Biden Says We're Not Supposed to Have One Tax System for the Wealthy and One For Everyone Else, Proposes Rule Taxing Wealthy Differently From Everyone Else


As if to officially confirm that the Obama administration's Buffett Rule is not intended as a serious policy proposal, but instead is designed almost entirely to make a political issue of rival presidential contender Mitt Romney's wealth, Vice President Joe Biden yesterday declared it was time for a "Romney Rule" designed to further increase taxes on a small subset of high earners. Via The New York Times:

Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. sought on Thursday to tie Mitt Romney directly to Republican opposition to higher taxes on millionaires, saying they want a "Romney Rule" that doubles down on tax cuts for the wealthy.

Speaking at an event in New Hampshire, Mr. Biden lashed out at Mr. Romney and Republicans in Congress as the impediments to Democratic efforts to pass what they call the "Buffett Rule" for people who make more than $1 million a year.

"Wealthy people are just as patriotic as middle-class people, as poor people, and they know they should be doing more," Mr. Biden said. "We're not supposed to have a system with one set of rules for the wealthy and one set of rules for everyone else."

And yet Biden's policy would help create exactly the sort of system he says he opposes. 

Here's what's happening: Democrats are not happy that capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than individual income. Now, it's true that most capital gains earnings are claimed by the wealthy. But it's also true that the same cap gains tax rate would apply to anyone who gets income from capital gains, regardless of overall income level. Biden, on the other hand, is proposing a special tax rule that would single out and apply to only the wealthy — explicitly creating "one set of rules for the wealthy and one set of rules for everyone else." 

There's a lot of room for productive discussion about reforming the tax code, which really is a mess. You can even make an argument that, given current deficit levels, we need a system that raises additional revenue: Better to spend and pay for it now than spend, borrow, and be on the hook for the bill plus interest later. But selectively targeting the ultra wealthy for special tax treatment solves no problem: It does not meaningfully reduce the deficit. And it does not contribute to making the tax code simpler and more manageable. 

We know this in part because we've tried the target-the-top approach before with the alternative minimum tax, which was originally designed to hit just 155 high earners. The result? A messier tax code, unintended consequences as an increasing number of middle-class earners get hit, and new deficit management difficulties stemming from perpetual temporary "fixes" to the policy. 

Maybe that's overthinking things. The administration's Buffett Rule push isn't about better policy, or even about starting a conversation about tax reform. It's an obvious election year gimmick targeted mostly at Romney and his wealth, a politician's version of a nudge and a whisper: Did you hear how rich that guy is?

The president's staff isn't even trying to pretend it's not primarily intended as an election-year political attack. Back to the NYT: 

But aides to Mr. Obama are hoping that Mr. Biden's speech will begin to shift the debate about taxes on the wealthy from an abstraction to one that focuses directly on Mr. Romney.

Mr. Obama's aides hope to achieve that by using the term "Romney Rule," which they believe will force Mr. Romney to acknowledge that opposing the president's proposals would benefit him personally.

Obama and Biden, on the other hand, only hope to benefit politically. 

NEXT: Brickbat: Cherry on Top

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. But it’s also true that the same tax rate anyone who gets income from capital gains.

    I think you may be missing a word in this sentence, Mr. Suderman.

    1. Thanks, and apologies. I don’t always play well with mornings. Updated to fix a couple of typos.

  2. Further proof that excessive Amtrak riding leads to permanent brain damage.

    1. You know, I can forgive Biden. It’s his job to spout bullshit like this. But what gets me is how many people just eat it up without even considering how it doesn’t even make sense.

      1. I think you’re correct that this is exactly Biden’s job. I’ve long suspected that he was selected as VP so that, by comparison to the astoundingly ridiculous statements coming out of Biden’s mouth, Obama’s ridiculous statements would seem almost sensible.

        1. That and Biden is His Pestilency’s insurance against “accidents.”

  3. one of the best things about liberals is that, eventually, they tell you who they really are. Biden is but one example, a loon who believes his own bullshit. We already have separate tax systems based on income; it’s called the progressive income tax. And, our good buddy Hillary Rosen made clear what liberals think of women who, evidently, let down the sisterhood by choosing to raise children.

    1. It’s interesting that they view contraception as a right but childbearing as a privilege.

      1. The fascinating thing to me about all of the recent feminist dust-up is that you have one side saying “embrace your femininity and raise children” and the other that says “feminism requires that you act like a man.”


        1. Yet no side seems to be saying that each individual woman should do what she wants to.

          1. We don’t have a side?

            1. Well, no side involved in the feminist dust up. I try to stay out of it, at least.

          2. That’s because liberals don’t care what anyone does, so long as it’s compulsory.

    2. Did Dick “deficits don’t matter” Cheney believe his own bullshit or was he simply a liar?

      1. Speaking of liberals telling you who they are… here’s shrike with the usual “BUSH DID IT TOO!” “argument”.

      2. You know, in the context of every right-leaning economist who taught that sort of thing, the idea was that deficits don’t matter provided you don’t let the debt-GDP ratio get too far out of whack. That was the context of that statement. You can go look up the history of it if you don’t believe me.

        1. Fine, they are all Keynesians then.

      3. He was a liar…and a liar regarding multiple issues. This pertains to the article in question how again?

        Shut up Mary!

    3. Actually her point was that work + motherhood is actually harder than motherhood + team of nannies.

      That seems to have been lost in Romney’s spin machine. Yeah being a mother is hard. Thus, being a mother and working a job is harder!!

      1. $

      2. Huh. Who watched Rosen’s kids while she was working? I guess they just toddled around the house in their own filth until she came home each evening.

      3. No, her point was than Romney’s wife didn’t work a day in her life and that therefore she didn’t know anything about the economic concerns of mothers. I can tell that was her point because that’s what she said, as opposed to what you say she really meant.

        1. right, because mothers never make purchasing decisions for their families, never have an interest in the family budget, and never talk to each other. Hillary’s comment was stupid on its own merit. By the way, Obama SAID the stimulus would keep unemployment under 8%.

          1. I wasn’t agreeing with her point, I was stating her point for the willful idiot who was trying to spin it a different way.

      4. Wow, you know for a fact that Romney had a team of nannies helping her?

        So you’re super rich enough to be friends with the Romney’s. This explains a lot about you.

  4. So the guy whose family is constantly jetting to the Riviera and Vegas and Cancun, without even the fig leaf of a diplomatic conference or something… is going to run against his opponent’s wealth.

    1. But he only has $11 million, and Romney has $200 million, so clearly Romney is much more evil. Besides, Obama doesn’t go around flaunting his wealth by paying for his family vacations out of his own pocket.< /sarc >

  5. a tax on teh FAT would cut across all demographics from Mcdonalds super-size me in the hood to McMansions in the burbs. not regressive, but suggestive, the tax would ONLY apply if one tripped the cattle-call on the IRS equipment scale. >fatter rates would also apply to smorgasbords & airlines.

    1. dont forget fatter insurance rates to stop the subsidises on fat pieholes.

      1. in other words, a preexisting condition.

        how about weighins for EBT cards too?

        1. like born fat?
          isnt that a song?

          1. You’re thinking of Weird Al.

            Or maybe Andy Williams.

  6. I was sad to see that the series “An Idiot Abroad” has come to an end. Then I saw that top picture, and realized the series was back on with a new star.

    1. Karl Pilkington would make a better president than Joe Biden.

  7. Biden, on the other hand, is proposing a special tax rule that would single out and apply to only the wealthy ? explicitly creating “one set of rules for the wealthy and one set of rules for everyone else.”

    You have just given definition to the Democrats’ fudamental concept of “fair”. The discussion is over; move on to the next article. It is exactly like being at the point in a discussion of religion where the religious guy answers “Because I have faith.” Conversation over.

    1. Like one poster here said, we know the rich are not paying their fair share. How do we know? Because they are rich. If they were paying their fair share, they wouldn’t be rich.

  8. It’s time.

    It’s time for the wealthy to quit apologizing for being successful. Time to stop feeling guilty about being a productive member of society. It’s time to stop treating failure as a virtue. This concept is undermining growth/progress.

    Progressive taxes are immoral. What they boil down to is one group paying orders of magnitude more for a given service than another pays. Would they argue the correctness of the wealthy being required to pay 5, 10, 20 times the price of a gallon of milk at the supermarket? Of course they wouldn’t. So why do we allow them to make the same argument when it comes to taxes?

    It’s time to call this practice what it is. It is IMMORAL and anyone espousing it is IMMORAL.

    Rant complete.

    1. There is a small argument to be made that the more “stuff” and wealth you have, the more you need the protection. But it certainly should not be this disproportionate.

      1. Protection from what?

        1. Hostile foreign forces and the looting class.

          I think until we get past the crass, base, and monstrous envy that consumes most people, the wealthy are going to have to pay more to ensure the pitchforks don’t come out. That may be cynical and unjust, but it’s true.

          1. If the pitchforks come out, I wouldn’t give the looting class very good odds, particularly in Texas.

            1. It depends on how big it is.

              I know that it may seem frustrating, but in a long view of history, the wealthy were inextricably tied to the State, which is why the guillotine saw so much action in France. The notion that wealthy people earned their wealth is, for most people, counterintuitive.

              1. I think it has more to do with the fact that people are envious by nature and will find any reason to rationalize their envy than any historical precedent.

                1. I point to history as a way of thinking that envy on this scale may be something that we can evolve out of.

          2. Why is it never the case that the wealthy are members of the looting class? Ayn Rand certainly saw that they could be. But you’re not going to advocate any policy to rectify legally obtained yet ill-gotten wealth, as long as it’s in the hands of the wealthy, right?

            1. $

            2. That would be quite messy to do and set a horrible precedent. It would look like we were taking revenge.

              Libertarians surely would favor policies to prevent future ill-gotten wealth going forward.

              1. Get this through your head. The wealthy are by definition the most privileged people. That means that, without concerted action in the opposite direction, the tax code will always favor them, government will always look out for them first, and they will always be the biggest “looters.”

                Ayn Rand was a vulgar quasi-fascist but you guys almost universally take it to an even more vulgar level: simply equating wealth with productivity, no questions asked.

                You should look to the poor last when you’re going parasite hunting.

                1. $

                2. Re: Tiny,

                  Get this through your head. The wealthy are by definition the most privileged people.

                  A statement that indicates in no undertain terms that you do not know or understand the meaning of the phrase “by definition.”

                  Ayn Rand was a vulgar quasi-fascist

                  A statement that leaves in no uncertain terms the idea that you do not know what Fascism means… or “quasi”, for that matter.

                  “Wealthy” only means having more wealth compared to someone else. That does not mean ipso facto a wealthy person is “privileged.” Ergo, you do not understand what does “by definition” mean or entail.

                  Ayn Rand was an individualist. Fascism is a political and economic ideology based on a collectivist philosophy that places the State above the individual. So by definition, Ayn Rand cannot be a fascist, or even a “quasi” fascist, as both concepts would be contradictory to her true political philosophy.

            3. You know if you’re gonna go there then you have to acknowledge that all of your sainted Democrats are just as culpable as the Republicans in looting.

              Oh who am I kidding, you’re Tony, you’ll just obfuscate and ignore and then bitch about some strawman or something.

              1. I wouldn’t say “just as” but they’re certainly not sainted or innocent. What’s your point? I should be just like you guys and engage in endless pointless circle jerking instead of thinking about practical means to achieving a better world?

                You’re the one ignoring the point, which is that you don’t actually care about people looting the system so much as you care about protecting wealth where it is.

                1. I know you wouldn’t Tony. I know.

                2. Re: Tiny,

                  I should be just like you guys and engage in endless pointless circle jerking instead of thinking about practical means to achieving a better world?

                  Yeah, you’re such a thinker, Tiny – the world is hardly deserving of you.

                3. This seems to be the real Tony so…

                  Hey fuckwad, STFU.

            4. “Ill-gotten” means anything you happen not like, I suppose?

              1. “Ill-gotten” means anything you happen not like, I suppose?

                It’s not a matter of “what” but “who.” Do you ever see Tony lambasting Soros (a convicted inside-trader), Buffett, Spielberg, Streisand, etc? Nope. But mention the Kochs and he’ll spring the length of his boyfriend’s leash in a NY minute.

          3. I mean… what was productive about Romney’s means of accumulating wealth? And forget Romney… what about the means by which most of the private wealth has been accumulated in this society in the past few decades? What is productive about that?

            I realize it’s becomes quite a bit more complex when you stop just simply equating wealth with productivity and virtue, but surely you realize that it can’t be as simple as that.

            1. $

            2. Creating wealth is virtuous. It means you have added some value to the human experience that benefits others.

              Libertarians are the least likely to conflate “the rich” with wealth creators. Go complain about that…pretty much anywhere but here.

            3. You don’t really understand how venture capital works do you?

              1. You don’t really understand how venture capital works do you?

                It’s Tony. Not knowing anything about finance or economics is both standard operating procedure and a point of pride.

            4. I see, and redistributing wealth via politics rewards virture? Give me a break. More like encourages sloth and the entitlement mentality. And gives us Government Motors , Solyndra, GSA parties in Vegas, teh Obama’s lavish vacations, crony capitalism, etc.

              What’s productive about creating Microsoft? I don’t know, maybe a few hundred billion in shareholder value, tens of thousands of employees, etc. Ditto Google, Wal-Mart, and just about any other company that underlies the wealth of the Forbes 100. Now tell me what is productive about taking $1 billion from Sergey Brin and giving it to senior citizens. THAT, my friend, truly creates nothing.

            5. I mean… what was productive about Romney’s means of accumulating wealth?

              It provides liquidity.

    2. A flat income tax would have to be 32% to remain revenue neutral.

      No big change at all.

      1. Or they could reduce the budget till it was 12%.

      2. A. Don’t want a flat tax. I want a flat dollar amount.
        B. Don’t want revenue neutral. Want the budget to be about $1T/year making every person’s share $3225/yr.

        1. The problem, of course, is children. This would mean a family of five owes 16,000 in taxes. That’s a hell of a bill for someone making 50-60,000.

          1. At the risk of sounding heartless:

            You mean people might have to wait to have kids until they can afford them? ZOD FORBID!

            The little bastards use the common resources, they can pay for them.

            1. It isn’t even about affording, Francisco. That’s practically punitive at that point.

              1. Sounds like a $3225 have-a-kid tax. I’m not sure that my two add $6450 in marginal cost to the common resources and they certainly don’t get to vote.

                I can see the argument for not allowing exemptions and thereby subsidizing them, but taxing their existence seems a little mandatey.

              2. So phase it in over 20 years.

                1. Make the kids accrue it during their minorities and pay it when they become adults.

                  1. So each kid turns 18 with a $58K debt? That’s a little harsh, isn’t it?

                    1. Still beats the current system.

                    2. How much nationl debt are they set to inherit at this point?

                    3. how is that different than today? other than being more honest.

    3. Just give your speech on what money is again…that’ll do it. One of the best passages ever.

  9. I get the feeling the class warfare crap is backfiring with all but the hardcore socialists. It’s just too obvious this time that it’s being used to distract people from a flat economy and a government that refuses to take even the smallest step to reduce its smothering size and scope.

    Besides, I though Obama’s election meant peace, harmony, love, and an end to racism?

    1. You missed the two weeks between his election and his selection of Holder as AG?

      1. I was still bedazzled by his Peace Prize.

        1. sounds moar like vagazzled

          1. vagazzled, lol

    2. So you think 40+% of America is hardcore socialists? Because I’ve yet to see any polls where less than 40% support him.

      America is full of idiots. The other day I was in a room with three people who said they were voting for BO regardless because they think he wants to help people. That was their entire argument! And I doubt they’re suddenly going to become serious about choosing who to vote for anytime before November.

      BO’s strategy is to get as many nice sound bites out there that play on low-information idiots’ vague preconceptions. Logic doesn’t matter. Consistency doesn’t matter. Honesty doesn’t matter.

      1. I meant that it’s alienating the alienatable. Not the core, which is either made up of true-believers or people whose votes have been bought by various distributions.

        He can’t win playing solely to his core, which is what he’s doing. And even on the left, there’s fear that we can’t just keep ignoring the economic situation. Also, I’m convinced that he polls many points higher because a number of respondents are unwilling to admit to another person that they don’t like him (“RACIST!”). That fear disappears in the anonymity of the voting booth.

  10. The Romney rule huh? What are they, f***ing 12.

    1. It is incredible, isn’t it? I have no love lost for Republicans, and I will not vote for Mitt Romney, but if your vote is an expression of who you want for President, how can you look at this fucker and say “Yeah, I want this guy to get his job back?”

      It floors me.

      1. If I were a Democrat, I would vote for Romney, because the damage being done to their ideals by the Joker-in-Chief is tremendous. Besides, if you want to encourage parasitism, it’s a bad idea to kill your only possible host.

      2. And yet you’re not lifting a finger to prevent him from getting his job back.


        1. What are you talking about? I am not voting for him. Read what I wrote when I said “your vote is an expression of who you want for President.”

          1. I think Tulpa’s point was that since you’re not voting for Romney then you’re not doing anything to stop BO from getting the job back.

            1. I figured. But, like I said, your vote is an expression of who you want for President. I don’t want Mitt Romney for President, but I really don’t understand people who look at Obama and go “yes, what a great four years. Let’s rehire this guy.” Really?

              1. your vote is an expression of who you want for President.

                Not necessarily. Your vote is a tool for you to use to produce the best results possible. If that means you vote for your fave, fine. But not always.

            2. Well, here’s the time where we could discuss the futility of voting and all that, but everybody but the newest of n00bs has heard that before. I’ll just note I live in a county that went for McCain something like 68% in a state that chose Johnny Mac 55 to 43. I could vote for a dead armadillo for all it matters.

              Instead, I’ll vote LP so as to keep them on the ballot and because I’m not voting for either statist prick from the donkelphants.

  11. The Joey Plugs Rule:implanted corn rows are 100% deductible

  12. lol, you can always tell when its election time. Bought and paid for politicians telling the Sheeple what they want to hear but once elected, its business as usual. lol.

  13. Why should taxes be based on *rates*? What’s wrong with using a fixed *amount*, like admission to a movie theater? Isn’t that “fair”?

    1. Because when everyone got their 20k tax bill or whatever it is now they would demand spending cuts.

    2. Yes, the only TRULY fair way to tax.

      And think of it, such a system would automatically limit the size of government. If you divided the annual budget by 310M and that was your share, the government couldn’t grow without placing too high a burden on the poor.


    3. As noted above, the better-off have more stuff to protect, so taxing based on a fixed percent of income addresses this. It’s not perfect, but it’s simple and as close to (truly) fair as you can get.

      1. So you are saying when someone breaks into a business, the owner get more police preference than when a home is broken into?


        How much “protection” is needed is a function of the crime rate, NOT how much shit people have.

        1. *s

          Gotta go.

      2. Maybe the feds shouldn’t be funding local police in the first place. Because it sure as hell ain’t the feds doing any protecting. Now, if my higher taxes mean I get a federal agent to watch my stuff while I’m gone, we can talk about how paying more federal tax is more fair.

  14. What a brilliant and receptive man! And only a heartbeat from the throne.

  15. Posted this on the A.M. Links by mistake, but random Bakunin quote:

    I bow before the authority of special men because it is imposed upon me by my own reason. I am conscious of my inability to grasp, in all its details and positive developments, any very large portion of human knowledge. The greatest intelligence would not be equal to a comprehension of the whole. Thence results, for science as well as for industry, the necessity of the division and association of labor. I receive and I give ? such is human life. Each directs and is directed in his turn. Therefore there is no fixed and constant authority, but a continual exchange of mutual, temporary, and, above all, voluntary authority and subordination.

    1. Bonus random stupid thought:

      Engels was OWS first?

      Rich father, FUCK YOU DAD, hooks up with radical woman and “buddy”, roams around Yurop on his parents dime BEING THE 99%. Then after realizing he might face consequences for his actions bails out of Prussia, moves up the corporate ladder to finance THE CAUSE and his buddy Marx.

      1. If you look behind “popular” revolts in the last few hundred years, a consistent strain develops–they were led and eventually entirely co-opted by non-proletarians.

        Nothing’s changed. People want to use the masses, playing on their fears and desires, to gain power over others. It’s that simple. In a republic, those people also play off of the sympathies people have for those who are in the lower classes.

        Scratch a populist, and you usually uncover a power-hungry bastard.

        1. William Jennings Bryan pops immediately to mind when you say that.

  16. Biden uses potty like a big boy, gets lollipop.

    1. you are the north korean missle of truth

      1. Should have saved the one for something better, Orrin.

        1. i wouldve but the dear-missle had its own plans

  17. The wealthy are not a suspect class. They are by definition the most privileged people in society. Progressive taxation is not unjust. People have a right to basic needs before people have a right to accumulate unlimited wealth.

    1. Fuck you, you immoral fuck!


      1. Don’t respond to it. Just filter it out the best you can.

        1. Cultist morons. Read another book for fuck’s sake.

          1. $

        2. I apologize for not heeding my own advice.

      2. Are you 15?

        1. $

        2. I thought the plea bargain required you stop talking to 15 year olds.

    2. But you don’t want progressive taxation. You want confiscatory taxation.

      1. What makes you think that?

        1. You’ve said so on these boards. Fucking stinky asshole.

    3. Please everyone, if you must scratch your itchy anus, don’t make the rest of us smell your finger afterwards.

    4. “Government guide us. Government teach us. Government protect us. In your light we thrive. In your mercy we are sheltered. In your wisdom we are humbled. We live only to serve. Our lives are yours.”

    5. T o n y|4.13.12 @ 10:40AM|#
      …”People have a right to basic needs before people have a right to accumulate unlimited wealth.”

      No, they don’t, shithead.

      1. There’s only one moral system in the world, that I’m aware of, that says otherwise: Ayn fucking Rand’s. And she’s not taken seriously by anyone but her own cultists.

        1. T o n y|4.13.12 @ 12:23PM|#
          “There’s only one moral system in the world, that I’m aware of, that says otherwise:…”

          Shithead, you can take your so-called ‘morality’ and tell it to someone who cares.

    6. And by “unlimited wealth” you mean anything over $250k/year, because that group has been Obama’s target all along. For now, at least. The “rights” of the folks who can’t or won’t provide for their “needs” — which now include birth control for middle class women, cell phones, scooters, the list is endless — eventually require massive tax hikes on all sorts of incomes under the $250k line, if you have your way. Of course the left refuses to be honest about that, for obvious reasons.

    7. Re: Tiny,

      The wealthy are not a suspect class. They are by definition the most privileged people in society.

      A statement that immediately informs anyone that you ignore completely what the phrase “by definition” means.

      Progressive taxation is not unjust.

      You’re right. It is taxation per se which is unjust, as it it the forcefull taking of property that does not belong to the government.

      People have a right to basic needs

      I still haven’t received my basic need for a chesty hooker – who should I contact? is your mom available?


  18. I linked this earlier in the friday funnies post but it seems appropriate here:

    The Distraction

    1. People read the Friday “funnies” post?

  19. Speaking of taxing the wealthy, anyone seeing the Tammy Baldwin ads to sign a petition to pass the Buffett Rule? I know they’re likely automated from Google, but still – you’d think Google would be smart enough to know that Reason’s not really a good target audience for establishment Democrats.

    1. Click on it. Then they have to pay reason for the clicks.

  20. The entreprenurial spirit is alive in LA. Very inspiring.

    I’m sure Itchy Anus Tony will make sure it is properly taxed and submits to all local regulations, either crushing the spirit or sending it to a friendlier clime.

  21. True fact: Under certain conditions, it is possible that Joe Biden could become president without being elected to that office! Strange but true!

    1. Which may have had a lot to do with his selection as VP. Insurance, baby.

  22. Looks like this new tax on the rich…


    …is a really sweet idea.


  23. I think we all forget that it is the WEALTHY that implemented this complex and rather unfair tax structure we have today.

    It wasn’t a factory worker that created the tax code or lobbied congress or paid money to elect the factory worker’s accounts/lawyers into congress. It was the FACTORY OWNERS and other rich people.

    The truth is, a flat tax would require the rich to pay much much more than they are paying now.

    For example, why is there a FICA cap? If you remove this cap, the rate can go down from 15% to 11.5% for all. Yes, people making more than $106k/year will pay more, but at least that is fair.

    I welcome a non-progressive flat tax. With no tax shelters, incentives, etc. Just a flat tax. It is the rich and business people that play games in their 1120s that don’t welcome it.

    People working on a W-2 that don’t have side ventures or investments make up the majority in this country. Not much opportunity to cheat.

    1. There’s a cap because one’s social security benefit is capped too. If you want to change the s.s. benefit into a pure dole – everyone pays in a certain percentage of salary but only gets a set amount – then advocate that.

    2. bullshit, Alice. It is the govt, both right and left, that use the tax code for their respective forms of engineering. A bit more than 100 years ago, we did not even have an income tax. Now, it’s a leftist cudgel used to punish success.

      As it is, every empirical source shows the top 1% or 5% pays a huge share of income taxes. Whether a flat system would have them pay more is immaterial and untrue. Some folks fork over half their income to some level of govt. When is enough enough?

      1. Enough is enough when Alica says so.

    3. Re: Alice Bowie,

      I think we all forget that it is the WEALTHY that implemented this complex and rather unfair tax structure we have today.


      The truth is, a flat tax would require the rich to pay much much more than they are paying now.

      I guess this blog is still being visited by the irony-challenged.

      If yoyu believe that the wealthy control the way the tax code is created, how can you know that a flat tax will not be created by the same lot of puppetmasters with the same intentions?

      You miss the point completely: The problem is not the kind of taxation, is the taxation itself. Taxation is thievery, it is immoral. It doesn’t matter how much money a wealthy person has, the amount does not and cannot serve as justification for theft.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.