One of the more ridiculous arguments Conservatives have been making about taxes is that if taxes go up on the wealthy, they may stop doing whatever they’re doing to make so much money. For example, the other night Bill O’Reilly said this:
“If you tax achievement, some of the achievers are going to pack it in...My corporations employ scores of people. They depend on me to do what I do so they can make a nice salary. If Barack Obama begins taxing me more than 50%, which is very possible, I don’t know how much longer I’m going to do this. I like my job but there comes a point when taxation becomes oppressive. Is the country really entitled to half a person’s income?”I call total BS on that.
Word is that Bill O’Reilly makes about $10 million per year bloviating on FOX. But if, hypothetically, he were to be taxed at a 50% rate (and NO ONE has come close to suggesting that), he would quit his job because he would only be making $5 million per year. Yeah, right.
Honestly, if you are an “achiever” then you are most likely pretty motivated. Typically you do what you do not for the money but because it’s something you want to do. After all, you’re rich, you can do anything you want, including not working at all. So it seems likely that even for the paltry sum of $5 million a year, O’Reilly would still show up to be an arrogant asshole on TV. And if he won’t, there are plenty of others who would be happy to. After all, Republicans want to eliminate the minimum wage because they’re sure others will take those jobs for an even lower salary. How about we apply the same theory to the rich and see how they like it?
O’Reilly’s point is really one of the stupidest arguments against taxation one can make.
Oh, and it’s a very good thing people didn’t have that same attitude during World War II when in 1944 the tax rate on the highest earners was 94%! That’s ninety-four percent! And none of them quit because of “oppressive taxation”. Of course, we were at war and people saw a patriotic duty in supporting their country. Not like today when we’re not at war.
Wait, what? We’re actually in TWO wars at the same time? And the rich got a huge tax cut in 2003 just as we started both wars? Gee, one would think that would cause an economic disaster.
Well, I’m sure it was all Obama’s fault.
O’Reilly’s point is really one of the stupidest arguments against taxation one can make.
Oh, and it’s a very good thing people didn’t have that same attitude during World War II when in 1944 the tax rate on the highest earners was 94%! That’s ninety-four percent! And none of them quit because of “oppressive taxation”. Of course, we were at war and people saw a patriotic duty in supporting their country. Not like today when we’re not at war.
Wait, what? We’re actually in TWO wars at the same time? And the rich got a huge tax cut in 2003 just as we started both wars? Gee, one would think that would cause an economic disaster.
Well, I’m sure it was all Obama’s fault.
No comments:
Post a Comment