Here’s an excellent piece in today’s Wall Street Journal by a financial adviser in California. He calls himself a “HENRY” which stands for high earner, not rich yet. He earns a fairly decent, but unpredictable income, yet has financial struggles in large measure due to the very high tax burden he has. And of course, now the Obamacrats want substantially more from him because he’s among their “rich” who “take so much of the national income.”
Guess what? He doesn’t like it. He thinks his tax burden is already too high. “Why should I have to carry so many people on my back?” he writes. “Call me cruel. I don’t care. I give to whom I choose — but since so much is confiscated (and wasted in the process) I have little left I wish to give.”
What about the future if taxes keep going up to pay the exorbitant costs of government? “The truly rich will stay that way, but many “Henrys” like me will quit. We may be only a small percentage of the population but we pay a large portion of the taxes and employ many. If you take the incentives away you will lose Henrys.”
Does it occur to Obama, Pelosi, and their ilk that if you keep raising taxes to “spread the wealth around,” there will be a lot less wealth created? Evidently not.
