President Barack Obama is not targeting the country’s 99 percent against the wealthiest 1 percent. In a news conference, yesterday, he instead singled out the top 2 percent.
Even though they account for 46 percent of all income taxes collected, Obama says members of this group don’t pay their “fair share.” Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent of income earners pay just 3 percent of income taxes. 
Though the president readily confesses to being in that top two-percent, sadly I’m not. But hey, even if I’m not rich, this country is as much mine as any wealthy person’s. If tax hikes truly are necessary (and this is for the sake of argument — I do not believe they are), shouldn’t I be part of his tax-hike solution to our national deficit and long-term debt?
Even those making less could afford to hand over an extra percent or two of their income for essential government services, eh?
And why leave out the poor? A surcharge of $20 (or $10 or $2.50) a year — even if that’s only removed from their earned income credits or food stamps or welfare payments — would put their “skin in the game.”
We should all be in this together, so why didn’t Obama propose a solution that included sacrifices by everyone?
My guess: It has nothing to do with revenue, everything to do with November’s election.
Obama is asking Congress to extend the Bush tax cuts for everyone making less than $250,000 a year. But he seeks a mere one-year extension.
Why?
My guess is that the over-$100,000 cohort is next on his list.
But he needs their votes, first.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
7 replies on “Fair is Fair”
I feel for the poor 2%.
We never should have had the Bush tax cuts. Cost trillions of dollars along with the 5 trillion dollar wars and the unpaid prescription drug gift.
Same reason that the actual expense of Obamacare didn’t kick in on the working middle and lower class until AFTER the election. If they really knew what he had done to them, ie footing the majority of the massive costs, there is no way they would still be blindly supporting them.
Sadly.
Jim — I’m with you on opposing the wars and also putting them on a credit card. And same with the prescription drug benefit. But not w/ you on the Bush tax cuts. Gov’t is too big and costs too much.
Drik — Spot on.
How about Obama’s other taxes?
Like (buried in Obamacare) 3.8% of gross Not net) rental income); other taxes also.
It is an abomination.
RE: yesterday-governor’s who are opting out of the parts of Obamacare that they can-Rick Scott–FL.- (where I live) has low approval ratings; not sure about the others who have opted out (LA., now Texas; etc)–probably due to scare tactics of the msm.
After both sets of the Bush tax cuts went into effect – 2001 and 2003 – America sustained the longest period of consecutive job growth in history: 52 months from August 2003 to December 2007. During that period, 8.3 million jobs were added. And that was without the dot.com boom that Bill Clinton rode to look so well.
Jim- You ARE right about the prescription redistribution.
This is a politic of envy, was practiced by every tyrant of the recent past.
I agree with you that EVERYONE must have a dog in the fight, or at least those who are allowed to vote (as it was originally at the founding).
A politic based on a direct and continuing violation of “Thou shalt not COVET thy neighbor’s goods” is bound to fail. The question is how much damage will be done in the interim.
[…] Keep Your Skin Healthy And Fresh With This Ultimate AdviceCommon Sense ConspiracyCommon Sense with Paul Jacob […]