Photo:23 de Abril, Día Nacional de Castilla’s, Creative Commons, Flickr

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.

-Winston Churchill

You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.

-William J. H. Boetcker

From the latest Democratic debate:

Gibson: You have however said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, "I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was 28%." It’s now 15%. That’s almost a doubling if you went to 28%. But actually Bill Clinton in 1997 signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20%.

Obama: Right

Gibson: And George Bush has taken it down to 15%.

Obama: Right.

Gibson: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28%, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

Obama: Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year – $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That’s not fair. And what I want is not oppressive taxation. I want businesses to thrive and I want people to be rewarded for their success. But what I also want to make sure is that our tax system is fair and that we are able to finance health care for Americans who currently don’t have it and that we’re able to invest in our infrastructure and invest in our schools. . .

Gibson: But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up.

This, by the way, must be the water-boarding treatment inflicted on Obama and dutifully denounced by the hungry left after the debate. Who knew that Gibson and Stephanopoulos were undercover members of that sinister vast right-wing-conspiracy? Why didn’t Richard Armitage single them out together with Valerie Plame? Was Karl Rove somehow involved?

Back to the main issue. The Junior Senator from Illinois is apparently more interested in pushing an ideological and political agenda than tax policies that benefit the economy of the country. He would rather lower the playing field than have more money available for redistribution or the endless list of entitlement programs he is supporting.

Obama’s communist ideology, populism and concerns for EQUITY, remind me of the French wealth-tax. Study after study has demonstrated that investors, wealthy families, company owners, and capital have fled that last satellite of the Soviet Union to escape this nutty tax and has hereby lost billions of tax revenues, yet nobody seems to care as long as those rich bastards are being punished? Add the magic tag “EQUITY” and you can get away with any counter productive nonsense decision.

Someone should really submit to Obama the results of the studies conducted by the Treasury Department or by the Bipartisan Congress Budget Office. Based on IRS data, both entities reveal that despite those devilish Bush tax cuts, the top 1%, 5%, 10%, or 25% of taxpayers are paying more, much more. The graphs above tell the story: the lower the tax rate, the higher the revenues, or, the lower the tax rate, the more the rich pay.

If that is the kind of change the Senator of Hope wants to bring to Washington, I might even consider voting for Hillary . . . Nah. Actually most, if not all Dems, appear to consider that equity will only be reached when 0.1% of taxpayers will carry 99.9% of the tax burden.

Seems Karl Marx isn’t dead after all.

The Other Side offers a counter-perspective to ThePanelist’s views on environmental issues, politics and the economy.