Classless Warfare

Once again, I've been so busy that I haven't had time to post anything for the past week. Realistically, about once a week is about how often I have time to sit down and think of something to write. I wish that I could post more often, but I'm not sure I'd have much to say more often than that, anyway.

Many bloggers have noted that there are two general types of bloggers. I'll call these two types "linkers" and "thinkers." The quintessential and foremost linker is, of course, Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit. Professor Reynolds usually posts many times each day, but his posts are typically short, to-the-point comments on breaking news or something another blogger has written. It's rare that an Instapundit post is more than a few sentences long, but because there is so much new, quality content, Instapundit gets more traffic than any other blog.

On the other hand, Steven Den Beste of U.S.S. Clueless is perhaps the foremost thinker. His posts are usually quite long, well-reasoned, and thorough. I suspect Den Beste's daily traffic isn't anywhere near Instapundit's, even though U.S.S. Clueless gets a ton of links, simply because Den Beste doesn't post nearly as often as Reynolds.

My blog is really (as the title says)  more an online journal than a typical blog. I write here whatever I like, whenever I like. I don't have much of an overall theme. I don't post anywhere close to as often as Reynolds, nor are my posts nearly as well-reasoned or thorough as Den Beste's. That, of course, explains why this blog has about one ten-thousandth the readers that either of those blogs has. (You reap what you sow, right?)

Of course, I'd like to have more readers, but I'm not really worried about it. I don't put that much effort into this site (to be honest). I'm not trying to promote it at all, and I blog mostly for my own satisfaction, so there you have it.

Anyway, enough of that. On to what I've been thinking about today.

Rich versus Poor? Why?

I saw one of John Kerry's advertisements on television yesterday, and it really rubbed me the wrong way. It appears that the Democrats, and Kerry in particular, are playing up the "rich versus poor" theme, relying on the age-old jealousy of the less fortunate towards the wealthy to win votes. It's rotten politics, especially from someone that is himself extremely wealthy, and I don't like it at all. This is what Kerry has to say on his web site:

George W. Bush has chosen tax cuts for the wealthy and special favors for special interests over our economic future. John Kerry has a plan to rebuild our future, starting with 3 million jobs in his first 500 days – and a plan to ensure that workers can achieve the American Dream in our changing economy.

Here's what bothers me (besides the fact that it's utter nonsense). By some measures, I would be considered "rich." I'd probably be a target of Kerry's rollback of tax cuts for the wealthy. I'm not rich, though. I make a good salary at my job, but should I lose that job, I wouldn't be any better off than someone making half of what I make.

There's a perception, one that Kerry and the Democrats are promoting, that "rich" people are lazy, self-indulgent slobs who came by their money by underhanded or illicit means, riding the backs of good, honest, hard-working, poor and middle-class folks. Those lazy, rich, arrogant ...bast**ds deserve to have higher taxes!

The truth isn't anything like that. Most "rich" people are like me, I'd be willing to bet. They worked hard in school, got a good education, worked hard to further their careers, and continue to work hard at what they do - and the hard work has paid off. They're doctors, lawyers, engineers, business owners and managers, sales people, and so on. These so-called "rich" are being rewarded for the work they have done, commensurate with the value that they bring to the economy. (An ironic contrast to John Kerry, who married into his wealth).

I am not saying that those that make less money are lazy or less worthy. The simple fact is that some jobs pay better than others, some people are more ambitious than others, and some people are just plain more fortunate than others. Life isn't fair - get over it. Do the best you can with the hand you're dealt. Isn't that what America has always been about? The opportunity to do well, not the guarantee? Those inalienable rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - not happiness itself.

Here's an honest question. How much of their income should the "rich" pay in taxes? What would be "fair?"

In my opinion, your tax rate ought to be proportionate to your income. Right? What I mean is that if you, and everyone else in your income range, take in (for example), 25% of all the income (adjusted gross income or AGI) in the U.S., then you and all of the rest of the people in your income range, as a group, ought to pay 25% of the income taxes. Straightforward and fair, it seems to me. Wouldn't you agree?

That's not the way it is, though. In fact, the rich pay a much larger percentage of U.S. income taxes than is warranted by their incomes:

For the ninth consecutive year, the percent of total income tax reported by the top 5 percent of taxpayers increased, reaching 56.5 percent for 2000. The top 5 percent of taxpayers accounted for 35.3 percent of AGI for 2000, an increase of 1.3 percentage points from 1999.

That quote is from the IRS Statistics of Income Bulletin for Winter 2002-2003 article Individual Income Tax Rates and Tax Shares, 2000 (PDF). What the article says is that even though people earning in the top 5% of all U.S. taxpayers made 35.3% of all income, they paid 56.5% of all taxes! Yes, you read it right, just 5 percent of all Americans pay well over 50 percent of all income taxes. This data is from before the tax cuts, but the tax cuts that President Bush pushed through Congress didn't change the numbers drastically. The so-called "rich" still pay a much larger percentage of U.S. income taxes than warranted by their incomes. If you just add up numbers by tax bracket, it appears that the tax cuts were for the wealthiest Americans because the wealthiest Americans are the ones paying the taxes. Since the poor already paid essentially nothing in taxes, the tax cuts didn't make much difference for them.

John Kerry and the Democrats know this, but are still pushing a dishonest, divisive, damaging agenda. They are promoting class warfare, pitting the poor and middle-class against the so-called "rich" simply because they know it will get them votes. They are pandering to jealousy and envy as a means to an end. Despite what they say, they have no intention of reducing taxes for the lower and middle class, because the upper-class "rich" already pay the vast majority of U.S. income taxes.

Kerry is deliberately deceiving people, and I'm afraid that far too many people will swallow his lies. It's incredibly ironic that he accuses President Bush of misleading Americans over the War on Terror, when it's quite clear that he'll say anything - true or not, even if he is contradicting his own earlier statements.

It's more evidence that John Kerry has no class. He knows he can't win by running on his record, so he plays to jealousy and envy, makes promises he knows he can't keep, and says whatever he thinks is popular to win votes. I just hope the American people will see through his charade, and send him down to a humiliating defeat in November.

Permanent link