Does it seem right that an American who makes over $110 million pays an effective tax rate of about 18 percent, but if they had a fire at their house, those who would be risking their lives to put the fire out, could be seeing far more taken out of their every additional dollar earned while they are risking their lives?For crying out loud, what does public safety have to do with personal tax rates? Are there not other groups who would be far less worthy than millionaires? What about child molesters and other criminals? Should firefighters risk their lives to save their burning houses? And what about those citizens whose effective tax rate is zero? Is it "right" for firefighters to risk death or injury for someone who contributes nothing toward their salary? If this is not class warfare, then I have never seen it. What's next? Means testing for 9-1-1 calls?
In the olden days in England, building owners posted plaques on their properties signifying which fire insurance company they used so the firefighters would know whether or not to extinguish the blaze. Instead of a plaque, perhaps the modern day equivalent would be a laminated Form 1040 on the front door. But today in England and America, virtually everyone find public safety and emergency services to be legitimate domains for government involvement. It is bizarre that the White House would choose to bolster its argument with a Monty-Pythonesque, "Nice house (and nice low tax rate) you got here. It'd be a shame if something were to happen to it."
UPDATE: The White House must think they have a winning issue in the GOP's War on Firefighters. Look what the White House just tweeted Friday morning:
By the way, thanks to HotAir for the link to my post.
This post (before the update) was originally published on April 12, 2012 at Blogger News Network.