The Dillard Doctrine

Urban Conservative Commentary on Politics & Life

Dhimmicratic Patriotism, Defined

So, apparently income redistribution is patriotic now:

Under the economic plan proposed by Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, people earning more than $250,000 a year would pay more in taxes while those earning less — the vast majority of American taxpayers — would receive a tax cut.

“We want to take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people,” Biden said in an interview on ABC’s “Good Morning America.”

Noting that wealthier Americans would indeed pay more, Biden said: “It’s time to be patriotic … time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut.”

Know what this sounds like?

So, Sen. Biden, answer me two questions:

  1. Why would I want to vote for someone whose policy is to give to the less well-off from the better off? Granted, I’d (probably) be a recipient of whatever was given out…but this just doesn’t seem fair to those who worked for what they have. If I were in the $250K-plus category, I’d be seriously pissed at this.
  2. How does this motivate the less well off to want to do something about their situation?  People will become content on waiting for their yearly “bailout” from the government. If I’m home with 3-4 kids and unemployed, why would I want to go out and get a job when I know that the government is going to hand me someone else’s money? Hell, I’d go have more kids in the hopes of getting more money.

Economics isn’t my strong suit. But using the current economic crisis to define patriotism just isn’t sitting too well with me.

HB2DF,

-D.

Advertisements

Written by Coby Dillard

September 18, 2008 at 11:46 am

Posted in Rants

Tagged with , ,

4 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. My household is just barely in this range and I know I am blessed to have the life I lead. I also know how hard my husband and I have worked, and continue to work to achieve our goals and I am proud of what we have been able to accomplish and provide for our family.

    True, that there many who are worth millions of dollars, and for them, money will never be an object, but for those at the bottom end of the spectrum, it will have a dramatic effect.

    I am always amazed that proponents of ‘taxing the rich’,’spreading the wealth’ and ‘shared sacrifice’ have little understanding of how our economy works when those who have more are able to spend it as they see fit instead of blindly handing it over to the government.

    Saving for college and retirement. Caring for elderly parents. Hiring self-employed individuals who provide valuable services like tutoring and home repairs. Donating to worthwhile local, national and international charities. This is how we choose to invest our money, how we choose to ‘spread the wealth.’ We trust ourselves and our ability to put our money to work for this great country.

    I am self-employed. I depend on individuals who have even more than I do, and successful, growing small businesses to be able to hire me and purchase my work.

    I know many self-employed who would rather have a wealthy client base and a slate of thriving small businesses rather than a $1000.00 tax cut from the government.

    s

    September 19, 2008 at 10:20 am

  2. “Under the economic plan proposed by Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, people earning more than $250,000 a year would pay more in taxes while those earning less — the vast majority of American taxpayers — would receive a tax cut.”

    Actually sir, it sounds like a progressive tax.

    It’s unfortunate that you look at this as taking from the haves and giving to have nots (Robin Hood), especially since you accurately self-identified yourself (for the purpose of this discussion) a have not. A progressive tax is not about penalizing the wealthy, but rather financially empowering those with lower incomes. It is equally unfortunate that, you regard a tax cut as a “yearly bailout” instead of as an increase in real, regular income.

    To answer your question relating to income incentive… COME ON! Are you serious?
    Entertain me if you will:

    Lets say I make 70k a year. My tax bracket is 25%.
    You make 250k a year. Your bracket is 33%

    I pay 15k in takes. A little more than 21% of my income. I have 55k left.
    You pay 68k. 27% of your income. You still have 192k left.

    You earned 180k more than I did (almost four times my income), and you only payed 6% more in taxes (that’s what you should be pissed at).

    The incentive is obvious. The extra 137k left over.

    Making 250k a year, I assume you have discretionary income (read investment money) after you pay living expenses. It takes money to save money.

    None of this math above really matters, however, because when you are making money like this, you have figured out all the loopholes in the tax laws, and taken advantage of all the havens, and end up paying far less than should be legally, but surely morally allowed.

    Lets try words like “responsibility”, “philanthropy”, “utilitarianism ” instead of throwing around words like “socialism”, and hinting at “social Darwinism.”

    D. See S.’ response above. Part of what you’re saying is an argument to change the tax code….which I agree; there’s some loopholes that shouldn’t exist. Either way, you don’t financially empower others by taking money from one group to give to another. You empower them through educating them about their money (so that they know how to invest and do so smartly), and by providing incentives (lowering capital-gains tax rates) for them to invest.

    Benjamin

    September 19, 2008 at 11:19 pm

  3. Making 250k a year, I assume you have discretionary income (read investment money) after you pay living expenses. It takes money to save money.

    None of this math above really matters, however, because when you are making money like this, you have figured out all the loopholes in the tax laws, and taken advantage of all the havens, and end up paying far less than should be legally, but surely morally allowed.
    ___________________________________________________________________________________

    You have no idea what you are talking about. Who is to determine what is “morally allowed?” The government?!

    Responsibility and philanthropy are actions incumbent upon a FREE individual. The more taxes we pay, the less free we become.

    This entire financial meltdown is in large art due to the actions of the federal government demanding lenders to provide ‘affordable housing’ in ‘underserved communities.’

    Lenders made bad loans, used the bad loans to borrow capital they cannot pay back and now the taxpayers are stuck with the bill.

    D. And herein lies my whole problem with this issue: the people who made the money, made the good business decisions, grew the successful businesses….are now being told to cough up more for everyone else. How is that right, fair, or anything else?

    s

    September 22, 2008 at 9:04 am

  4. S-

    “You have no idea what you are talking about.”

    I love the condescension in your tone. (I use it too, no worries)
    I have no idea about taxes, no idea about morals, or no idea about responsibility and philanthropy? All of the above maybe?

    “Who is to determine what is “morally allowed?””
    My mistake. I made the fundamental error of placing my personal values on others.
    Its obvious we have different ones.

    “Responsibility and philanthropy are actions incumbent upon a FREE individual.”
    Its a good thing that taxes absolve those duties, otherwise the government would be unjustified in asking for taxes to support social initiatives if people were already responsible and philanthropic.

    “The more taxes you pay, the less free we become?”
    That sounds like the same old progressive tax equals communism argument. Would any level of taxation not bring criticism from you?

    “This entire financial meltdown is in large art due to the actions of the federal government demanding lenders to provide ‘affordable housing’ in ‘underserved communities.’ ”

    You say affordable housing like its a bad thing? I guess you are in favor of housing projects (oddly enough, you don’t want them to be financed through income taxes).

    This could go on forever, however this topic/ discussion’s depth is truly not being served by any of us over-simplifying the related issues or our perspectives on them. Somewhere in the middle is somewhere we will never get. But I have enjoyed the exchange, none-the-less.

    D – Good one. Next slide.

    Benjamin

    September 23, 2008 at 12:51 am


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: