F*** the rich
Posted by sanityinjection on July 15, 2009
Apaprently, that’s the new motto of the Democrats in the House of Representatives. Their newly unveiled health care expansion bill proposes to pay for its $1.2 trillion cost primarily by way of a new surtax (surtax means, “on top of all the other taxes they already pay”) of between 1 and 5.4% on those who earn more than $350,000 annually.
For the record, let me state that I don’t make anything close to that figure and probably never will. So I have no immediate self-interest at stake if such a tax is imposed. But I’m appalled that the party controlling our federal government has apparently committed itself to wide-scale redistribution of wealth – punishing those who have been successful in order to help those who have not.
You have probably heard the economic arguments a million times, how taxing the rich simply shrinks the overall economic pie by diminishing investment capital. (In fact, something like 60% of tax revenue already comes from just the top 5% of earners.) I’m not going to belabor this point, as true as it is.
Instead, let me make a philosophical argument. Most of us accept the principle of paying taxes to the government to support the essential services that government provides (though we often disagree about what those services should be.) We like to imagine that every American makes a contribution – though in fact huge swathes of people pay no federal taxes at all because of their low incomes. (I am not convinced that someone who makes $20,000 a year can’t afford $1 in federal taxes as opposed to $0.) We also like to imagine that every American pays a fair percentage of their income in taxes. (In fact, wealthy Americans not only pay more in absolute dollars – which they should – but are taxed at higher rates determined arbitrarily.)
However, it should make us uneasy when the government starts singling out groups of taxpayers and making them pay more in taxes while others are spared. Imagine, for example, if the federal government decided that Asian-Americans should be taxed at a higher rate because they are, on average, better educated and more successful than other Americans, and can “better afford to pay.” I think we would all agree that would be an outrage.
So why isn’t it an outrage when the group in question is defined by income level? People who make $350,000 or more are not crooks who take advantage of the poor; they are ordinary Americans who have worked hard to become successful in their fields, and generally added great value to our economy by creating jobs, developing new products and services, or expanding consumer access. They are already paying *more* than their fair share under our current tax system. To impose an additional surtax is just punitive.
With each passing day of this Administration, our government’s policies seem more and more to reflect the maxim, “From each according to ability; to each according to need.” If that sounds familiar, it should – it is one of the founding principles of socialism – and an official slogan of the Soviet Union. Is that what we want to model our country after? Was that model so stunningly successful that it should be resurrected here in America?
Keep this in mind when you hear the Democrats talking about the “ability to pay” of the wealthy and those who “need” subsidized health care. They are not trying very hard to conceal their goal here. I just wish there were more voices outside the Republican Party (Nobody takes Republicans seriously when they cry socialism anymore) willing to stand up and denounce this for what it is. Middle America needs to remember that, to paraphrase Martin Niemoller, if they do not speak out on behalf of the rich now, there will be no one left to speak out for them, when our government eventually comes for them.
Our society will self-destruct when we reach the point where all those who are productive are sucked dry of their lifeblood in order to nurture those who are not. Don’t look now, Ayn Rand, but Atlas is shrugging.
This entry was posted on July 15, 2009 at 9:53 am and is filed under Politics. Tagged: Ayn Rand, Democrats, federal taxes, health care bill, high income, Martin Niemoller, redistribution of wealth, Republicans, rich, socialism, surtax, taxes. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
I-love-things-that-sparkle said
I totally agree with you! I don’t think “ability to pay” means you should have to! Those people work hard/harder for their money and they are often smart with it. Sure, some take advantage of lower income people, but overall, I think it’s pretty fair. I think it’s totally unfair to have to carry the nation just because you make more money, or have to spend your earnings on bailing people out of a healthcare crisis when they are smoking, eating McDonalds and driving without seatbelts (and I don’t mean poor people, I mean all people in general).
azoptimist said
I’m a firm believer of “If you don’t work, you don’t eat.” I agree. Hard working citizens should not bail out those who choose not to work. But how about the working poor who make too much to qualify for government subsidies but could barely keep their heads above water? I don’t agree with the “Everyman for himself” mentality. Life is hard. Social and government services should be accessible for the working poor (such as free attorneys to establish child support for children of divorced parents. It’s not their fault parents divorced.) If we only looked after ourselves, we’d be another Mexico — no more middle class — where power and money rule; where the poor get used, abused, and live lives of destitute. Just one Independent’s perspective.
azoptimist said
Oops! I left the word “NOT” in the second sentence. Please delete comment two. I’ve inserted the important word in the following comment. Thanks!
sanityinjection said
Fixed.
sanityinjection said
I don’t think we need to choose between a false dichotomy of screwing the rich versus ignoring the poor. But when our government time after time prefers to soak us for more money rather than improve the quality and efficiency of service delivery, it’s easy to start sympathizing with the libertarians.
I think your Mexico analogy is off-base, though. First of all, the American middle class developed robustly long before the advent of most social services – I see no evidence that it would disappear in their absence. Second, Mexico is in some ways more of a welfare state than we are. State-funded medical care is available to all Mexicans – though the logistics of getting to it can be prohibitive in rural areas. Mexico has a Social Security System that is almost as venerable as our own. Mexico ranks 24th in the world in literacy. The problem in Mexico is not that the government is unwilling to provide services, but that widespread endemic corruption prevents the effective delivery of those services to the people who need them most.
Finally, I was surprised that you mentioned child support. I am all for fathers paying to support their kids, but do you really believe that providing every divorced woman in America with a free attorney is our nation’s primary social services need? The states already have child support agencies that go to bat for children, and men have a hard enough time as it is defending themselves against false paternity. Check out this case in which a Georgia man was jailed for a year for failing to make payments for a child that was not even his:
http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/latest/lat_700283.shtml?cpage=1#519567
I-love-things-that-sparkle said
Definitely the rich can/should pay higher taxes. But there has to be a limit. We can’t expect them to pay higher and higher, when government mismanages money and healthcare costs are insanely expensive. Where does it end? Why not fix government spending AND healthcare inflation BEFORE we ask the rich to pay even higher taxes?
Military orders cancelled for soldier challenging Obama’s citizenship « The Western Experience said
[...] with, “Dear Major Cook: Shut up and fight.“ Heck, while your at it be sure to read, F*** the rich Apaprently, that’s the new motto of the Democrats in the House of Representatives. Their newly [...]
sanityinjection said
James Pethokoukis has many more reasons why this is a bad idea here:
http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/2009/07/15/9-reasons-pelosis-healthcare-surtax-is-disastrous/
I-love-things-that-sparkle said
Did you read this child support article?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090716/ap_on_re_us/us_wrongfully_jailed
I was just wondering if that’s why you mentioned it.
sanityinjection said
Yes, that’s where I first saw it.
I-love-things-that-sparkle said
Wow, it sucks to be that guy.
I-love-things-that-sparkle said
Oh duh, I just now realized you had a link. You are so much further ahead of things than me!! Thank God I have your website to keep me from going under into complete ignorance!
I-love-things-that-sparkle said
Also, I am against the belief that seniors shouldn’t receive social security just because they continue to work or if they find additional income later in life. I think if you pay while you are a working citizen, you deserve to get what’s coming to you later in life, regardless of your need or how smart you were with your money early on. I mean, I am all for contributing social security money for the sake of bettering society overall (helping lower income seniors live a decent life) but I feel it’s wrong for someone to not get benefits just because they keep working past retirement. What are your thoughts on that?
sanityinjection said
I think the entire Social Security system is a scam. If a private citizen tried to set up a similar system, he or she would be put in jail for fraud. Instead of arguing over who should get benefits or whether they should be taxable etc., we should be asking why the government earns NOTHING on the billions it takes in each year in Social Security taxes. Instead of investing the money and paying it out after it’s earned a few years of interest, the government pays it out immediately to recipients and raids the remainder for other purposes.
If, instead of being forced to pay Social Security taxes, you could put that same money into a simple mutual fund – say, a Dow Jones or S&P index fund – you would end up at retirement with far more money than you would ever receive in Social Security payments. Social Security isn’t helping people, it’s robbing them blind.
I-love-things-that-sparkle said
Wasn’t there a move a while back to allow people to invest in their own retirement? Did they think people wouldn’t do it if allowed to on their own?
sanityinjection said
The Social Security was passed in 1935 during the Great Depression. At that time, the stock market was a disaster and nobody trusted it and there were no 401(k)s. Poverty rates among the elderly were in the vicinity of 50%. Implementation of the new program in 1937 promptly destroyed what had been a fledgling recovery and dumped the country into two more years of recession.
The first person to receive a Social Security payment was Ernest Ackerman, a man who retired the day after the Act took effect. For his last day of work, he contributed 5 cents in Social Security taxes and received a total of 17 cents as a lump sum benefit. Another recipient, Ida May Fuller, paid Social Security taxes for three years totalling $24.75. Over the course of her lifetime, she received $22,888.92 in benefits. So from the very beginning, the plan showed signs of being fiscally unsustainable.
Of course, the structure of the program has changed since then. Today the government pays out $650 billion in Social Security benefits. Republicans have tried to pass legislation to allow workers to privately invest some of their Social Security contributions, but Democrats have blocked it. So basically we are stuck with a program that was designed for a Depression-era economy, on the principle that government must do for people what they cannot or will not do for themselves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States)
I-love-things-that-sparkle said
Thank you!
sanityinjection said
Good news – After the Congressional Budget Office slammed the House health care bill for making health care more expensive without fixing the underlying problems in the system, even rank and file Democrats are acknowledging the bill is dead in the water:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/16/AR2009071602242.html?hpid%3Dtopnews&sub=AR
Most likely we will see a very different bill hit the Senate floor.
I-love-things-that-sparkle said
Anyhow, I don’t personally contribute to social security. I have a teacher’s retirement fund. Any way to find out if they operate the same as SS? Just wondering, I suppose it wouldn’t matter any way . . .
sanityinjection said
No, if your state is anything like mine, your contributions to the teachers’ retirement fund are professionally invested. You’re still helping to pay for other people’s benefits, but because the system generates earnings, every dollar that goes in pays for more than one dollar of benefits coming out. Also, since many teachers don’t stay long enough to be vested, you’ve probably got a favorable contribution balance and the fund is probably in much better shape than Social Security, where a dwindling number of workers are having to pay for a growing number of retirees.