Saturday, July 11, 2009
Tax the Rich
As an ever more voiced result of class envy (distinct from the Marxian class struggle) we hear that the solution to our government's severe tax revenue problems is to raise the tax rates on the rich even higher. There was a time in England that the top rate was a confiscatory 95%, as memorialized in the mid-career song Taxman: "Let me tell you how it will be/ There's one for you, nineteen for me." During Kennedy's administration the top income tax bracket was just a smidgen over 90%, which the Camelot President helped lower to 70%. Reagan lowered the top rate to 28% and then Clinton jacked it up again to 36% George Bush younger lowered it again to 35%, but that rate is history next year. Yet President Obama talks about tax rate hikes for the rich (top 5%) and lately tax cheat Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-Harlem) is talking about funding the government's stealth takeover of health insurance by taxing the rich even more.
I look on income taxes as the "rent" for living is such a great country. I don't eagerly pay them, but I am perfectly willing to pay my fair share, which recently was in the second tier of top rates and will migrate up due to my fortuitous marriage (economically speaking of course, there is no money value you can place on true, deep and abiding love).
Of course the rich will pay more taxes on their income because the percentage taxed on higher incomes is of course higher. But that there is a tier system, with higher income earners paying not just more, but more at a higher rate, is a moral sink hole. There is no logical justification other than there is more there for the government to confiscate. Certainly the idea that the rich take more governmental services is demonstrably wrong. The rich rarely cash an unemployment or welfare check. They are less involved than the poor in the various governmental services and systems, such as the criminal justice system. They are net tax givers; yet the Democratic elite want them to give involuntarily even more. Moral bankruptcy is a kind way to describe that so called thinking.
A flat rate, which motherfraking Russia has, Russia!, is the fair way to go of course (since a consumption tax seems unachievable) because everyone pays rent at the same percentage of his or her income. If we were to cut the corporate taxes to half or more and go to a 15% flat rate with few deductions, we would soon lead the world out of the doldrums of our current recession. Everyone is willing to work harder if he or she gets to keep the overwhelming bulk of the fruits of their labor.
As it is now, the top 1% pays about 40% of federal income tax; the top 5% pays about 60% and the top 10% pay about 70%. Yet our demagogic leaders say that's not good enough; that's not paying their fair share. The lowest half of the income earners pay a whopping 3% of federal income taxes. Yeah, that seems fair.
The down side of confiscating the rich citizens' income is that they will quit, go 'Galt', shelter their income or leave the country with the corresponding bad economic effect that will have on the area they once inhabited.
Tax the rich even more. An idea whose time has passed logically and morally, yet which seems all the more popular now. More's the pity
I look on income taxes as the "rent" for living is such a great country. I don't eagerly pay them, but I am perfectly willing to pay my fair share, which recently was in the second tier of top rates and will migrate up due to my fortuitous marriage (economically speaking of course, there is no money value you can place on true, deep and abiding love).
Of course the rich will pay more taxes on their income because the percentage taxed on higher incomes is of course higher. But that there is a tier system, with higher income earners paying not just more, but more at a higher rate, is a moral sink hole. There is no logical justification other than there is more there for the government to confiscate. Certainly the idea that the rich take more governmental services is demonstrably wrong. The rich rarely cash an unemployment or welfare check. They are less involved than the poor in the various governmental services and systems, such as the criminal justice system. They are net tax givers; yet the Democratic elite want them to give involuntarily even more. Moral bankruptcy is a kind way to describe that so called thinking.
A flat rate, which motherfraking Russia has, Russia!, is the fair way to go of course (since a consumption tax seems unachievable) because everyone pays rent at the same percentage of his or her income. If we were to cut the corporate taxes to half or more and go to a 15% flat rate with few deductions, we would soon lead the world out of the doldrums of our current recession. Everyone is willing to work harder if he or she gets to keep the overwhelming bulk of the fruits of their labor.
As it is now, the top 1% pays about 40% of federal income tax; the top 5% pays about 60% and the top 10% pay about 70%. Yet our demagogic leaders say that's not good enough; that's not paying their fair share. The lowest half of the income earners pay a whopping 3% of federal income taxes. Yeah, that seems fair.
The down side of confiscating the rich citizens' income is that they will quit, go 'Galt', shelter their income or leave the country with the corresponding bad economic effect that will have on the area they once inhabited.
Tax the rich even more. An idea whose time has passed logically and morally, yet which seems all the more popular now. More's the pity
Labels: progressive taxation
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Supporting Thoughts on Tax Day
I don't mind paying the 'rent' for the country, although a consumption tax makes a whole lot more sense than an income tax. However, I think progressive tax brackets (you pay not only more the more you earn but a higher percentage the more you earn) is legalized theft. There is no moral high ground for taking a higher percentage--the lefties do it because they can and that is the only justification.
So it's good to see others, like David Strom, think it's a bad idea for other valid reasons. Money quote:
It's pretty obvious: progressive income taxes serve to put a higher and higher burden on those people climbing the economic ladder. In fact, rather than serving the purpose of flattening out the economic class structure, progressive income taxes serve to entrench the wealthy at the top. Because as lower- and middle- class workers climb that ladder, bigger barriers are placed in their way.
The rich stay rich, while the rest of us work ourselves to the bone to get ahead. Liberals claim to be taxing wealth, but in fact are taxing mostly work and productivity. By doing so, they hurt the middle class and keep them from getting ahead.
Now what I can't figure out is this: are liberals just stupid when they claim to pursue social justice through progressive taxation, or do they know what they are doing and pursue these policies anyway? Do they know that they are helping to entrench a wealthy class and taking more and more away from those who actually work for a living?
After all, many of the so-called fighters for the working class in Congress acquired their wealth the old-fashioned way—they inherited it. These limousine liberals are doing just fine under the current system. Could it be that they knowingly pose as champions of the lower classes as they actively work to keep them down?
As compelling as this picture is, I doubt it.
I think they are just stupid.
So it's good to see others, like David Strom, think it's a bad idea for other valid reasons. Money quote:
It's pretty obvious: progressive income taxes serve to put a higher and higher burden on those people climbing the economic ladder. In fact, rather than serving the purpose of flattening out the economic class structure, progressive income taxes serve to entrench the wealthy at the top. Because as lower- and middle- class workers climb that ladder, bigger barriers are placed in their way.
The rich stay rich, while the rest of us work ourselves to the bone to get ahead. Liberals claim to be taxing wealth, but in fact are taxing mostly work and productivity. By doing so, they hurt the middle class and keep them from getting ahead.
Now what I can't figure out is this: are liberals just stupid when they claim to pursue social justice through progressive taxation, or do they know what they are doing and pursue these policies anyway? Do they know that they are helping to entrench a wealthy class and taking more and more away from those who actually work for a living?
After all, many of the so-called fighters for the working class in Congress acquired their wealth the old-fashioned way—they inherited it. These limousine liberals are doing just fine under the current system. Could it be that they knowingly pose as champions of the lower classes as they actively work to keep them down?
As compelling as this picture is, I doubt it.
I think they are just stupid.
Labels: progressive taxation
