Skip to content

The Elizabeth Warren #classwar rebuttal deserves its own page

20120421_1361 Elizabeth Warren
2 comments
Jonathon
Jonathon

She keeps bringing up all of these things that the 'rest of us' paid for: 1) FIrst of all, it's ironic that in the United States the top 10% of income earners paid 70% of the taxes in 2009, (for the "next kid that comes along") and the top 1% of income earners paid 36% of taxes in the same year. (source:http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html) Honestly, it *is* unfair, but it's more the other way around: "THE RICH WILL ALWAYS PAY MORE THAN THEIR FAIR SHARE As the economy continues to recover, it’s likely that the top 1% of income earners will likely pay an even higher percentage share of overall income taxes than 38%. If things were fair, they would only have to pay 20% of total income taxes since 20% is their share of total income. Alas, the rich pay almost double what they owe.On the flip side, the bottom 50% who earn 12.75% of total earnings only pays a paltry 2.7% in total taxes. Inequality is wrong and we should treat everybody equally. Discrimination is not OK, just because you aren’t being discriminated against. The government should try to fix the imbalance by increasing the breadth of working Americans who pay taxes to 100% so that everybody pitches in. If all working Americans in the bottom 50% paid taxes, the 10% gap in what they should be paying should narrow.It doesn’t makes sense if you are in the bottom 50% who isn’t paying their fair share of taxes to go after the top 50%, let alone the top 1% who are paying way more than their share of income. Trying to squeeze people even more when you’re not paying any taxes, or paying very little is a throwback to tyranny. "(source: http://www.financialsamurai.com/2011/04/12/how-much-money-do-the-top-income-earners-make-percent/) 2) Ignoring all of that, the points that she was making argue more for *less* intervention in government, for *less* government spending (so the "rest of us" don't have to support freeloaders) , and seem to argue for *less* socialism, etc. Although it sounds radical, there are people that say there's no really good reason for the government (ie "the rest of us" via taxation) to be paying for: A) Education, B) Roads, or even C) Protection (eg private militia, security, etc) Hell, even *with* police, etc, many companies DO have to pay for their own protection and security, thank you very much. I, personally, am not one of those who advocate private roads or protection at least (those are both legitimate, Constitutional functions of Government. See Article I, section 8) But to the extent that they are paid for by all, they are generally used by all. She's talking about standard functions of Government as if "the rich" are somehow unfairly and unlawfully taking advantage of them, and as if such services aren't available to the rest of the public. 3) Assuming she's right, then the shoe is on the other foot, according to the (unbiased and bypartisan I might add) links I mentioned above. If the rich, the top 10% of income earners, pay 70% of the taxes, then they have more of a right, (70%-more of a right) according to HER logic, to use such services than the poor do. Same with the 1% who paid 36% of the federal income tax.