[Wristpin]

Yes, but then you have pieces of work like Terrazya Hienz who pay 11 percent tax rate and zero SS/Medicare.

[Gordongekko909]

Could someone please articulate for me the moral principle that dictates that persons who study harder, work harder, relax less, save more, spend less and invest more should be compelled by government to give their earnings to persons who do precisely the opposite?

Because according to leftism:

1. They don't study harder, work harder, relax less, save more, spend less and invest more. They cheat, exploit, and steal their way to the top. Nobody gets rich honestly. Therefore, people who are rich must pay. Yes, this includes rich leftists.

2. Even if the major premise of number 1 is not true, not everyone is able to study harder, etc. Some people are born with more natural talent than others, and the possibility that some people should go farther than others in life simply because of some inborn characteristic is unfair, and must be remedied.

3. Because if everyone was self-reliant, the Dems would lose their base.

[SQUID]

The title assumes that all rich people make good choices. The fact is many people inherit and are born into money and nobody has a choice in the latter.

However, I agree that hard work in school and in life is the ticket. If you work hard you will have something. That's about the only choice one needs to make. The rest will take care of itself.

[SolutionsOnly]

I have to admit that I'm surprised that the Star Tribune rand this excellent letter. It is quite a slap-down!

[GSlob]

Progressive tax is regressive, and vice versa:
The taxes are the payment for the social services consumed. The list of these services paid by taxation ought to be held to the barest minimum.
More, the tax fairness consists in nobody being forced to pay for anybody else - there are voluntary insurance schemes for that. Besides, getting a free ride is detrimental to the character building.
Most of these social services pertain to the "protection" [both external/military and internal/legal; even the health protection from terrorist-induced epidemics - let's be generous and include the CDC function here]. Protecting the person of Bill Gates and that of a street bum ought to be charged at the same rate, for the law [including tax law] must not distinguish between the persons - "poll tax" structure here.
Also, their property needs protection of the law and of the military, too. Again, the law must not make distinctions - and protecting one dollar's worth of Bill Gates' stuff ought to be charged for at the same rate as that for $1 of the bum's. Here one would have the structure of a flat rate property tax.
The remaining part of social services pertains to administrative costs like the maintenance of monetary unity, certification of the standards of value, weight and measure [probably professional certifications as well], maintaining the property registries and public records, patent service and the like. These, again, ought to be paid for in some combination of poll tax and property tax - plus user fees where appropriate.
The rest ought to be paid by user fees, pure and simple. Such a system would by its very nature be mildly regressive.

[johniegrad]

The author should have written the letter to the editor AND cancelled his subscription.

[Pukin Dog]

It doesn't matter how a rich person became rich, when determining whether or not anyone else is entitled to their money.

Anyone who gained their money legally is entitled to do with it whatever they please, no matter what.

Anything else is Socialism.

Now, back to watching Navy BEAT Army.

[mr_hammer]

Welcome to the United Socialist States of America!

All kidding aside, I have been asked by many who see my family enjoying a boat ride. Who did you screw over to get that ride? A good number of the "less fortunate" as Boortz calls em are insanely jealous of others achievements. So it is very easy for an overly ambitious piece of crap politician to play the "soak the rich" card

[bert]

.......Could someone please articulate for me the moral principle that dictates that persons who study harder, work harder, relax less, save more, spend less and invest more should be compelled by government to give their earnings to persons who do precisely the opposite?.....

"I'm lazy and want what you have"....... that's all the principle needed.

[ozzymandus]

The reason the left wants to punish the rich is totally obvious. They have money, which the left wants to buy votes and "love" from the proles.

[Cobra64]

Who, exactly are "the rich"? It is a meaningless expression.

[King Prout]

put bluntly: "progressive" taxation penalizes thrift and industry, and subsidizes sloth and incaution.

when you penalize a thing, you tend to get less of that thing.
when you subsidize a thing, you tend to get more of that thing.

simple empirical analysis of a great deal of readily available data is more than sufficient to rationally refute the arguments in favor of "progressive" taxation and tax-funded "entitlements"... and yet: The Leftists somehow manage to keep their nonsense going.

It is a puzzlement.

[george76]

"... I decided to write a rejoinder instead."

What is the inside email address?

[SDGOP]

I wonder how long till democrats propose a 'wealth tax' where they tax a ceartain % of your bank account/stocks.

[TaxRelief]

The Little Red Hen

Once upon a time, on a farm in Indiana, there was a little red hen who
scratched about the barnyard until she uncovered quite a few grains of
wheat. She called all of her neighbors together and said, "If we plant
this wheat, we shall have bread to eat. Who will help me plant it?"

"Not I," said the cow.

"Not I," said the duck.

"Not I," said the pig.

"Not I," said the goose.

"Then I will do it by myself," said the little red hen. And so she did;

The wheat grew very tall and ripened into golden grain. "Who will help
me reap my wheat?" asked the little red hen.

"Not I," said the duck.

"Out of my classification," said the pig.

"I'd lose my seniority," said the cow.

"I'd lose my unemployment compensation," said the goose.

"Then I will do it by myself," said the little red hen, and so she did.

At last it came time to bake the bread.

"Who will help me bake the bread?" asked the little red hen.

"That would be overtime for me," said the cow.

"I'd lose my welfare benefits," said the duck.

"I'm a dropout and never learned how," said the pig.

"If I'm to be the only helper, that's discrimination," said the goose.

"Then I will do it by myself," said the little red hen. She baked five loaves and held them up for all of her neighbors to see. They wanted some and, in fact, demanded a share. But the little red hen said, "No, I shall eat all five loaves."

"Excess profits!" cried the cow.

"Capitalist leech!" screamed the duck.

"I demand equal rights!" yelled the goose.

The pig just grunted in disdain.

And they all painted "Unfair!" picket signs and marched around and around the little red hen, shouting obscenities.

Then a government agent came, he said to the little red hen, "You must not be so greedy."

"But I earned the bread," said the little red hen.

"Exactly," said the agent. "That is what makes our free enterprise
system so wonderful. Anyone in the barnyard can earn as much as he wants. But under our modern government regulations, the productive workers must divide the fruits of their labor with those who are lazy and idle."

And they all lived happily ever after, including the little red hen, who smiled and clucked, "I am grateful, for now I truly understand."

But her neighbors became quite disappointed in her. She never again baked bread because she joined the "party" and got her bread free.

And all the social democrats smiled. 'Fairness' had been established.
Individual initiative had died, but nobody noticed; perhaps no one cared.....
as long as there was free bread that "the rich" were paying for.

[Explorer89]

Geez, I could have saved 4 weeks of my life reading "Atlas Shrugged", and just read this letter to the editor......

[LostInBayport]

Could someone please articulate for me the moral principle that dictates that persons who study harder, work harder, relax less, save more, spend less and invest more should be compelled by government to give their earnings to persons who do precisely the opposite?

Because your studying, working and saving harder, combined with your honest self-discipline, makes those self-absorbed socialists who slept, lazed and spent harder feel baaaaad. How dare you make them feel like the losers that they are? As your penalty, you must support them financially.

I would add a sarcasm tag, but this is truly how these people feel. I know people like this. They have a great deal of jealousy and self-loathing.

[mvpel]

Ayn Rand asked these very questions nearly 50 years ago in Atlas Shrugged. If the author hasn't read that book yet, he should.

[JasonC]

"Could someone please articulate for me the moral principle that dictates that persons who study harder, work harder, relax less, save more, spend less and invest more should be compelled by government to give their earnings to persons who do precisely the opposite?"

Sure that's easy. There aren't as many of them. Next.

[driftless]

I have a Dem bro-in-law who firmly believes that only a few percent of the population have stocks and bonds aHe strongly asserts that the rich have most their money in land and practically nothing in stocks or bonds. Of course he's a retired public schoolteacher, so you have to understand his ignorance. (My apologies to the public school teachers who understand basic economics.)

And I have a number of friends who firmly believe that the rich pay no taxes. I informed one close Dem friend that the upper fifty percent of income earners pay 96% of all fed income tax. He straight out refused to believe me. He also didn't read a book from the time he graduated from high school until he recently retired at age 60. That's why most people are Dems...they're bone ignorant.