Rick Perry Says Something Refreshingly Honest

Damn Right!

The left will doubtless make all the hay they can from this, but the truth is that for once, I think Rick Perry is to be credited for speaking the truth in a bold way. He said “I don’t care” if his tax plan helps the rich.  Kudos to Rick Perry.  Here’s the thing, and it’s a point I’d try to make to every whining ne’er-do-well now Occuping Wall Street.  Now, he could really impress me and say something more important, like “You’re damned right it does, and it should. Who do you think creates jobs? Occu-pests?”  This endless assault on wealth is more than it seems, and less intellectually-bound than it pretends.  It’s a form of  cannibalism, and it’s aimed at destroying more than the wealth it pursues:  It’s about destroying reason.  It’s about disguising something, too.  Behind all of the complaints about the “greed” of the rich is the sickly confession of those who haven’t had the diligence, the discipline, or the desire to make it on their own.  I’m going to say it without reservation:  If you’re not rich, but you really want to be, in this country you have nobody to blame but yourself and your friends in government.  For a change, Rick Perry got it right.

Wealth is produced not by claims of need, or demands at gunpoint, but by the efforts of honest, diligent people.  When I say “honest,” it is in the sense that they understand you cannot consume more than you produce without eventually destroying yourself and yielding your life.  Nothing in the world is free – not even hope.  Manna may have fallen from the heavens in Moses’ day, but in the world around us, there is nothing that will feed you if you are unwilling to expend effort for it, except a government program, but the truth of that, as every working person knows, is that somebody is paying, even if that somebody isn’t you.  Most range-of-the-moment thinkers will see that as an opportunity to get by, but those of us who produce our daily bread look on it somewhat differently.  We see a vast moral vacuum where a human conscience should be, when an able-bodied person permits him or herself to become a perpetual ward of the state.

What Rick Perry admitted is something we should all know:  It’s none of our business how much money others earn.  In my view, a fair tax system would take the federal budget, divide it by the population, and send out the bills with guardians responsible for  dependents’ shares.   That’s a tax reform I could get behind.  Of course, that would eat a hole in some families’ budgets.  I think everybody should have some “skin in the game.”  Do the math: The federal budget is some 3.5 trillion and the population is roughly 320 million.  That’s roughly $11k for every man, woman, and child. Guess what?  In my household, that would be a tax cut.  Of course, there’s just me and my wife.  Still, why shouldn’t you pay your way? Besides, it’s my bet that if you saw an equal share of the burden, you’d be in no hurry to see it increased.

Okay, so you wish to exempt social security recipients from paying? Fine. There are roughly 50 million of them.  So let’s adjust our numbers:  $3.5 trillion divided by (320-50)=270 million payers, giving you an average tax bill of nearly $13K.  Anybody else you wish to exempt?  Food stamp recipients? Fine. There are 45 million of those, so let’s adjust our numbers again: $3.5 trillion divided by an adjusted population of  (270-45)=225 million taxpayers.  Now the tax bill per man, woman and child is $15,555.55.  Get the point?  Nothing is free.  Nothing.  You want to get it from “the rich”?  Let’s seize the total assets of a billionaire. Let’s say he’s worth a billion, even.  Of course, you’ll only be able to get this from him one time, because after that, he’s broke, but let’s do the math.  Let’s just take that billion off the top.  That reduces our total bill from $3.5 Trillion to  $3.499 Trillion. Fine. Now, we’ll need to adjust the numbers accordingly: $3.499Trillion divided among 225 million people. Okay, so how did this complete seizure of a billion dollars help the other 225 million taxpayers?  It reduced our bill from $15,555.55 to $15,551.11.  Feel better?  We just took all the assets of a guy who employed people, turned him into a pauper, and saved a whopping $4.44 on each of our tax bills.  Of course, we should have subtracted him out of the taxpayers, because now he’s on foodstamps.

The point, if you’ve managed to miss it in all of this, is that seizing wealth from the so-called “rich” really makes no difference. You can do it exactly once.  You simultaneously create more poverty, more unemployment, and more dependency, while reducing the taxpayer base.  Do you see why redistributionist policies cannot work?

People whine about the rich, but if the rich had more of their money to spend and invest, guess what?  There would be many more jobs.  I think we should eliminate corporate taxes, too.  I think we should get government out of the way of the formation of capital.  I think we should get rid of regulatory bureaucracies that are choking off prosperity in this country.  The truth is that our problems, while severe, are not insurmountable.  We can still fix things, but we need to get control of our government.  While the Occupy Wall Street crowd continues its protest, the people really at the root of the misery that confronts us are preparing to cash in, again.  They’re using the OWS protests as cover.

Reality is hell for those who “suck at math.”  Rick Perry’s right in this instance: I don’t care if the tax burden on the rich is reduced. The top 1% already pay 40% of all the income taxes collected.  That’s sinful, and the sin is accrued by those who live from the fat of  this inequality.

Advertisements
Leave a comment ?

6 Responses to Rick Perry Says Something Refreshingly Honest

  1. Adrienne says:

    "If I can't have it, neither can they" Whaaaaaaa….

  2. robrubin says:

    So how do you explain the 20 million plus jobs that were created during Clinton's presidency with higher tax rates? More jobs were created during Clinton than the combined terms of Reagan, GHWB, and GWB.

    While it may certainly be true that the rich create jobs, they certainly haven't been doing it lately, at least not in the U.S.

    Republicans whine about the 46% of poor people who pay no federal tax. The truth is they do pay payroll tax as well as state and local taxes, but when the standard deduction and exemptions for children are factored in, their taxable income is too low. Pushing a flat tax on these people will cripple them even further, but hey, I guess if they are already down, why not keep kicking them, right?

    • MarkAmerica says:

      I explain it this way: Clinton was the beneficiary of two things: A shallow recession from which the nation rebounded despite his tax increases because those increases in no way canceled out the tax cuts of the Reagan program, and because after 1994, he had a Republican congress that prohibited him from further tax increases and brought spending under control. Remember?? The rich cannot create jobs when hampered by ludicrous regulations. I suspect you're not a Mark Levin listener, but a caller the other day was discussing how the EPA effectively put his trucking company out of business. You'd better believe that the costs of big government are inflicting misery on all of us.

      I want an equal tax, as I described in this article. I'm serious. I'm far from 'rich,' more what you might call "solidly middle class," but that program, as I described it, would provide me substantial tax relief. I don't understand how anybody makes the moral argument that one person has a greater "moral obligation" (a concept I reject in this context) than any other.

      Nobody wants to kick the poor. That's the sort of sorry rhetoric I have come to expect from leftists. The problem is that "the poor" now constitutes half the society by somebody's measure, and yet "the poor" frequently drive nicer cars than me, live in nicer homes than me, attend college on my dime, and otherwise produce nothing while essentially living the life of a middle class person. Poverty is supposed to suck, so you have some reason to climb on out of it.

      • Rob Rubin says:

        I am all for getting rid of regulations that are burdensome so long as they don't (re)expose some potentially harmful flaw. You mention the EPA. Republicans have consistently said they want to abolish it. But can we not agree that there are some environmental regulations that just make sense, such as the Clean Water Act? Are we willing to tolerate high levels of arsenic in drinking water and it's potential to cause several forms of cancers so that some companies can make a few more bucks?

        Also, do you not remember that cap and trade was originally a Republican idea that they now decry since Obama and the Dems support it? G H W Bush realized that cap and trade would generate billions in savings due to the reduced amount of illnesses and deaths stemming from the result of acid rain and other pollutive effects.

        I don't know what you're definition of "poor" is to where you think they are driving fancy cars and living in luxury homes. I think there is a huge difference between what we call middle class today and what it was 30-40 years ago. Back then you got into a good company and you were pretty much set – you had a nice pension, good benefits, and were able to save money each month, possibly investing it. Middle class people can't do that today. They live paycheck to paycheck, carry loads of debt on credit cards or student loans just so they can keep up with society, and have more vulnerable jobs.

        It's a problem when guys like Leo Apotheker, the former CEO of HP gets fired after just 8 months and still gets a $25 million severance. What did he do to deserve that? HP went down the tubes under his watch as the TouchPad tablet was a failure, their PC sales slumped, and scrapped their entire webOS operating system….yet he can still wipe his a** with $20 bills if he chooses.

        • MarkAmerica says:

          Rob, I'm fairly certain a trucking company wasn't dumping arsenic into the water supply. (I know you didn't say that, but trying to keep you on point here) Are there a few things sure? Watching for people dumping arsenic into the water supply might be a good regulation. Is regulating CO2? I've been decrying Cap and Trade since I first heard of it. As for being a republican idea, that's hogwash. GHWB made lots of messes. The main reason to oppose Cap and Tax is because it's all based on confronting a hoax.

          My definition of "poor" is somebody who is living entirely from pubic assistance. Do the poor need Iphones? Do the poor need fancy cars? You're right: Back then, people didn't have 15 credit cards charged to the hilt. (Nobody in their right mind would give them that kind of credit.) I know plenty of people who have 401Ks and similar. I know plenty of people who fit your definition of middle class of 30-40 years ago. I also know a lot of people who tried to fake their way to that state by virtue of credit.

          In my view, all jobs should be 'vulnerable.' I'll secure my job via my work performance, thank you.

          I don't know the particulars of Apotheker's career. For all I know, that $25 million was negotiated into his original contract. Probably so, since no company is in the business of giving away that kind of money. If that is the case, would you prefer they dishonor their contract? Myself, I've known not to do business with that company for some time.

          You're all over the place here, but the one thing that is consistent is that your complaints all seem to be lodged from a distinctly leftist position.

  3. SeanStLouis says:

    It is important to consider the fact that Rick Perry fails to address the inflation tax. If he is unwilling to acknowledge the overwhelming burden of inflation on our ability to produce REAL wealth and savings in this country then everything else he says about our tax system is irrelevant.