What is each American’s ‘fair share’?


As we pointed out in our last entry, it’s a common complaint that American political campaigns ignore real policy differences, in favor of personal smears.

(Especially true, this year. I wonder which side set out to do that from the beginning, seeking to distract voters from real policy differences between the candidates on issues like illegal immigration, Muslim terrorism, and the economy, instead coaching personal-attack witnesses for months, carefully timing the release dates of this made-up guff — see http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/09/30/fact-check-five-things-to-know-alicia-machado/ ) and then using a child actress (Brennan Leach) who also happens to be the daughter of a Democratic office-holder to plant a supposedly “spontaneous” scripted question to keep these manufactured “talking points” alive at a Hillary “Town Hall”? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q57g3ZWKV6w )?


But in fact, it would be hard to find a clearer, more diametrically opposed pair of proposals to re-invigorate the moribund American economy and again start creating good private-sector jobs, than the positions of these two candidates in the third presidential debate on Oct. 19.

Hillary Clinton -– who has virtually no experience working or creating jobs in the private sector — proudly said she wants to raise the minimum wage, and also to substantially increase taxation of “the rich” to make them “pay their fair share” . . . while Donald Trump said he wants to cut taxes on the kind of people who start businesses and build factories, or who earn enough in the free market to buy the stocks and bonds that FINANCE those job-creating efforts, allowing these hard-working entrepreneurs to keep more of what they earn in order to spur real job growth.

(Note that socialist redistributionists call it a “giveaway” when anyone proposes letting Americans — including the middle class — keep more of what THEY EARN . . . as though the government actually owns 100 percent of our earnings, and then decides what percentage they’re going to “give away” by letting us keep.)

Last time, we dealt with the minimum wage. But what about this idea that the federal government should raise tax rates to “make the rich pay their fair share”?


Imagine with me for a moment that I plan to fix a pot of chili this afternoon, but discover I’m out of red kidney beans. I head down to the store and grab a can, at 69 cents. (I could pay 89 cents or 99 cents for a “premium” brand, but in this case – unlike with say, Swiss cheese — frankly I can’t taste the difference.)

I then happen to look behind me, and . . . guess what? There, preparing to buy his own single can of red kidney beans — the same “house” brand — stands Bill Gates or Donald Trump!

The cashier now says, “Hold on a minute, there, Mr. Gates/Trump. This fellow ahead of you paid 69 cents for his can of beans, but I happen to know he earns about $25,000 a year, while I just read in the paper that you earned $500 million, last year. So, let me see here, my handy little calculator tells me your ‘fair share’ for that can of beans will be . . . $13,800.”

Can you imagine that happening in any free-market business in America? Or that most people waiting in line there at the checkout counter (after they got done laughing) would seriously call that “fair” and expect to see the hard-working businessman -– who over his lifetime has created tens of thousands of jobs -– pay that price . . . while waiting to see what the cashier would decide was THEIR highly variable “fair share,” today?

Of course not. The beans are priced based on their cost including overhead and handling, sufficient to generate a small profit without going high enough over competitors’ prices to drive customers to the Stop & Shop across the street. And the price is the same to everyone.

But wait! Our example above is NOT AS BAD as our current, socialist income tax system.

What we’ve just described above is a FLAT income tax system, a modest proposed reform which everyone on the Hillary-CNN-New-York-Times Left today scorns and savages as an unacceptable “giveaway to the rich”! Today in America, to mimic our actual, current, GRADUATED income tax system, the cashier would have to say, “No, wait, what was I thinking, Mr. Gates/Trump? Your income puts you in a higher bean-price fairness allocation BRACKET. To be ‘fair,’ you can’t merely pay the SAME percentage of your income for that can of beans; you have to pay a higher PERCENTAGE of your income. So I’m afraid that’s going to make your ‘fair share’ price for that can of beans today, um . . . $40,000.”


Why should government “services” be priced on any different “income percentage rate schedule” — depending on how hard we work and how much we earn — than a can of beans?


Let’s presume for the moment that our Nimitz-class nuclear aircraft carriers are necessary to protect America and keep us all safe. (Yes, this is debatable, given that they’re often used to “project American power” into places we’d be better off not meddling, which in some ways may end up making us LESS safe. But let’s grant the premise for now. In a dangerous world, even if I sometimes question its use, I for one am not ready to call for disbanding the U.S. Navy.)

One of those things costs about $9 billion, all up and running. (Actually, a new one was just commissioned at an estimated $13 billion, all in. But we’ll stick for now with the traditionally accepted $9 billion price tag. And I believe we’re now maintaining ten of them, although their survival rate in a nuclear war would be . . . well, you probably don’t want to know.)

Meantime, there are about 120 million actual federal income taxpayers in America. So the cost of one of those aircraft carriers, per taxpayer, is about $75. What’s the “fair share” of the cost for each American taxpayer? After all, most of us have just one life and just one home and just one set of children that aircraft carrier is going to “protect.” So, my “fair share,” obviously, is $75. Bill Gates’ “fair share” is $75. Donald Trump’s “fair share” is $75. The “fair share” of the homeless guy camped under the bridge is $75.

If you think it’s excessive to make poorer Americans pay $75 per aircraft carrier, the first question you might want to ask is whether we need ten, and if so whether there isn’t somewhere else we could cut.

Like maybe the price-fixing, malnutrition-encouraging Department of Agriculture; the economy-destroying EPA; the private-property-rights destroying BLM; the DEA (which currently helps lock up more than a million non-violent Americans with no constitutional justification); the Second-Amendment-infringing BATF; the useless and counterproductive DOE; the other useless and counterproductive DOE, any federal or state tax funding of today’s incredibly costly and wretchedly-performing coercion-based government schools . . .

The United States Constitution, as written, understood and embraced this truly “fair share” principle, creating only two kinds of federal taxes: the excise — an indirect tax assessed not directly on American consumers but instead on dealers of “privileged,” licensed luxury commodities, such as alcohol or, today, tires and gasoline (it’s Washington that declares those commodities to be “luxury goods,” don’t talk to me) — and “direct” taxes, which had to be “capitated”: that is to say, a “head tax” charged to and collected by the states based on their populations as revealed by the Census.

That’s the way Washington paid off the debt run up through the very expensive and bloody conquest and military subjugation of our neighboring, independent constitutional republic to the south, the Confederate States of America. They sent bills to the states. (Washington City had similarly conquered Mexico about 20 years earlier. In that case, though, they gave most of it back.)

This only changed with the ratification in 1913 of the socialist “income tax.” (Yes, there’s evidence Secretary of State Philander Knox lied when he claimed sufficient states had ratified. More importantly, the text of the Sixteenth Amendment does not specify federal income taxes shall be “direct” taxes. Since no earlier constitutional tax provisions are specifically repealed, that means any such federal taxes on income must be collected as an indirect excise. But let’s not get into that, here.)

Of course, proponents swore up and down this measure would never inconvenience anyone but the “very rich” — millionaires and the like.


Even then, Really Big Liar Franklin Roosevelt campaigned as late as 1932 on a Democratic platform calling for a “federal budget annually balanced,” personally calling the steeply graduated income tax and federal old-age pension plan demanded by the Socialist Party “fantastic and un-American.”

(Why don’t we see a prominent socialist party on our ballot in America today? Actually, we now have two -– the Republicrats and the Demopublicans — both far more terrified of Donald Trump than of Gary Johnson, or of each other. Why do you think all the Bushes vow to vote for Hillary?)

Once we move away from this notion that each adult’s “fair share” of a given tax is an EQUAL share, the greedy socialists refuse to set ANY maximum level to their dreamed-of “fair share” taxation. They simply soak “the rich” for as much as they can -– always excepting the REALLY rich, who hire lobbyists to bribe congresscritters to create all kind of special “exemptions” and “deductions” so that many of the very, very rich end up paying at lower effective rates than we’re told, leaving the bulk of the “redistributed” burden on the shoulders of very hard working, upper-middle-class business owners and investors who can’t afford to station their own, personal, tax-crafting lobbyists at the Capitol.

In fact, given the chance, Hillary would raise taxes on the middle class, just as Bill Clinton did, just as Barack Obama did: ( http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/hillary-will-raise-taxes-on-the-middle-class-just-like-bill-did/ .)



See Dan Mitchell demonstrate (again), in fewer than 500 words, why socialist redistribution will always fail, causing nothing but bitter in-fighting and universal poverty: https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2011/11/16/does-socialism-work-a-classroom-experiment/

See Veronique de Rugy at Reason magazine demonstrate “the rich” already pay far more than their “fair share” . . . and that (since taxpayers can engage in tax-avoidance behaviors, the most radical of which is to close their businesses and stop working) no increase in top marginal rates has ever resulted in a sustained overall “grab” of more than about 19 percent:

Finally, shifting more of the burden to the ill-defined “rich” simply doesn’t work, as Tom Rogan — columnist and frequent guest panelist on “The McLaughlin Group” — pointed out last December at http://opportunitylives.com/american-liberalisms-war-on-the-poor-the-tax-the-rich-myth/ :

“Consider the recent experiences of Britain and France in raising taxes ‘on the rich’ in order to bolster their public finances,” Mr. Rogan explains. “Britain’s tax increase a few years ago, from 40 percent to 50 percent, generated minimal revenue, while discouraging UK-based wealth creation.

“Similarly, punitive tax rates in France led to a massive flight of capital ( http://www.nationalreview.com/article/369999/socialisms-sad-estate-tom-rogan ), and an ensuing collapse of foreign investment and domestic economic confidence. Everyone lost out — especially those who rely upon wealth investment for their jobs and flowing economic growth.

“That’s a big problem,” Mr. Rogan continues, “when you consider that Hillary Clinton, for example, is proposing over $1 trillion in new spending over 10 years ( http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/12/01/Clinton-s-Campaign-Promises-Total-Nearly-1-Trillion-More-Come .)

“It’s a big problem because the middle class will have to help carry the new taxes to cover this profligacy. Don’t believe me? Read how Hillary Clinton herself hedged on middle class tax increases last weekend: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/12/06/clinton-hedges-on-tax-cut-plan/?mg=id-wsj .

“When an American politician refuses to rule out higher taxes, she’s probably going to raise taxes.



“Regardless,” Mr. Rogan concludes, “pretending the rich can pay for everything is mathematical nonsense. Moreover, America already has one of the most progressive tax systems in the world. Consider the fact that the top 10 percent of American earners already account for more than 70 percent of all income tax revenue,” he says, echoing Ms. De Rugy, above. (See also http://www.economics21.org/html/rich-pay-more-their-fair-share-taxes-1205.html .)

“Pushing taxes too high will simply push higher-earners to relocate their wealth -— and taxes -— to more tax-friendly shores abroad.”

Which brings us full circle to the problem that brought Donald Trump into this race in the first place (along with the ongoing Obama-Hillary plan to plant in America millions of Muslim jihadi “refugees” anxious to impose Sharia law, of course, and the stunningly stupid Hillary-Obama “Iranian nuclear deal”) — America’s vanishing jobs.

No, neither of these candidates proposes to cut government expenditures sufficient to eliminate deficits and pay off the national debt, anytime soon. To expect American voters to go for that is to expect kindergarten kids to choose a daily dose of cod liver oil over a daily dose of candy and a free cupcake, “because it would be better for us.”

(In fact, that’s unfair to taxpayers. They seem to know instinctively what’s “best for them” is to repudiate the debt, letting the FedGuv default. Anyone foolish enough to lend to these lying weasels would just take their lumps, hopefully leaving successor governments unable to do any substantial borrowing for another century or so.)

The question is simply which candidate is more likely to understand how to encourage private entrepreneurs to create real jobs, while getting rid of the illegal aliens, so those jobs will go to, you know . . . Americans.


(Why do we have so many illegals? Ask the pro-amnesty gang, who swore up and down when they convinced Ron Reagan to approve an amnesty for 3 million illegals in 1986 they’d “close the border” so no such problem could ever arise again. Sen. Teddy Kennedy vowed: “We will secure the borders henceforth. We will never again bring forward another amnesty bill like this.” As Ann Coulter notes, “Obviously, that promise ended up in the same place Mary Jo Kopechne did — underwater and unmentioned.” ( http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2014-01-08.html .)

“Now, instead of 3 million illegal aliens living here, we have 11 million, salsa is the best-selling condiment in America, and I have to press ‘one’ for English,” columnist Coulter continues. “We already tried this the nice way. . . .

“Last year, the TechCrunch website polled this question: ‘Do you support or oppose deporting the 11 million undocumented immigrants currently living in the U.S.?’

“Again: NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT DEPORTATION,” Ms. Coulter stresses. “We didn’t round up 11 million foreigners to get them here, and we’re not going to round them up to send them home. They’ll leave the same way they came.

“But even answering a stacked poll question asking about something no one has proposed — deportation — a majority of respondents, 53.4 percent, supported deportation, compared to 42 percent opposed.”)

What an interesting number, 53-42. What do you suppose Donald Trump’s margin of victory is likely to be?


2 Comments to “What is each American’s ‘fair share’?”

  1. Suggestive Numbers – Daily Pundit Says:

    […] Vin Suprynowicz mentioned her old column, then continued, […]

  2. SteveF Says:

    There’s no need to round up illegal aliens, or the more accurate term “members of the invading army”, at taxpayer expense, or at all. Declare that the US government will not file any federal charges against any US citizen killing an illegal alien, and that no federal agencies will investigate any such killing, and that the President will pardon any US citizen convicted in state court. The invading army will self-deport in about a week.

    It wouldn’t even be a violation of any of the war conventions the US is party to. Non-uniformed combatants and invaders have approximately no rights at all.