• About
  • The Constitution
  • Columnists
    • Karl Rove
    • Thomas Sowell
    • Walter Williams
  • Funny But True
  • LOGIN
  • Subscribe

4politics.org

  • Next Generation
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Economy
  • Columnists
    • Doug Schoen
    • Thomas Sowell
    • Walter Williams
  • Solutions
  • Humor
  • Videos
  • Follow @4politics

The Rich Don’t Pay Enough?

August 29, 2012 by 4politics.org Leave a Comment

If you listen to America’s political hacks, mainstream media talking heads and their socialist allies, you can’t help but reach the conclusion that the nation’s tax burden is borne by the poor and middleclass while the rich get off scot-free.

Stephen Moore, senior economics writer for The Wall Street Journal, and I’m proud to say former GMU economics student, wrote “The U.S. Tax System: Who Really Pays?” in the Manhattan Institute’s Issue 2012 (8/12). Let’s see whether the rich are paying their “fair” share.

According to IRS 2007 data, the richest 1 percent of Americans earned 22 percent of national personal income but paid 40 percent of all personal income taxes. The top 5 percent earned 37 percent and paid 61 percent of personal income tax. The top 10 percent earned 48 percent and paid 71 percent of all personal income taxes. The bottom 50 percent earned 12 percent of personal income but paid just 3 percent of income tax revenues.

Some argue that these observations are misleading because there are other federal taxes the bottom 50 percenters pay such as Social Security and excise taxes. Moore presents data from the Tax Policy Center, run by the liberal Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, that takes into account payroll and income taxes paid by different income groups. Because of the earned income tax credit, most of America’s poor pay little or nothing. What the Tax Policy Center calls working class pay 3 percent of all federal taxes, middle class 11 percent, upper middle class 19 percent and wealthy 67 percent.

President Obama and the Democratic Party harp about tax fairness. Here’s my fairness question to you: What standard of fairness dictates that the top 10 percent of income earners pay 71 percent of the federal income tax burden while 47 percent of Americans pay absolutely nothing?

President Obama and his political allies are fully aware of IRS data that shows who pays what. Their tax demagoguery knowingly exploits American ignorance about taxes. A complicit news media is only happy to assist. We might ask ourselves what’s to be said about the decency of people who knowingly mislead the public about taxes. Of course, I might be all wrong, and true tax fairness dictates that the top 10 percent pay all federal income taxes.

Aside from the fairness issue, 47 percent of taxpayers having no federal income tax liability is dangerous for our nation. These people become natural constituents for big-spending, budget-wrecking, debt-creating politicians. After all, if you have no income tax liability, what do you care about either raising or lowering taxes? That might explain why the so-called Bush tax cuts were not more popular. If you’re not paying income taxes, why should you be happy about an income tax cut? Instead, you might view tax cuts as a threat to various handout programs that nearly 50 percent of Americans enjoy.

Tax demagoguery is useful for politicians who prey on the politics of envy to get re-elected, but is it good for Americans? We’re witnessing the disastrous effects of massive spending in Greece, Italy, Ireland, Portugal and other European countries where a greater number of people live off of government welfare programs than pay taxes. Government debt in Greece is 160 percent of gross domestic product, 120 percent in Italy, 104 in Ireland and 106 in Portugal.

Here’s the question for us: Is the U.S. moving toward or away from the troubled EU nations? It turns out that our national debt to GDP ratio in the 1970s was 35 percent; now it’s 106 percent of GDP. If you think we’re immune from the economic chaos in some of the EU countries, you’re whistling Dixie. And when economic chaos comes, whom do you think will be more affected by it: rich people or poor people?

Walter E. Williams

Dr. Williams serves on the faculty of George Mason University as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics and is the author of ‘Race and Economics: How Much Can Be Blamed on Discrimination?’ and ‘Up from the Projects: An Autobiography.’

Filed Under: Columnists, Townhall.com, Walter Williams

Economic Myths, Fallacies and Stupidity

June 23, 2010 by 4politics.org Leave a Comment

George Orwell admonished, “Sometimes the first duty of intelligent men is the restatement of the obvious.” That’s what I want to do — talk about the obvious. Suppose that a person is faced with the choice of spending $50,000 on a brand-new car or paying two years worth of college tuition for his 18-year-old. What is the solution? That’s a stupid question. In the world of economic decision making, there are no solutions — only tradeoffs, where having more of one thing means having less of another. Having one desire fulfilled means having another unfulfilled. For example, there’s no solution to our health care issues. Congress’ health care law simply substitutes its judgment on the delivery of medical services in the name of helping the uninsured. The tradeoff is that Americans have less of something else such as fewer personal choices, less after-tax income and very likely a lower quality of medical services.

How about the criticism that businesses are just in it for money and profits? That’s supposed to be an anti-business slam but upon simple examination, it reflects gross stupidity or misunderstanding. Wal-Mart owns 8,300 stores, of which 4,000 are in 44 different countries. Its 2010 revenues are expected to top $500 billion. Putting Wal-Mart’s revenues in perspective, they exceed the 2009 GDP of all but 18 of the world’s 181 countries. Why is Wal-Mart so successful? Millions of people voluntarily enter their stores and part with their money in exchange for Wal-Mart’s products and services. In order for that to happen, Wal-Mart and millions of other profit-motivated businesses must please people.

Compare our level of satisfaction with the services of those “in it just for the money and profits” to those in it to serve the public as opposed to earning profits. A major non-profit service provider is the public education establishment that delivers primary and secondary education at nearly a trillion-dollar annual cost. Public education is a major source of complaints about poor services that in many cases constitute nothing less than gross fraud.

If Wal-Mart, or any of the millions of producers who are in it for money and profits, were to deliver the same low-quality services, they would be out of business, but not public schools. Why? People who produce public education get their pay, pay raises and perks whether customers are satisfied or not. They are not motivated by profits and therefore under considerably less pressure to please customers. They use government to take customer money, in the form of taxes.

The U. S. Postal Service, state motor vehicle departments and other government agencies also have the taxing power of government to get money and therefore are less diligent about pleasing customers. You can bet the rent money that if Wal-Mart and other businesses had the power to take our money by force, they would be less interested and willing to please us.

The big difference between entities that serve us well and those who do not lies in what motivates them. Wal-Mart and millions of other businesses are profit-motivated whereas government schools, USPS and state motor vehicle departments are not.

In the market, when a firm fails to please its customers and fails to earn a profit, it goes bankrupt, making those resources available to another that might do better. That’s unless government steps in to bail it out. Bailouts send the message to continue doing a poor job of pleasing customers and husbanding resources. Government-owned nonprofit entities are immune to the ruthless market discipline of being forced to please customers. The same can be said of businesses that receive government subsidies.

The ruthlessness of the market discipline, which forces firms to please customers and thereby earn profits, goes a long way toward explaining hostility toward free market capitalism.

Filed Under: Economics, Must Read, Walter Williams Tagged With: economics, walter williams

Search 4Politics

MEMBER LOGIN

code
Al Sharpton Gets Meeting With President

Obama to ban bullets by executive action, threatens top-selling AR-15 rifle...

Putin threatens to cut off gas to Ukraine...

Clinton Foundation violated ethics agreement...

Obamacare Gruber fired from MA state health board...

Must Read Articles

Bill Gates Pushes Cashless Society

Bill Gates Pushes Cashless Society

Yuan & Dollar

Yuan spot price per USD hits record high

Must Read Articles

China congratulates NKorea’s Kim on re-election

Getty Images

Mexico asks court to reject Ariz. immigration law

Economic Myths, Fallacies and Stupidity

Black SC Republican poised to go to Congress

A Big Thank You to Neal Boortz

Support 4politics.org Donate Today!

4Politics Links

  • America Now
  • American Solutions
  • Erick On The Radio
  • FairTax.org
  • Heritage Foundation
  • NewsBusters
  • Opensecrets.org
  • The Charters of Freedom
  • The National Archives

More Politics

  • Alan Colmes Liberland
  • Doug Schoen
  • Herman Cain
  • Mark R. Levin
  • Politico
  • RedState
  • Rush Limbaugh
  • Sara A. Carter
  • Sean Hannity
  • Thomas Sowell

News Outlets

  • ABC News
  • CBS News
  • CNN
  • Drudgereport
  • LA Times
  • MSNBC
  • NY Times
  • The Hill
  • Town Hall
  • Washington Post
  • WSBRadio

Comments

  • georgia guy on Harry Reid in hospital with broken ribs, facial bones
  • contribute on Shinseki faces bipartisan calls to resign after VA watchdog report
  • Jerry J. Johnson on Clinton rejects blame for financial crisis
2017 - 4politics.org