Obama's & Warren's collective claptrap
By Ralph R. Reiland
Published: Sunday, Aug. 26, 2012, 8:54 p.m.
There was nothing new in President Obama's admonishment that “if you've got a business, you didn't build that — somebody else made that happen.”
Ten months earlier, Harvard law professor Elizabeth Warren, a self-described but unproven Cherokee (the New England Historic Genealogical Society found hints, but no firm evidence, that Warren's great-great-great-grandmother might have been a Cherokee), delivered a similar proclamation.
“There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own — nobody,” declared Warren, currently running to unseat GOP Sen. Scott Brown in Massachusetts. “You built a factory out there — good for you! But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did.”
To see the full intent and passion of Warren's words, it's best to watch the aforementioned rebuke on video, seeing her hands incessantly waving, fingers pointing and the lecturing voice rising in righteous indignation.
Continued Warren, “Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea — God bless, keep a big hunk of it, but part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”
That sounds like the factory owner reneged on his responsibility to pay for the roads, schools, cops and fire departments. He's charged with getting a free ride, moving his “goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for.” The same with the police, teachers and firefighters, all made to sound like freebies for America's factory owners and entrepreneurs.
Obama repeatedly makes the same insinuation when he charges that America's “millionaires and billionaires” aren't paying their “fair share.” What Warren and Obama fail to mention when pushing for higher federal taxes at the top and more “fairness” in the distribution of wealth and income is the progressivity that already exists in the federal tax system — the fact that the effective tax rate rises as income grows.
Citing analyses from the Tax Policy Center, a center-left organization formed by the Brookings Institution and Urban Institute, Jeffrey H. Anderson in The Weekly Standard reported that the lowest quintile (20 percent) and second lowest quintile of income earners in 2010 paid minus-3.8 percent and minus-4.3 percent, respectively, of the nation's total federal income tax bill, getting back in tax credits, etc., more than they paid in.
The middle income quintile in 2010 paid 3.9 percent of total federal income taxes while the second-highest income quintile paid 15.1 percent of all federal income taxes.
In other words, the aforementioned 80 percent of all income earners in 2010 collectively paid 10.9 percent of total federal income taxes, while the top 20 percent paid the remaining 89.1 percent.
The factory owner, in short, is far from getting a free ride on roads “the rest of us paid for.” He doesn't need a condescending lecture about why the collective is entitled to a “hunk” of his income. He already pays — and pays disproportionately.
Ralph R. Reiland is an associate professor of economics at Robert Morris University and a local restaurateur. E-mail him at: firstname.lastname@example.org
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.