Discussion on Class Envy/Warfare

UPDATE - The fine folks at ABC have graciously rewritten the original article in an attempt to change the entire focus. They did this by pointing out in nearly every sentence that higher tax rates only apply to higher income. Will that alter the views of the people who are quoted in the story? Doubtful. Will it stop people from trying to earn less in order to avoid higher taxes? Doubtful. Will it, in fact, change anything? Nope. But it is a flagrant attempt to get back in the good graces of the most holy (you know who).

Original post

The lemmings at ABC have broken the unwritten law of current media – they have actually printed some truth about Obama’s socialistic tax plans. I’m sure they did not mean to do it, and throughout the article, they try to insert quotes to show it’s not really as bad as they wind up admitting. But the fact remains that they did a no-no.

The article in question addresses the tax portion of Obama’s new plan to tax, tax, tax and spend, spend, spend, spend. ABC went out and talked to people who are logical and full of common sense.

If the all-knowing government is going to stoke the fires of class warfare and induce hate on those who actually achieve, then why bother achieving? Maybe a sequel to Atlas Shrugged can be aptly named Obama Taxed.

A growing movement of people are making plans to cut back on their earnings, to slow down their economic growth, to lay off employees, see less patients, sell less product, make less money…all in the name of sanity. If your tax rate is going to go up dramatically at X amount, then why struggle to make X and have it taken away to be given to lazy bums who won’t work? Why not just make (X-1) dollars?

If it was not so sad that people are actually buying this junk, it would be hilarious to read some of the apologists trying to make it sound as if that won’t work, when they then turn around and admit it will.

The article writer tries to get onboard as well. She claims the tax increases (letting the Bush tax cuts lapse) are going to “garner an estimated $338 billion,” according to Obama’s budget. She does not mention, nor will the administration admit, that figure is based on people continuing to produce and earn at the same levels. If the top earners give up, because they are increasingly taxed at higher rates, the taxes collected go down as well.

Most third graders can understand this concept. Most Obama voters cannot.

Here’s a telling quote from a dentist. “I've put thought into how to get under $250,000," she said. "It would mean working fewer days which means having fewer employees, seeing fewer patients and taking time off. Generally it means being less productive."

An obvious Obama supporter who is identified as a financial advisor says, "to focus keeping your income below a quarter million dollars is not going to have any spectacular magic for individual tax payers. The difference between $249,999 and $251,000 will probably have zero tax impact."

But then he goes on to admit, “If the value of all your itemized deductions goes from a 33 percent level to a 28 percent level than there would be a reason for people to do dramatic things to reduce their incomes."

Considering that Obama wants anyone with household income above $250,000 to go pay a significantly higher bracket, his last statement completely contradicts his earlier statement and renders his entire line of reasoning null and void. Who does he advise on finances? Minimum wage earners? He obviously has no clue about higher income brackets.

Then there is this quote from a professor at the School of Business at the University of Maryland. “You have to be pretty close to $250,000 in terms of your income to get underneath it."

This goober teaches business to college students? What does that statement even mean? Someone who is not “pretty close” to $250,.000 in terms of their income does not get underneath it? So, according to the ole prof, if you make $150,000, you are not underneath “it”, with “it” being either $250,000 or the higher tax bracket. Both are patently wrong, and the statement would sound better if it were pronounced by a six year old.

The professor almost redeems himself by becoming Professor MOTO (Master Of The Obvious), by declaring, “What Obama is doing is pitting the poor against the upper middle class. He'll tax the rich for the health benefits everyone else wants."

No S***, Sherlock.

Another apologist comes out in the article.

Supporters of Obama's budget plans say that those who are at the top and complaining need to look at the bigger picture.

"Those who are going to be taxed more are obviously going to complain but I think they may miss the point," said Lisa Rotenstein, the chair of the Harvard Healthcare Policy Group at the Institute of Politics.

"This could have broader implications for the American economy as a whole – improved health care means a healthier workforce that is more productive," said Rotenstein.

In other words, shut up and take your medicine because it’s good for the country. Work harder and make less because it’s patriotic.

Compare that tripe to the words of an attorney from LA. “Why kill yourself working if you're going to give it all away to people who aren't working as hard?"

Whose the smarter one there?

You want to talk about idiocy? In the middle of the article, ABC has a poll. The question is, “Is it fair to reduce high salaries to sidestep President Obama’s tax proposal?” They want to know if it’s FAIR to decide how much money you want to make? Good Lord.

What’s even worse are the answers you can choose. They are as follows.

No. The rich have had too many tax breaks. They should be ashamed for finagling the system.

The only people who will select this answer are those who have made it their career to finagle the system.

No. I have to pay high taxes and so should that high-income bracket. They can afford it.

Okay, sheer class warfare stupidity here. Tax rates are progressive in our system. The more you make, the higher your rate. So this answer is wrong solely on that basis, yet those who have been weaned on the “hate the rich” mentality will jump on this one. I bet over half who select this answer pay no taxes whatsoever, and get free handouts that are paid for by those filthy rich mongrels.

Yes. I also would find ways to decrease my salary to avoid taxes.

Who wouldn’t, in that position? This is the only choice offered that isn't complete lunacy.

Yes. Why should ordinary folks, even those making $250K, pay when big corporations get bailed out.

I could have gone with this answer, until they tossed in that caveat at the end. ABC will simply claim that anyone who picks this answer hates big corporations and wants their taxes raised as well as rich individuals.

It’s sad that lefties have made careers out of promoting wealth envy as a way to snatch power and become rich on their own. What’s sadder still is that there are still idiots who buy into their alternate realities of let’s tax the rich so we won’t have to pay any taxes.