Tax the "rich" and give to the "poor": limitations of the Robin Hood mentality
Julio Carrion
Issue date: 9/26/08 Section: Opinions
It looks like Robin Hood has arrived in the United States! On Thursday, Democratic Vice-Presidential candidate Senator Joe Biden (D-DL) said in an interview with ABC's Good Morning America that it was time for a major tax overhaul. Addressing the wealthy, he stated, "It's time to be patriotic...time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut." He then went on to say, "We want to take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people," reinstating the Obama campaign's position in regard to the sensitive issue of taxes.
Let's face it; taxes are a necessary evil; without them our society would cease to function properly because the government would not be able to do much of anything. We can all logically attest to that. But who among us should have to pay more?
A significant number of us lean on the side of making those who make the most give the most. After all, those "rich" people have plenty more where that came from, right?
The crux of the issue is what defines "rich," "wealthy," or "successful." We all agree that the likes of Paris Hilton, Brad Pitt, and other big name celebrities have enormous amounts of resources and luxury. We all agree that the CEO's of major corporations also have tremendous wealth (As a side note, I think it is comical that we find one form of wealth-gathering more acceptable than the other). But what would be at the lower end of the spectrum, the line dividing the upper from the middle class?
Biden in this particular interview said that anyone who makes $250,000+ would certainly face a tax increase; however, various members of the Democratic Party, including advisors to Obama, have differing views on this line. From what we know, the lines dividing the "rich" from the rest range from the low $100,000's to the $200,000+ a year mark. Based on these statements, basically anyone who makes more than six figures would be open for a tax increase.
Now come the sticky details; all the talk until this point has been on the middle class, how times are bad for the middle-class, how it is under attack. However, could it be possible that in their attempt to aid the middle-class, the government will be doing more harm than good? The fact is that many in the middle class (the upper-middle) do make six figures a year based on their tax returns. They are the small time professionals and business owners who often combine their personal and business records on their W-40s. Individually they usually don't make more than six figures, but factor in a spouse's and business income, and often their households will fall into the mid $100,000 range. This fact is often overlooked in all the rhetoric and emotion surrounding the issue as the call to make the "rich" responsible for our money needs increases.
Let's face it; taxes are a necessary evil; without them our society would cease to function properly because the government would not be able to do much of anything. We can all logically attest to that. But who among us should have to pay more?
A significant number of us lean on the side of making those who make the most give the most. After all, those "rich" people have plenty more where that came from, right?
The crux of the issue is what defines "rich," "wealthy," or "successful." We all agree that the likes of Paris Hilton, Brad Pitt, and other big name celebrities have enormous amounts of resources and luxury. We all agree that the CEO's of major corporations also have tremendous wealth (As a side note, I think it is comical that we find one form of wealth-gathering more acceptable than the other). But what would be at the lower end of the spectrum, the line dividing the upper from the middle class?
Biden in this particular interview said that anyone who makes $250,000+ would certainly face a tax increase; however, various members of the Democratic Party, including advisors to Obama, have differing views on this line. From what we know, the lines dividing the "rich" from the rest range from the low $100,000's to the $200,000+ a year mark. Based on these statements, basically anyone who makes more than six figures would be open for a tax increase.
Now come the sticky details; all the talk until this point has been on the middle class, how times are bad for the middle-class, how it is under attack. However, could it be possible that in their attempt to aid the middle-class, the government will be doing more harm than good? The fact is that many in the middle class (the upper-middle) do make six figures a year based on their tax returns. They are the small time professionals and business owners who often combine their personal and business records on their W-40s. Individually they usually don't make more than six figures, but factor in a spouse's and business income, and often their households will fall into the mid $100,000 range. This fact is often overlooked in all the rhetoric and emotion surrounding the issue as the call to make the "rich" responsible for our money needs increases.
Be the first to comment on this story