Ultrawealthy Arguments and "More"
Updated: Nov 8, 2019
I recently posted a video from the Wall Street Journal summarizing comments made by Democratic Presidential Candidates with respect to taxing the ultrawealthy. The video (again, the WSJ's video, not mine) showed the candidates in agreement that we should be, and if elected will be, targeting the wealthy. You can watch the video here.
Taxing the wealthy isn't a sound economic strategy for returning us to financial prosperity. I write this for a couple of reasons, chief among them the problem of "targeting the wealthy" on the face of targeting the wealthy. My comments were:
"Make no mistake friends, they don't want to tax billionaires and they're unconcerned about taxing the wealthy. They want to tax people with 'more.' 'More' does not have a dollar amount. 'More' does not have a limitation. You and I have 'more' than others and when targeting and taxing billionaires doesn't satisfy the agenda, you and I will be called to give 'more.'"
I received a wide range of feedback (all of which I enjoyed!). Here are some of the comments with my responses:
"Rick Laib, you don't have a clue what you are talking about going back to Reagan Republicans have been obsessed with nothing but tax breaks for the wealthy and shifting the burden to the poor and middle class. We didn't pay federal taxes on Social Security, before Reagan, we used to deduct credit card interest, and so much more. Democrats would love to cut taxes on everyone but the interest on the Republican caused national debt takes too much money from us all and gives it to banks."
I'm grateful for the author's thoughts and for his spelling my name correctly (you'd be surprised at the variations I see). If I, in fact, don't know what I'm talking about, I'm afraid this author didn't clarify a proper view for me. However, if the latter part of his post is correct, that Democrats do want to cut taxes, they make this case difficult by, collectively, targeting the wealthy. But it is an interesting assessment to suggest that Democrats are merely trying to fix a problem that Republicans caused. I'll return to this point--but first...
"I live in a county run by all republican and they just raised our property taxes 26%."
I won't defend them. If I were a betting man, the Republicans in this particular county blame their raising of property taxes on Democrat policy and spending, while the author of the previous comment blames Republicans. Not all taxes are bad taxes, but the problem specifically raised in the WSJ's original video is targeting people with "more." This is not a strategy for success. Targeting the "more" category will not fix financial problems, but continuous commitment to spending within our means will.
"The Ultra Rich are in the Party you want to run as their President."
I think the claim of this author is that the current President's party, the GOP, is the party of the ultra wealthy. Yes? This doesn't seem to follow as there are plenty of the ultrawealthy in the non-GOP category. But even if there weren't, would it be bad to be wealthy? If so, why? Are we simply upset with people because they have things we don't? This might be cause for us to evaluate our envy, not our tax policy.
"While this guy wages class warfare with a post, the GOP in power wages class war with unfair tax policies that favor the rich, their megadonors and corporations."
I presume the "guy" referenced here is yours truly and he does (that is, I do) intend to wage war. Don't like unfair tax policies that favor the rich, their mega donors or corporations? Neither do I. Let's take away the cronyism, the power of the IRS, and the fear and loathing that circles around April 15th; let's move to a Flat Tax.
Rick Laib is a Republican candidate for the 11th Congressional District in Illinois. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.