If We Make ‘The Rich’ Pay Their ‘Fair Share,’ Would That Fix Things?

Mish writes:

I have a set of questions for the “fair share” tax proponents.

  1. Would fair share tax hikes be enough to fund US government spending?
  2. What if we took 100% of the profits of Walmart and Exxon Mobile?
  3. What if the corporate tax rate was 100% for every corporation?
  4. What if we confiscated 100% of the wealth of the super-wealthy including Warren Buffet and Bill Gates?
  5. What if we did ALL of the above? Would that balance the budget?

A recent Tony Robbins video making the rounds answers all of those questions. It is about 19 minutes long and well worth a play in entirety.

To meet total spending requirements of $3.2 trillion, but not counting $117 trillion in unfunded liabilities, not only would we have to do everything in the five point list above, but we would have to take the combined salaries of all players in the NFL, Major League Baseball, the NBA, and the NHL, cut military spending by $254 billion, and tax everything people make above $250,000 at a 100% tax rate.

That’s what it would take to meet the 2012 budget of $3.8 trillion. It would do nothing to pay down the existing national debt of close to $16 trillion. It would not come remotely close to meeting $117 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

Read the whole thing.

Share this post:Digg thisShare on FacebookGoogle+Share on LinkedInPin on PinterestShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on Twitter
  • Anonymous

    This is another of those tacit agreements, as per your social contract video. What blind advocates of the state fail to understand, is that accedence to taxation and welfare, is in fact giving the state carte blanche to impose tyranny. Tyranny is the goal, taxation/welfare is the catalyst, but they have it in reverse. The pro-government contingent just want to advance the noble pursuit of democracy and the welfare state, in order to thwart “capitalism”, greed and corruption. I notice this brain-dead thinking amongst the public at large. Notice the deference they give to their leaders, while they find excuses elsewhere. -Better tax those rich eople.

  • Anonymous

    In Wikipedia under “2012 United States federal budget” on the right hand pane it says the deficit is $1.101 trillion (requested), 1.327 trillion (enacted). Where is the $3.2 trillion number taken from?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Grim/26519204 Steven Grim

    Good video, really puts it in perspective. Although the last part had me rolling on on the floor laughing. “Write to your Congressman or the President”. Hilarious.

    No thanks, I’ll be meeting with my state reps and governor in person.

  • BrunoT

    Assuming the summation is correct…

    Why did he include confiscation of “all wealth” and covering all payments due in a $3.2T budget? Why not just show taxing 100% of their income that year? Nobody is proposing that degree of thievery.

    2. The only thing you should be putting into an example like this is taxing income and cutting defense way back (hardly a terrible thing) as that’s all the liberals have proposed.

    3. Then, when it still comes up short, they will be silenced. Instead, with an “out” of confiscation of total wealth, they can prattle on saying the example was unfair.

    4. Tony Robbins? Really? Careful you don’t burn your feet quoting him on anything. “: )

  • Nate

    The credit for this thought experiment should go to IowaHawk, not Tony Robbins: http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2011/03/feed-your-family-on-10-billion-a-day.html