Let’s talk about “fair share.”   President Obama certainly wants to.   He’s “all in” on the notion that “the rich” don’t pay their “fair share” of taxes in this country.  Indeed, he’s wagering his re-election on the bet that a majority of voters will agree with him.  When the tyranny of the majority succeeds, Obama will win, too.

As parents, one of our most important tasks is to know when to say “no” to our children.  We all recognize a “brat” when we see one — a child who’s never been told “no”, and whines and complains until he or she gets his or her way.  ”Shame on his parents!”, or perhaps that’s not politically correct to say anymore.  But bratty children grow up to be bratty voters, too.

Unfortunately our political system often rewards the political equivalent of the irresponsible parent.   Using Other People’s Money, irresponsible politicians promise the world, and the bratty voters like it.  Once elected, these politicians do their best to deliver the goods.   It’s alright, they say, because of their interpretation of the General Welfare and Commerce clauses of the Constitution.  Others beg to differ…

Sadly, under such a system, no amount of revenue to the government is ever enough, because human wants are themselves unlimited.  Therefore, those with a lot of assets, with “a lot” being defined by the politics of envy, become natural targets for the boundless benevolence of these irresponsible people – voters and politicians alike.

At least one prominent media figure is finally on to the correct way to put a lid on this ruinous line of “fair share” reasoning.  Most recently, it was Stuart Varney.

On his September 20th show, Mr. Varney put a simple question to a Democratic strategist, Mary Anne Marsh, in the context of discussing Obama’s plan to raise taxes on the wealthy.   To paraphrase:

“What is the maximum percentage of income that someone should pay in taxes?”

It’s an arresting question, for several reasons.

 

 
Continue reading at Forbes Opinions…