Obama, you can’t have both economic equality and freedom

To the Editor:

President Obama said in his address to the nation Tuesday night, "If you make more than a million dollars a year, you should pay at least 30 percent in taxes." This was brought about by the "revelation" that Mitt Romney (no friend of mine) paid an average of 14 percent on his $21 million earned in 2010 (which is about $3 million in taxes), but Warren Buffet's secretary paid 20 percent (of her I am guessing approximately $100,000 per year, or about $20,000 in taxes). So Mitt Romney paid into society 150 times what W.B's secretary paid. What is her sorry ass's excuse for not paying her "fair share"?

Forgetting that the "rich" already pay more than their fair share (I would be willing to bet anyone  that Mitt Romney has paid 10 times more in taxes, per year average for his entire his adult life, than anyone in Athens County), if you were to implement Obama's suggestion that all millionaires pay 30 percent in taxes, this means that investment capital will be taxed at 30 percent, rather than about 14 percent, which is the current rate for investment income (which has, by the way, already been taxed when the investor made it).

If Americans wants jobs, America needs investment in businesss. An increase in investments in small business creates jobs. So, the president told us last night, essentially, we need to double the tax on investment income. That will surely create jobs. Won't it? Are you people really buying this stuff?

A very scary thing being discussed by the administration is that we need to create "economic equality" (the same thing as doing away with "economic inequality"). Economic inequality is a by-product of freedom, like it or not. Think about it: no two people are equal with regards to things like motivation, intelligence, work ethic or aptitude for a chosen profession. So, if we have a truly free society, no two people will have an identical success rate, unless the government steps in to squash one person in order to give an advantage to another, which is to "level the playing field" as the left is proposing.

The government cannot give something to anyone who did not earn it unless they first take it at gunpoint from the person who earned it. There are plenty of examples of people rising from poverty to success in this country, regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation or whatever, so why are you trying to take more of other people's hard-earned (or not, it's none of your business) money?

To sum this up logically, if a society is to be truly free, and humans have differing aptitudes for economic  success, then it follows that there can not possibly be both "economic equality" and freedom simultaneously. The two are mutually exclusive; take your pick.

I am very afraid that when this question is asked, a majority of the pitiful, self-indulgent, so-called  "freedom-loving" Americans will choose the former…

Neal Lee
Athens