Lux Lucet

Hillary Clinton

Fairness. Such an innocent sounding word. So why do I always loath to hear politicians speak of it?

Very likely my trepidation has something to do with the way political hacks abuse the English language. Our public discourse has reached what could be called peak dishonesty. Whatever words our public servants use, if you understand the opposite you’re probably pretty close to catching their drift. And so it is with fairness. If some wanna-be office holder starts using that word, think “mega-ripoff” and you won’t go far wrong.

Hillary Clinton, to no one’s surprise, is the latest politician to use the oft-exploited term “fairness” as cover for more theft by government. One need only look at her proposed “fairness” tax to see this principle in operation.

According to the factsheet Investing in America by Restoring Basic Fairness to Our Tax Code,

There is essentially a “private tax system” for the wealthiest Americans that lets them lower their tax bill by billions, while working families play by the rules and pay their fair (sic) share. In 2013, the 400 highest-income taxpayers – those making more than $250 million per year on average – paid an effective tax rate of just 23 percent, in part because of tax gaming and sheltering to reduce their tax bills. Some multi-millionaires can pay lower rates than their employees.

Now there is much here that is true. The US tax code is hopelessly complex and provides ample opportunity for those who can afford top-notch CPAs and tax-lawyers to take advantage of legal loopholes to shelter vast wealth from the tax man. Ordinary Americans, on the other hand, are not so positioned. Most of us dupes on Main Street end up forking it over big-time to the IRS.

Is this fair?, the very rich paying a lower income tax rate than the middle class? Most people would say no. And I would agree with them.

Very clearly what is needed then is a new “fairness tax” to close the loopholes and finally make those billionaire banker boys pay up, right? Well, at least Warren Buffett, himself a major Clinton donor, thinks so. In a 2011 New York Times editorial, Buffet lamented,

While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as “carried interest,” thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they’d been long-term investors.

So the high-finance boys are getting tax breaks on their carried interest and capital gains taxes, probably paying less as a percentage on them than many in the middle class pay in income taxes.

But is raising taxes on the wealthy the only way to create fairness in the tax code?

Instead of raising taxes on the rich making us all equally slaves of the state, could not fairness be achieved by cutting taxes on the middle class, so that ordinary American’s have tax rates at least as low as what the money jockeys are paying?

The quote above from Clinton’s website mentioned that “working families play by the rules and pay their fair share [of taxes].” But examined in the light of Scripture, this is not the case.

When the profit Samuel reproved the people for asking for a king, he highlighted the behavior that the king would exhibit by repeatedly using the words, “he will take.” And one of the things that the king – i.e. big government – would take is a 10 percent cut of the Israelites grain, vintage and sheep in taxes. From this we can gather 1) that this was not being done under the rule of the judges and 2) that taxes of 10 percent or more are inherently immoral.

Hillary Clinton thinks making all Americans equally slaves of the state is the path to fairness. But you can be certain even if she’s elected and her “fairness tax” is implemented, the mega-rich will still have the ability to buy politicians to craft the legislation in their favor and to hire the necessary attorneys and CPAs to continue to shelter their money.

Ordinary Americans, on the other hand? Doubtless, their continue paying their “fair share,” which likely will be more than it was before they were treated with such “fairness” by Clinton and her minions.