Because Joba and Melky are nice guys - Why I don't want to overtax the rich.

I think we are starting a new trend in Gather.  Isaiah b. wrote a post on a post by Julie Ann Dawson.  I've added a reply but I thought this deserves its own post.  So here goes.

Perhaps it was one of the two posts that Julie Ann removed but I don't see any references to "Jesus" in the arguments.  Personally I think one of the biggest BS complaints ever invented by man was "my taxes are too low."

But in one sense this argument is like a debate about a single tree in a forest.  You can't look at one tax in isolation of all other taxes; you can't look at one level of tax in isolation with all other levels of taxes and you can't look at tax without looking at the impact that tax policy has on the economy in general.  Why?  Because: they are all interrelated.

Make no mistake, even if you earn under $250,000, your "tax" will go up.  It will go up in proposed taxes designed to curb carbon emissions, it will go up in local property taxes that are used to fund towns and schools all over this nation.

Do I feel "sorry" for people who make over $250,000 a year (we are adjusting this for inflation right ... it's not like the Alternate Minimum Tax that never got adjusted and started covering more and more people over time)?  No I don't but I don't feel angry for them either.  I mean I like Derek Jeter even though he makes over a score million.  I like Joba Chamberlain; yes he only make $390K last year but that's $140K over the Rich Mark.  What about Melky Cabera who made slightly above $461K last year.  Do you hate the Melk Man?  What has the Melk Man (who always delivered) done to you that he deserves your wrath?

Now I suppose I need to invoke the president (I think my mantra will be "hate his actions, love his rhetoric") in saying my argument really isn't about more taxes or less taxes, but what taxes "work."  I'm all in favor of cutting "loopholes" and I'm all for "fair" but that is not what I see in the administration's tax proposals.  I see proposals to cut contributions due to charity.  So you really want to tax a person for being generous with his money (as opposed to spending it on himself)?  If a person makes $250,000 a year and gives 75% to charity and lives on 25% should he be forced to pay more taxes than a person who only makes $62,500 a year?  Should we not be rejoicing that non profit 401(c) organizations are getting that $187,500 dollars a year?  How can anyone even think of wanting to limit the potential source of money that goes to the poor?

Ah, because it's not about taxes at all.  It's not about revenue at all.  It's all about control.  If a rich man gives to charity, what does that profit the politician?  But if the politician takes from the rich man and gives in an ear mark then he says to the poor man, "See what I have done for you?"

I'll "keep" my tax cut (assuming that I get a net tax cut after everything else is considered) but I'll tell you what.  I'll give it to the poor, to the schools that desperately need funding, and even to the occasional opera company, chamber choir, and barbershop harmony chorus.  Because they need it more than my congressman!

Yes I know it's cruel to pull such heart strings.  Why look at Joba when he trots to the mound; are you going to look at him with scorn (well if you are a Red Sox fan I can understand a little)?  Did he cause the economic crisis?  Was it him who caused the landing meltdown?