Letter: What part of my money is my share?

I am writing in response to Linda Kocher’s letter regarding the wealthy paying their “fair share.” She states that the “wealthy” (which she does not define) should “do more,” which again is not defined. She states that is the American way.

No, that is Greece’s way. Check and see how well they are doing. She goes on to say everyone should pay their “fair share,” again this “share” is not defined.

Let me give Kocher some real numbers, and not talk in generalities. According to the Heritage Foundation, the top 1 percent of earners pay 37 percent of federal taxes, the top 10 percent pay 71 percent of all federal taxes. The bottom 50 percent paid 2 percent with 47 percent paying nothing. Apparently 71 percent is not enough for the class-warfare folks, so my question for her is what is enough?

What percentage should the government be able to take of our hard-earned money?

Two more points to think about:

• Income is not a zero-sum game; the fact that one person is “wealthy” does not prevent anyone else from also becoming “wealthy.”
• It doesn’t matter how much money the government takes from the people; they will spend it all, plus more.

The USA doesn’t have a tax problem; it has a spending problem.

Tommy Wilkinson

business owner

Baton Rouge

Comments

1) Comment by Scrooge - 06/01/2013

Refuting that there is racism in Louisiana with descriptions of racism is as specious as defending Randian objectivism with a self-proclaimed "Christianity". Phariseeism is alive and well.

2) Comment by Whatnow - 06/01/2013

DMJ, I see more ways to reduce debt, stop borrowing, spend less, cut waste and fraud and cronyism, and you won't have to take in more. ScottB, I agree with you. The have-nots, because they won't do, are always jealous of the haves, and the doers. Scrooge asks, "Have any studies ever been done on the percentage of local businesses that employ black persons in managerial and executive positions?" Where have you been? I haven't been too many that don't. A lot of managers or executives that I've dealt with in the last 10 years or so are black. And I'm talking about the private sector. I think that point is a little weak. You may not be defending anything, but you are sure trying to blame the white society by using the useless race card. Not one white person can make a black student understand the value of free education. You can tell them until you are blue in the face, but it's up to them. Not one white person can make a black man or woman train in skills. Not one white person can develop character or pride in themselves into a black man or woman. We are not the ones instilling the fact that they are worthless by infusing their brains with constantly berating and blaming the white man for their lot in life. That comes from people like you and all race baiters. You are a blamer, just like our President. We are just not caring anymore. Every opportunity has been given and then some, but it's still not enough. Someone might have to work to have a better lot in life. But, now they won't even have to do that. The government(taxpayers) will do that for them. So instead, Mr. President will just take it for them.

3) Comment by Whatnow - 06/01/2013

Racism is a two sided coin.

4) Comment by Scrooge - 05/01/2013

Right...There is no racism in Louisiana, got it. I am with you in that I sincerely wish the outcomes of the history weren't what they are. To repeat, I am not defending anything and I agree that doing nothing will continue to yield the same results. You essentially are describing the same cultural and historical problems from a perspective of the righteous white guy, but it does not change the facts. Certainly, competency and skill drive the market but so do socio/cultural, economic and blood ties which often have little to do with skill, an example might be current state government, or the membership of BR country, camelot, etc. clubs, socioeconomic strata where a vast, disproportionate amount of wealth is cloistered. These are non-judgmental observations but dismissing the incalculable and economic cost of Louisiana's checkered past doesn't it make it go away. It is obvious Louisiana is too far gone, anyway.

5) Comment by ScotB - 05/01/2013

As to local businesses employing blacks in management, I worked in management for a Fortune 500 company for 25 years and have owned and operated numerous businesses personally. I think I can speak for most successful business owners and managers when I say we absolutely do not care if the candidate for a position is any color whatsoever. It is a super competitive world and we need the best person who can do the job.....period! I have hired every race, religion, and sexual orientation, as I know many others have. Not just African Americans, but many rural whites in Louisiana have a disrespect for the value of education, dedication, and a strong work ethic. The only think holding anyone back is themselves, barring a disability of some kind. So, Scrooge, you are full of it, sir.

6) Comment by Scrooge - 04/01/2013

Have any studies ever been done on the percentage of local businesses that employ black persons in managerial and executive positions? Looks like there is little opportunity available for blacks in louisiana in the private sector other than in overwhelmingly menial jobs, there is blood on everyone's hands. Is the strategy to keep them in their place but then cast blame for staying in place? That could be a bit frustrating and might explain why respect for life is minimal. When one is told since birth that one is essentially useless and the perception is that striving makes no difference and even causes adverse consequences for not knowing one's place, that could have a significant effect on achievement. The same effect of minimal achievement can often be seen on those who are born with advantages since striving is viewed as unnecessary. This is not a defense of anything only my perceptions of the historical outcomes in Louisiana and I submit that no improvement will occur, regardless of political ideological fantasy, until the historical outcomes are acknowledged and addressed. Besides, Ayn Rand was a Russian drunk who wrote bad, boring fiction describing an ideology which is incompatible with Christianity. A Randian objectivist nation under God is an oxymoron.

7) Comment by firefly225 - 04/01/2013

^ thank you ScotB. And guess what. Same demographics are going to be the ones on here (using their stolen iWhatevers) saying the "wealthy" should keep paying more and more. Why would they not have that mentality when they've been raised as (and by) takers? It keeps going on and on, generation to generation. And surely with this Administration it won't end. But there will come a day when the "wealthy," who's ironically hated so much by the very ones who need them, will get fed up, move away, etc. Then the country will collapse bc who's left will not be able to sustain it bc they've never had to nor been taught to.

8) Comment by ScotB - 04/01/2013

We have a high school drop out rate in Louisiana approaching 40%. For some demographics, it is over 50%. We have a high rate of teen pregnancy. We have a high rate of young men getting criminal records. Everyone of the people I just mentioned are HIGHLY unlikely to ever be in the top earning percentile. Because they made bad, lazy choices in life. When you subsidize an activity, you get more of it - that's just human nature. That's why, despite over 17 trillion dollars spent since the war on poverty began in the Johnson administration, we have more poverty now than ever before!

9) Comment by chem - 04/01/2013

There are those that say that raising taxes on the wealthy, however wealthy is defined, is socialist and a redistribution of wealth. But in the 50's, when this country was decidedly anti-communist, - socialist, tax rates were as high as 90%. Someone please explain how the current wish to raise taxes is socialism.

10) Comment by postscript56 - 04/01/2013

pville - My point is that a sufficient number or people already are excused from bearing a part of the burden, but not because scheming socialist politicians are giving away freebies by exempting taxpayers. They aren't bearing the burden beause they ain't got no money. The statistics I quoted in my first post are from The US Federal Reserve and the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago - hardly liberal mouthpieces. (Also cited was a paper from the Center for Housing Studies at Harvard, which I'm sure can just be chalked up to liberal academia). Wealth in America is not just concentrated at the top, ir is extravagantly concentrated at the top. That's why the top bears an extravagant portion of the burden. Concentrate wealth, concentrate the tax burden. Distribute wealth, distribute the tax burden. It ain't rocket science.

11) Comment by DMJ - 04/01/2013

A Laugh-In reference? You're showing your age, bub.

12) Comment by InPVille - 04/01/2013

@postscript56: "Distribute the wealth, distribute the tax burden. It ain't freakin' socialism to talk about this stuff!" -[**]- No just to unquestioningly subscribe to it... Once a sufficient number of the citizens are excused from bearing a part of the load that others must bear you end up with the situation predicted by deTocqueville and others wherein the voters discover they can vote themselves cookies from the treasury and the society begins to collapse over loose fiscal policy. " The statistics I quoted I found on Wikipedia. Facts on that website are verifiable. If not, they're flagged. These are verifiable." -[**]- This brings to mind the TV commercial where the gentlemen is entering wreck into his PDA and the young lady opines that anything on the internet must be true. Even if your figures are correct, as I already commented, the occupants of the two groups you referenced changes over time. People start out in the upper group and wind up in the lower group. The opposite also occurs. It still remains true that in this nation the upper %es of the income ranks in this country still pay a higher % of taxes than is true in other western countries. I don't doubt that the top % earners could and will have to pay more. But we are all going to be paying more sooner or later. Pretending that we can pay for what Congresses have already voted for and Presidents signed by only taking from the pockets of a small % of the people is as Tyrone F. Horneigh would say "veeeery interesting but stupid".

13) Comment by DMJ - 04/01/2013

In this day and age, if people still don't understand how a progressive tax system works, it's very disheartending. Obviously, those with the most money can most afford to pay taxes.....because they have the most money...and they'll STILL have the most money when it's all said and done. This isn't ideology; it's common sense. And, considering we've accumulated a mountain of debt (the vast majority of which was accrued prior to the Obama administration) we should take our heads out of the sand and realize that there are 2, yes 2, ways to accumulate debt: spending two much and not raising enough revenue. So...stay with me here...there are also 2, count 'em 2, ways to reduce debt: spending less and taking in more. If we're truly serious about reducing debt, we'll do both. Once we agree on that, all that's left is % points, and we can compromise on that. But first, convincing the Tommy Wilkinsons of the country to not be so rigid in their views.

14) Comment by teacherguy - 04/01/2013

PS...not saying I wholeheartedly agree with the words of ol' Huey, just saying this debate has been going on for a LONG time....and both sides of this debate have valid points!

15) Comment by teacherguy - 04/01/2013

Seems this debate has been going on since before 1932...read the words of the past:.................. "How many men ever went to a barbecue and would let one man take off the table what's intended for 9/10th of the people to eat? The only way you'll ever be able to feed the balance of the people is to make that man come back and bring back some of that grub that he ain't got no business with!"....................... The radio audience, and the others waiting in the bread line, laugh and applaud. "So in this land of God's abundance we propose," says Long, that "the fortunes of the multimillionaires and billionaires shall be reduced so that no one persons shall own more than a few million dollars."....................... We would say, "All right for your first million dollars, but after you get that rich you will have to start helping the balance of us."................................. "$3 or $4 million is enough for any one person and his children and his children's children. Now, by limiting the size of the fortunes and incomes of the big men, we will throw into the government Treasury the money and property from which we will care for the millions of people who have nothing; and with this money we will provide a home and the comforts of home, with such common conveniences as radio and automobile, for every family in America, free of debt" (see Primary Source "Every Man a King" Speech [1934] and Primary Source "Barbecue" Speech [1934]).

16) Comment by phil - 04/01/2013

I think the obvious simple answer in the extreme is that that rich should give all of their money to the poor so that everyone in the USA has the exact same amount of money. It is generally called socialism - and it has never worked in other countries and usually leads to communism etc.. I personally have no problem with people being rich, especially when they worked hard and earned it. Of course there is a question of some positions such as football coaches (just one example) who make $4 million a year, and whether they really earned it or not. In other words, I think our society has created a large problem with a large imbalance in very large salaries for positions that do not deserve it. In reality, we all are indirectly paying for those large salaries. This is another subject, though. But it is related. I do agree we have a national spending problem. Burt now we have a revenue problem too, as a result of uncontrolled spending for many years.

17) Comment by Scrooge - 04/01/2013

"class-warfare", trivializing war because one doesn't like paying taxes. Besides, a definition of waging warfare generally includes two or more opposing sides so wouldn't the unleashing of the dogs of war by Citizens United qualify as "class warfare" as well? If nothing else, this is the age of platitudes. InPville said it best "gimme, gimme, gimme, ...(ad nausuem), only he neglected to mention that greed is a universal human characteristic regardless of socioeconomic class.

18) Comment by Old Man Kensey - 04/01/2013

"Close enough to the truth." How funny. Postscript is right, the accumulation of wealth at the top is the problem. There is only one economic pie and when a very few take it all, the rest of us will suffer. In the last 30-40 years, largely due to the flawed theory of trickle down, the income distribution in our country has eroded. And now we wonder why schools are deteriorating, poverty is increasing, incarcerations increasing, etc. ≥>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Numerous past presidents have Addressed this issue. It is time to address it again. Where is our modern day Teddy Roosevelt?

19) Comment by postscript56 - 04/01/2013

pville - The statistics I quoted I found on Wikipedia. Facts on that website are verifiable. If not, they're flagged. These are verifiable. Go check it out for yourself. Too few people own too great a portion of everything. That's why too few also own a greater burden of taxes. Distribute the wealth, distribute the tax burden. It ain't freakin' socialism to talk about this stuff!

20) Comment by [e-mail] - 04/01/2013

I'll attempt to define "Fair Share" in the Kocher's context; she means that others should pay more, she should pay less, and those who pay nothing should get more freebies.

21) Comment by InPVille - 04/01/2013

@postscript56: What a huge load ! ! The information from the Heritage Foundation may not be completely unbiased. But where can you get completely unbiased information these days. Their figures are close enough to the truth. The United States has the most "progressive" tax system in the Western World. VAT taxes collected in Europe from all economic classes results in their Middle and lower classes paying a much larger percentage of total tax receipts than are collected from those classes in the United States. The real reason the wealthy pay a larger percentage of taxes in this country is because the politicians have been able to convince a willing people that they can have their cake and eat it too at the expense of others. Also those in the top 25% of wealthy Americans constantly changes. People enter and leave the group from year to year.

22) Comment by postscript56 - 04/01/2013

Sure, you'll get totally unbiased stats from the Heritage Foundation, right? In 2009 the wealthiest 25% of Americans owned a staggering 87% of the wealth in this country. That's a fact and that's why taxe rates are what they are. Want more people to pay taxes? Have to have a more even distribution of wealth. As long as 87% of the wealth is concentrated at the top 25%, those folks will pay the greatest share of taxes. That's who is "wealthy" and that's what is "fair." But you won't find that out from the Heritage Foundation.

23) Comment by dday198 - 04/01/2013

pay your taxes and shut-up

24) Comment by Whatnow - 03/01/2013

And don't forget that we also have all those Mexicans coming for those freebies too, with their hands out for votes.

25) Comment by tradewinns - 03/01/2013

i am not against the wealthier ($250k and up are not middle class, at least no where near me) paying more. of the three classes generally discussed, poor,middle class and the rich, the rich can afford it better than the other two groups. the poor do not pay and the middle class are truly taxed out, especially after the new taxes come on line this year. as far as the headline goes (what part of my money is mine) the answer is clear. the government will allow you to keep everything they do not want or need (which ain't much is any).

26) Comment by Attila - 03/01/2013

@healthbudget: go tell that to the morons in the Democrat party that strong armed the lending institutions to give home loans to those who did not have a prayer of paying it back. Congressman Richard Baker and the banking committee repeatedly attempted to inform the members that we were headed for a train wreck if we did not rein in Fannie and Freddie. Barney Frank, and Chris Dodd, Maxine Waters, and other members of the Congressional Black Caucus poo pooed them. We all know what the result was. Clinton's justice department threatened lenders with endless audits and grief if they refused to come on board with their idiotic scheme...it worked....as far as reducing government spending including defense and Medicare I suppose you are ignorant of the fact that in the 1950's almost 60% of the national budget went to defense. Today that number is down to about 16%. Do you actually think that the world is that much safer now that it was then? As far as Medicare goes what is your solution? Simply cut spending? Let the old folks die? Come on, let's hear it. The worst president in our history, LBJ, is responsible for the Medicare mess. Even worse he simultaneously created his "Great Society" give away programs to the so called "poor". Now, 48 years and a trillion dollars later, what have we to show for it....just a population that looks to the "guvment" with their hands out, palm up, demanding more from the producers of society because they are "entitled" to it.

27) Comment by healthbudget - 03/01/2013

your denominator is messed up. Your quote of the AHF includes 1040EZ fillers who may of had a summer job that paid them $500 or $1000 or a college student who made $2500. Income below $3000 has been typically been exempt. I am ok in changing that if you are but I don't think that will help the deficit.

28) Comment by healthbudget - 03/01/2013

Mr. Wilkerson. You are missing the point. The 2008 recession hit everyone but it disproportionately hit the poor. So tax increase on the wealthy are reasonable. However they should come with 1) bank controls that don't underwrite bogus mortgages in the first place; 2) more transparency in investing, and 3) reduced budgets for most parts of govt spending including Defense and Medicare