For years, Democrats have been known as the party that wants to raise taxes. This has kept some from voting for them. Usually, though, the taxes that would be raised are the ones for the wealthy.
Warren Buffett, the man who was ranked as the richest person in the world in 2008 by Forbes magazine and is now ranked #2, has taken a fairly vocal stance on money and distribution of wealth. He has come out against tax cuts for the wealthy, and has advocated that the wealthier members of society share a certain percentage of their money with charities that benefit the poorer members of society. Of course, this stance is not one that many Republicans like, but their statements are not generally voiced by a major conservative media powerhouse.
Now, Fox News has hosts calling them to stop lecturing the rich. Bill O’Reilly thinks he already contributes too much to the government (through taxes) and to others who aren’t as well-off as him. When John Stossel comments on it, he calls O’Reilly selfish (at first), but then sort of mocks Buffett for not contributing directly to the national debt. O’Reilly scoffs, in his typical childish way, and then compares those who rely on government programs to heroin addicts. O’Reilly, then, continues ranting about being conned. Stossel advocates cutting spending in the Department of Education, while O’Reilly rants about “entitlement spending”. They honestly sound like two men sipping brandy and smoking cigars in First Class on Titanic, totally oblivious to the reality that life isn’t about being a master of the universe.
In another segment, Greta Van Susteren and Tucker Carlson basically repeat the same things that John Stossel and Bill O’Reilly said on their segment. They call him a “big talker” and say that he is doing “moral preening”. They feel outraged and that taxes for those who make $350,000 a year are basically struggling to make it in the world. They then use the position that rich people would donate to charities, if they were not taxed.
Mike Huckabee also told Joy Behar (on The View) that only 40 of the people who make over a million-dollars a year are willing to pay more taxes. He also made it a point to make it sound like being a millionaire doesn’t give a person enough money to survive on. It was almost nauseating.
This idea of entitlement of wealth is extremely disgusting, and the people that go around claiming that having $350k or more a year in income isn’t enough to survive make me sick. As I have told people before, I’m not rich. I’m nowhere near rich. I’ve never been rich, either. When my parents were both working steady jobs (when I was really young), we had about $50k in income coming into our home. Now we make it on much less, since the three of us are on disability and are at around the poverty line. I know, we live in Alabama and it isn’t as expensive as places like New York, Los Angeles, and Washington, DC, but the cost of living here as compared to there isn’t so much that people who are in the highest income bracket can’t live comfortably (even if they paid their full tax burden).
What these wealth hogs don’t seem to realize is that living with less money coming means cutting down on spending. They would have to cut down shelling out money on their fancy dinners, nice cars, and huge houses that could hold the population of some rural towns. They would have to do what they seem to think the government is unable to do: budget. They would get to learn what they really need in their lives, and what is just excess.
Of course, that would probably cause a lot of them to have multitudes of panic attacks.