 PM
I suggest the writer look at the history of taxes and the gaps of income before he makes accusatory statements.
Steve
Wednesday, April 13, 2011 at 4:30 PM
Since ALL of our money is BORROWED into existence, how can you pay off any debt? We are just passing around promises (notes redeemable in more notes). Am I better off when I borrow on one credit card to pay off another one? Or from the Chinese to pay off...oh, forget that...we never pay anyone off.
Steve
Wednesday, April 13, 2011 at 4:59 PM
Since ALL of our money is BORROWED into existence, how can you pay off any debt? We are just passing around promises (notes redeemable in more notes). Am I better off when I borrow on one credit card to pay off another one? Or from the Chinese to pay off...oh, forget that...we never pay anyone off.
Jsmith
Thursday, April 14, 2011 at 8:50 AM
The scary thing, Dr Williams, is that Congress would do ALL of those things before they reduce spending -- in other words, address the real problem.
mrkim
Thursday, April 14, 2011 at 9:34 AM
Though it's often been stated of our current ills, it's seemingly not sinkin in with the current administration : We do not have a taxation or revenue stream problem, we have a govt. SPENDING problem.BTW, bein one of those nasty nicotine addicted folks I'd be remiss were I to fail to thank the above mentioned admin for the additional $10 per lb. tax they levied on the roll-your-own bulk tobacco I opted for 2 yrs ago in tryin to shave shekels. It seems taxin the bejeebers outta the ready-made smokes I used to enjoy wasn't extending the full powers of govt. taxation quite far enough, so Obozo and company remedied that situation post-hast early on in their search for an ever expanding revenue stream. I suppose to most folks such a move is Ok, even if it is overbearing and nearly doubled the price of this product in the marketplace. Afterall, why should anyone rail against such an increase when it goes for supporting the wonders of socialistic governmental enterprises instead of the producers and sellers of a product, right?Kim Steele
William
Tuesday, August 9, 2011 at 9:16 PM
While there is a call for fairness and balance in budget discussion, there is no fairness or balance in the discussion of entitlement reform and the costs thereof. Wage earners with family incomes over $250,000 are asked in the name of "fairness", "balance" and compromise to accept a higher tax rate to aid in the payment of entitlement benefits. Fifty one percent of Families pay no Federal income tax. Two percent of families have incomes in excess of $250,000. Accordingly, the entitlement debate for 98% of the families boils down to something like "Would you prefer to (a) push back your social security retirement age a few years cut or (b) keep it where it is and have your neighbor pay higher taxes?" Amazingly enough in polls, less than 98% choose to have their neighbor's taxes raised. A truly "balanced dialogue" can occur only if 100% of families had to pay toward any tax increase for maintenance of the higher levels, albeit on a graduated basis. For example, an approach might be to levy a 1% tax on all income from $1-$300,000.00; 2% on all incomes from $300,000-$1000,000; and $3% on all incomes over $1,000,000. This accomplishes two things: First, all families now have an interest in capping entitlement costs and growth, because it is no longer someone else paying for it -- it is all families. Second, while there are those who will object to any new taxes, I believe there will be less objection because again, all are participating and two percent of the taxpayers will no t have to fee that they are carrying the other 98%. The numbers may not be perfect, it is a start. Everyone has to understand that we can't have it all for free. There has to be a realization that the need for cuts is real -- if we imposed a 100% tax on the wealthy, the growth of the entitlement system would still cause it to collapse under its own weight: then we would have neither the wealthy not the entitlements, and we would all be poorer for it.