Let me begin with Mark Steyn. Mere days after I credited him with being one of the few columnists I respect, he goes and dittos Cavuto. And he didn't even wear a condom.
Conservative after conservative then is falling into the liberal "fair share" trap. You'd think they'd know better. In fact, you';d think they'd be cheering the fact that half of America is semi-free of tax tyranny.
But misery loves company – or does it? With Cavuto, Limbaugh, and Steyn, it would seem that the conservative rich want more company – and that they are unsympathetic to the fact that the less fortunate can't even afford a sales tax, a property tax, a withholding tax, a gas tax, and probably a host of other taxes that escape me at the moment.
And it apparently doesn't matter to them that a lot more people pay income taxes now than were ever supposed to.
Meanwhile, the people on the other end don't feel as hostile to the rich as liberals do, and on the same day of the Steyn Whine, along comes Rush Limbaugh to step on his line with an interesting statistic that I'll get to momentarily.
First, here's how Steyn characterizes it: "But at a time of massive increases in federal spending, half the country is effectively making no contribution to it." While that's a darn sight better than the contempt Cavuto expressed for those same people, it's still wildly wide of the mark.
Does Steyn actually think that taxing the people who are free will positively affect the "oppressed?"
Now I used the quotes because the rich aren't oppressed, and I'm not going to make a judgment here as to whether the amount they pay in income tax is fair or not. But those on the lower end of the payers may be oppressed, and I don't know enough about them to make that judgment either.
However I repeat, could Steyn actually believe that it would solve anything by raising taxes on people who don't currently pay them? Of course not, unless he's lost it. More money raised only and always means more money spent. So maybe Steyn is as bitter as Cavuto, and like Cavuto, he appears to equate the non-payers with the takers. So about those statistics Rush presented…
75% don't want the rich to be taxed more. That's bad news for Cavuto because it means, at minimum, half of those he demonized (and probably a lot more) are on the side of the rich. That's what happens when idiots like Cavuto rush to judgment. And speaking of Rush, he didn't apologize for his role in the collective conservative rant.
Here's something else. People who don't pay income taxes think they already pay too much. And they're probably right. Rush let that go without much comment, but I started to think about it. 10% of our income goes to property taxes for which I get, at most, half the value that people with children get. And no one's ever thanked me for the non-negotiable subsidy.
And if a VAT were ever implemented, who'd be the hardest hit? People with fixed and low incomes, that's who. So maybe the Cavuto-Limbaugh-Steyn alliance will favor that?