One of the big topic of conversations around dinner tables (or in my case, a lunch box filled with discarded ears), is Obama's tax philosophy. Some find it confusing - for he claims he's for tax cuts, yet he's still raising taxes for some Americans (otherwise known as rich jerks).
Now, here's the thing: if the president is going to cut taxes for something like 95 percent of the population, then he`s got to think that tax cuts are good. I mean, you don`t do something to 95 percent, unless it works.
So, why not just go to 100 percent?
Seriously: Imagine having a classroom full of kids waiting for a flu vaccine. Do you only give it to 95 percent of the class? No - if you believe there`s an antidote that repairs what's wrong, you don't leave any one out.
But here, we do.
The question, then, is why.
Well, It's not because we need the revenue, because that cash from the top 2 to 5 percent won't help.
So then, why?
Oh yeah - that five percent is "rich." And if you've been basting in the sauce of class warfare most of your life - the rich need to be punished, even if all they've done wrong is get rich.
Which is a nasty form of negative reinforcement. Look, if you're going to get nailed for elevating yourself to a higher financial class, after awhile, you`re going to think, "Why bother."
And then, "Is that meth?"
Worse, the definition of rich? Bull crap. What's rich in one area, is poor in another. A family can live happily on 75 grand in Kansas, but in Manhattan, they'll be turning tricks for oatmeal. Inevitably, the so-called rich are going to have to move out of cities, so they can live on skimpier means – which means a lot of whiny Columbia grads wandering confused at Ace Hardware.
And that's something we can all live without.
