RAHN: Confusing wealth and income

Senator Obama surely would not propose new taxes which would actually be collected from any Kennedy, Heinz-Kerry, Rockefeller, Pelosi, Soros, etc. That would truly be "politically incorrect"! Got to protect the "Big Money Dilberts" on the left.

Richard is right on the money in his analysis. This is the classic strategy used by liberal elites in this country to preserve their own wealth while making the rest of us who work for a living support the masses. Nutjobs like Kerry, Pelosi, Buffet, etc. pay their minimal tax burdens while espousing higher tax rates on the rest of us. I don't see a single one of these liberal fifedoms donating their excess capital to the federal government which they love so dearly. Wake up people, it's time to topple the liberal aristocracy!

Both comments below are right on as is Mr. Rahn's article. One thing it brings to mind is the luxerious lifestyles of the top layer of leaders in communist countries. Think about it!

I think the point should be that wealth envy is deceitful and destructive. Isn't envy a deadly sin? The Nazis blamed everything on the Jews using their merchant status against them. Now we are supposed to hate oil company executives and futures traders.

The article above was insightful and fact based but the issue of taxation must be addressed from a more fundamental perspective. The key question that must be asked of the 90% of the people that are subsidized by the 10% that pay 70% of the individual income tax (75% if you factor in the earned income credit) is why do you feel entitled to a single penny of someone elses income? What is your intellectual or moral argument? The issue needs to be turned on its head so to speak. People do not seem to grasp what has happened in the United States since the constitutional amendment to allow the Federal Government to collect income taxes (1917 or 1919?), the introduction of the New Deal in 1933, the Great Society in 1965 and all the cleverly named programs since then. The Government has just been getting bigger and bigger, raising more and more taxes and spending even more and more money. Total Federal Tax collections have been compounding at 7% per annum since 1973. Spending has gone up even faster. Both are well above the rate of inflation. The Government will never have enough money. Plus aren't large organizations supposed to achieve economies of scale at some point? The reality is that the Government has no money. Its citizens have money. So when the Governments paid lackeys the politicians decide to give one citizen money they have to take it from another citizen. When you take someone elses property for your personal use, regardless of how you do it, that is theft. People need to decide if that is appropriate behavior or at a minimum admit what they are doing. It is not "economic justice". Joseph A. Zupo Atlanta, Georgia

The key is why should the government grow at the expense of personal income, especially when the economy is stagnant? The government has proven economically inefficient and at times corrupt. Why should a group of elistists determine who is rich and who is poor through exploiting the emotion of class warfare. Social relativity in conjunction is a political tool that has gone awry on other occasions. The horrendous end to Czarist Russia is the most prevalent example.

I often see people who have substantial incomes but seemly little in assets. It is not unusual for me to see people with $500K income and worth only $2MM or $1MM income and only $4-5MM in assets. This is the norm at $50-60K levels as well. Clearly we consume enormous amounts of our income, regardless of our income levels. Income taxes does not appear to be the most progressive form of taxation. Consumption taxes and sales taxes would be more equitable. This would encourage the accumulation of more assets and investments. Since the accumulation of Capital is the prime driving force behind economic growth it would be a benefit at all levels.