Recently Senator Elizabeth Warren announced her new tax plan she would like to institute should we ever have the extreme misfortune of her occupying the Oval Office.
Her plan would call for a tax of 2% on wealth in excess of $50 million and a tax of 3% on wealth in excess of $1 billion.
It should be noted here that this is very different from income taxes. This is a tax on what you already have, not what you earn in any given year. This means that if one did nothing other than simply exist that one’s wealth would diminish over time eaten away by the government’s voracious appetite. By virtue of one simply having wealth and by a lack of virtue in the government, led by the covetous Lizzy Warren and her thieving cohorts, the fruits of one’s labors would waft away over time like the smoke from her teepee.
It’s worth noting here that the trigger for the tax theft in her tax bill is safely above her level of wealth.
There is a quote that comes to mind here from Winston Churchill.
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”
Her stated goal is to reduce the inequality of wealth in America but her actual goal is to make reliable Democrat voters out of the poor through empty promises and economic entrapment.
In service of this she unsurprisingly utters that tired old canard, “Make them pay their fair share”.
I am amazed that some people think that the word “fair” means 1% of the folks are forced to pay 37% of the taxes.
Some fun facts:
The top 1% of taxpayers pays 37% of the tax take; the top 5% pays 58% of the taxes and the top 10% pays 70% of the taxes collected.
The richest 1,400 taxpayers in this country pay more income tax than the bottom 70 million taxpayers.
Is this really “their fair share”?
Remind me to never dine out with any of these people and split the bill.
So why exactly does Senator Warren think she has a claim on someone else’s money anyway? I never hear this question asked or answered. All I ever hear is the snide and snarky retort, dripping with envious venom, “They’ve got the money! They can afford to pay up!”
She said this again recently in a tweet designed to elicit hatred and envy:
|Elizabeth Warren Verified account @ewarren Jan 26, 2019
“This billionaire NFL owner just paid $100M for a “superyacht” with its own iMax theater. I’m pretty sure he can pay my new #UltraMillionaireTax to help the millions of yacht-less Americans struggling with student loan debt.”
According to CNN, Warren’s net worth was estimated to be $10 million in 2015.
Hey Liz, how about sending me a check for my mortgage?
I’m pretty sure you can pay my new #Ken’sMortgageTax to help me since I’m a ten-million-dollar-less American struggling to pay mortgage loan debt.
But seriously…….here is my question for Senator Warren.
No matter how noble she thinks she is or she pretends to be;
No matter how noble she thinks her cause is;
No matter how deserving she thinks her proposed recipients are;
No matter how evil she thinks the wealthy are;
No matter how greedy she thinks the wealthy are;
No matter how big a pile of money the wealthy may have;
No matter how much money she thinks is “enough” or how much money she thinks is “too much”;
Why does she feel she has a claim on the lawfully earned income of another person?
What gives her the right to simply declare that certain people, who played by the rules and amassed already taxed wealth, should be relieved of said wealth, at point of arms, because she wants to use it for her purposes?
I would like for her to explain why she feels she has the right to steal someone else’s money because she simply wants it for what she considers a “better use” or a “good cause”.
I would like for her to explain why it is she thinks one person should be forced to work for the benefit of other people.
I would like for her to explain to me, in simple terms, why this isn’t flat-out theft and how it differs from same.
In the way of example I give you this; if my neighbor is poor and needy and I give my own money of my own free will to them to help them out, it is considered quite magnanimous and rightfully so.
If at gunpoint, I expropriate funds from the richest man in town and give this money to the poor family it is considered a crime and rightfully so.
However, if through the machinations of government, I get the congress to pass and enforce a tax, again, at the point of arms I would add, and then redistribute the money so taxed, is it then to be considered a noble thing?
How does it differ from the aforementioned larceny?
Why exactly did the people taxed suddenly lose their rights to their lawfully owned wealth and property?
Why is it considered greed for the wealthy to want to keep their money but not so when others want to take that money, offering nothing in return?
Is the pervasive hand of government the thing which ennobles this entire enterprise?
Is the imprimatur of Dizzy Lizzy and her merry band of thieves something we are all supposed to unquestioningly assume makes this all moral and proper?
And finally, what do you think the people so taxed will do in the future with regard to the larcenous tax rates being levied upon them?