According to Hillary Clinton, the rich aren’t paying their fair share of taxes, not just in the U.S. but throughout the world:
“The rich are not paying their fair share in any nation that is facing the kind of employment issues…whether it’s individual, corporate or whatever…taxation forms,” she told an audience at the Brookings Institute last week. But it’s what Clinton did NOT say that is most revealing. For example:
What is the definition of rich? Perhaps it’s the top 10% of wage earners, anyone making over 200K, or the entire middle and upper classes, all of whom could be “rich” by global standards.
How much should the rich pay? Is 50% of their income enough, or do we need to go higher?
Why should the rich pay more? The wealthy already pay taxes at higher rates and on higher amounts of income, and most of their taxes support programs for those in lower income brackets.
Why not just cut government spending instead? Is she really suggesting that the current level of government spending and intervention in our lives is justifiable and worth sustaining with higher taxes?
What, if any, additional government programs are needed? If we can continue to tax the rich, why not keep expanding the government even more? Don’t forget her $5000 baby bond idea in 2007.
What would happen to economic growth and development if taxes on the rich were raised to balance the budget? Raising taxes takes money out of the private sector that could be used much more efficiently to grow the economy and create jobs.
Clinton didn’t address these questions because the answers aren’t really important. She also didn’t consider the fact that confiscating 100% of the income from millionaires would not even be sufficient to balance the current budget. To her, it’s all about politics, class warfare, and economic philosophy.
Clinton did note an alleged correlation between high tax rates and high economic growth in Brazil, suggesting that we should follow the Brazilians as a means of growing our economy. Of course, she did not note some important distinctions, including the fact that Brazil doesn’t have Freddie and Fannie facilitating a housing crisis in the name of social justice. While its economy has grown, the notion that Brazil’s current approach should be the model for developed nations to follow is entirely without merit. History tells us that—other things being equal—low taxes and economic freedom foster growth. This has certainly been true throughout U.S. history.
At least Clinton was honest, but her solution to our economic woes—like Obama’s—is straight from the old liberal playbook—more government and more wealth redistribution. Karl Marx couldn’t have said it better himself.
at least she told the truth, this will do her in if she runs for president again