Barack Obama tipped his hand in the recent PA debate with Hillary Clinton. When asked about his plan to double the capital gains tax rate, even if it means decreasing federal revenue and hurting millions of American stockholders, Obama cited “fairness” as his reasoning.
From the debate: “MR. GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?
SENATOR OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.”
That scares me. Fairness? It is this sort of thinking that will be the end of American prosperity.
A few questions that could be asked of the Senator:
1. What rate of taxation, in your informed opinion, would officially be “fair”?
Rephrase: If it is unfair for a hedge fund manager who makes $100 million to pay only 15% in taxes, would it officially be “fair” if they paid 28%? If so, why? If not, why not go ahead and raise it to the official “fair” number?
2. If some people can buy Jaguars and others are stuck in 10-year-old Chevys, is that officially “fair”? Would you consider raising taxes on Jaguar owners, so that they, too, will have to buy 10-year-old Chevys?
3. On what do you base your standard of “fairness”? So far, all we’ve hard is a classic appeal to large numbers without context, a form of persuasion fraught with logical fallacies. We’d like something more than that, Senator.
4. If we really stuck it to those rich, successful types by taxing the living daylights out of them, would that make America less of a “mean” country? In other words, if the rich are made to suffer, will you feel better?
Comments