My older son is a thinking man. Not just that, he’s a conservative thinking man. He is my pride and my joy.
Bill called me last week to discuss this whole concept the President has been yammering about – you know the part about how rich people are not paying their “fair share.” Bill wants to know what “fair” really is. And, as usual, he gave his mother the assignment of writing about what’s fair and what isn’t about our tax code.
That’s pretty easy. The tax code is totally ineffective. We need a new one. In my humble opinion, we need something completely different. I’m no money wonk, but it makes sense to me to tax our money as it is spent, not as it is earned. In that way the ones who spend the most will be taxed the most. In other words, a national sales tax, would effectively and evenhandedly bring about that whole “fair” thing. But, Bill points out that there is still no way to get one’s arms around what is “fair.”
Here’s the deal. The concept of what is “fair” is totally subjective. If you found a way to define it – and Webster says the word evenhanded comes closest to what we’re looking for – the liberals wouldn’t want to play the game any more. The “f-word” only has power when it can be used to inflict financial injury upon others. They want to punish those individuals who’ve had the audacity to become successful.
For example. The liberals wouldn’t want to use the “f-word” to apply to the roughly 50% of Americans who pay no income tax whatsoever. Nor would they approve of taking away the refunds and child credits we lavish on those same people – that wouldn’t be very “insert f-word here.” It wouldn’t be ‘fair’ to tax welfare checks or food stamps or housing subsidies as income either although, in failing to do so we train generation after generation to the public teat.
Somehow our liberal friends think it’s only “fair” to extract more money from those who already pay 98.6% of the entire tax bill to begin with. For my part, I’m a proponent of tossing the tax code and starting over. Of course, I’m also in favor of sending Congress home for all but two months in summer when it’s too hot in DC to have any fun. (If they have to decide about going to war, we can afford a conference call – albeit a big one. Maybe something in “go to meeting?”) Of course, if we did that the Congressionals would have to give up their big, fat paychecks and their cushy pensions. That just wouldn’t be “fair.”