Fair Share

While fingers point over who is to blame for the recent U.S. credit downgrade, one talking point continually trotted out is we are in this mess because rich people don’t want to pay their fair share. Exactly what is “fair share”? Can this be quantified? And isn’t this the wrong starting question anyway? The question should be, “How much is needed to fund basic government services as specified by the powers reserved for congress in the Constitution”? The filter should never be, “We need to provide birth control for people so who do we find to pay for this”?


Evaluate the predicament we are in and most signs point back to egregious spending in areas the government should never be allowed into in the first place.

Let’s assume though, for sake of analysis, we need to assign a definition to “fair share.” I’ve asked many a person using this term what fair actually is. I never get an answer. Usually I get ignored or get a blank stare or a redirected question. Fair appears to be a floating term meant to change the conversation whenever more revenue is perceived to be needed. Fairness is also usually defined by the recipients and not the contributors. Fairness for how long and hard you make others work to pay for their own family plus the 50% who pay nothing in federal taxes is never even thought of.

I think most Americans, in fact I know most Americans, are a generous lot. We have no problem helping others in need. Remember Haiti’s earthquake and the $1billion+ the United States raised? The rub is when the government tries to be all things to all people. We’ve built up a government alter from which all with needs are supposed to seek. It’s becoming ingrained in our culture. Why would somebody “want to pay more” voluntarily when the expectation is somebody else (the government) will take care of the need?

Most of the rich as defined by the fair share crowd already pay close to 50% in federal, state, local & FICA taxes. They pay a lifetime of 6.2% FICA with no Social Security benefits of their own (taxed away) because they earn too much. They pay federal taxes when half the country pays none. If 50% isn’t fair, what percentage is? How much more work, stress, time away from family, and risk taking are expected of these people before they’ve paid their fair share?

The dialog needs to change in this country if we want our vibrant economy back. The 50% not paying tax now should be paying something even if it is 5%. They need skin in the game, especially since it would be human nature to vote for more entitlements and let somebody else pay for it.

False Compassion

What do you visualize when I say the word compassion? How would you define it? Would an act of compassion be obvious when you come across it? These days, the liberal media pundits, our president, most of congress, and even many citizens define compassion as remedying a perceived wrong by taking one person’s assets and distributing them to another via legislation, judicial fiat, or somebody’s whim. This is not compassion. This is progressive social engineering. We need to understand this before it totally shifts public sentiment away from successful capitalism and towards the unsuccessful utopia known as socialism.

Socialistic thought sounds “fair and balanced” but our Founding Fathers never intended for every citizen to expect the exact same outcome. The Founders knew what many today don’t grasp and that is, the relationship between risks and rewards. We should all be allowed to determine how much risk we take on in our pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. Those successful entrepreneurs choosing to take on more risk aren’t better people than folks who don’t. One person is not “better” than another (they may think they are but God tells us clearly they are not), but it does mean that when risk-takers are exponentially successful they should not be unduly punished for their success because the rest of us didn’t take the same risks they did.

Progressives want to box us in. If we take risks and fail they say nothing, but if we take risks and succeed, they want to tax us into oblivion. There is no downside for a progressive thinker. You’ve either gained at the expense of others unfairly or you are in need of a handout. Therein lays the trouble. A society that does not actively and handsomely reward risk taking will never produce a thriving economy. We know this instinctively in our personal lives, but we fail to translate it to the larger picture.

We know if we hand the bank money for a CD, our return is minimal, our investment is safe, and we will never get rich. We also know if we take that same money and buy Microsoft stock that our potential return will be much greater, but so will our potential loss be. Progressives want to tax your successful investment in Microsoft and tell you they are doing it to even out the playing field for the person investing in CD’s.

This is not compassionate. This is a mirage. When government picks sides, one person is shown compassion at another person’s expense. By very definition this cannot be called compassion.

Compassion in society must be practiced at the individual level and it must be accompanied by choice. I choose to donate my time, money, talent, and energy to help those in need. I chose, not you choosing for me. I take care of my neighbors and those I rub shoulders with everyday. Many will shout, “what if nobody chooses to help?” My answer to that is, we are the most generous nation on earth, many people will step up at the individual level and help when government stops trying to help by taxing all of us to death.

A person looking out for other people is true compassion and it advances society infinitely farther than Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi deciding who should sacrifice and who should receive. When you hear too many people parroting the phrase, “to each according to his need and from each according to his ability”, watch out…the decline in your standard of living is not far behind. Know the difference between artificial compassion and true compassion, be able to articulate it, and let’s go get our country back.

Conservatives are compassionate

Is anyone else tired of hearing how conservatives are for the rich? Why are there so few conservatives who can articulate the fallacy of this statement? Year after year we hear the media blathering on about this as if it is fact. Most conservatives don't even bother trying to explain where this is wrong. It's like we've conceded the argument. I'm not conceding it. I'll try to offer up a few ideas on the matter.

Start with taxes. Conservatives want to lower taxes on individuals and corporations. Right now, under George Bush the bottom 50% don't pay any income tax already. That sounds compassionate doesn't it?? Doesn't this actually help the middle and lower classes? Those yelling no, stay with me for a few sentences. One big reason our economy is stuck (besides high energy costs) is we have the third highest corporate tax burden among industrialized economies. Since I've been born (35 years), every time we lower the tax rate, income into the US Treasury goes UP...not down. Research income receipts at www.ustreas.gov and the facts will back me up. How is that possible? Lowering taxes offers incentives for folks to work harder. Folks working harder, take risks and often become more successful. They hire additional people who work harder to generate more income, and the cycle continues on and on bringing more income tax in even at the lower rate.

This principle is so common sense I can't see why people even argue against it. Say you are making $10/hr and the government decides to tax you 50%. That's $5. Are you really going to even bother working for a net of $5/hour? I doubt it. What if taxes were 10% or $1. Aren't you much more likely to bother working for $9 vs. $5? Why is this logic any different at the top of the income ladder? People taking on the risk of borrowing money to start businesses often by threat of losing their homes if they fail are not going to when 30, 40, even 50% of the money is gone before they start. So, I say conservative tax policy is actually for both the rich and the poor.

What about the church? Well, about 2/3rd's of the Christian & Catholic churches in America identify themselves as conservative. According to www.generousgiving.org, churchgoers give about 3.4% of their income vs. 1.1-1.4% for non-churchgoers. Non-churchgoers is a group of folks always polled as extensively liberal and progressive. In addition, conservative congregations give $2,627 per person/per year versus $1,582 by "liberal congregations." Who are the compassionate ones again?

Let's end with "teaching a man to fish." Conservatives always get attacked because we don't want our hard earned funds redistributed to others by fiat. This is interpreted as not caring. The principal here is: I worked hard, I paid for my college education, I took risks, and I don't want government just "taking" my money. I want and believe individuals, the church and other private enterprises should WANT to help these folks. My wife and I give a lot because of this principal.

Private enterprise almost always does things better than government. And many of us believe we should offer help but also teach folks how to be self-sufficient so they are productive members of society. Isn't that truly compassionate?? Giving someone on the street $10 so they can often turn around and buy beer or drugs is not compassionate. It is enabling and makes liberals "feel good" but doesn't actually accomplish anything. Soon the same person is back at it looking for free money so they don't have to work.

I'd like to hear from you. Am I all wet on this? What do you think. Comment me and get a dialog going.