It’s curious and hopeful that the voters of a Democratically dominated Washington State recently voted down a state millionaire’s surtax this election; a tax publicly supported by none other than Bill Gates Jr. and Sr. and Warren Buffet, the world’s most notorious billionaires. If one had to choose the single defining ideological tenet of the modern left’s Clintonian/Obamanistan, (Clobamitan?) worldview, it would have to be… tax the rich; the puerile belief that the nation can punitively tax the well-to-do without greater adverse economic consequence; that taking money from those who save and invest and giving it to those who empty their checking account weekly actually has a more stimulating effect on the economy than leaving it in the hands of those who know how to make it in the first place.
But could it be in Washington state that the Clobamitons are finally actually making the connection that if you want someone to hire you it might be prudent not to raise their taxes? That they, the well heeled, might just take it personally that they have been singled out to pay more, as if they had somehow cheated or done something wrong? Could it be that they, the 1% that pay 40% of the nation’s taxes*, might just decide to hell with it and leave their state or the country? That they’re sick of the all-pervading populist perception that they somehow didn’t earn or deserve what they’ve created through their extraordinary effort, decision making, risk taking and vision? That they, those ersatz Gatsbians with modest fortunes, might just decide that the amount of money they’ve accumulated is enough and take their ball and go home? Could it be that it makes no practical sense to these Fox News devotees to continue to shoulder immense responsibilities only to keep less of what they’ve earned and to be publicly reviled by the political elites? Or that having more employees to worry about, to provide benefits for and to listen to their problems and excuses and to potentially sue them might not be really worth it just to drive a car that costs twice as much or live in a house that’s twice as big? Could it be these Bristol Palin voters might just think why in the hell should they work harder and longer and take on ever more responsibility and risk just so the extra tax dollars they pay can shore up some public employee’s union pension who retired at 53, send 34 warships to India or fund some new multimillion dollar study on the nondiscriminatory sexual habits of yeast? Could it be? Could it be? Naaagghh! When presented ultimately with the fiscal necessity of potentially giving up their beloved entitlements it will be so much easier to go on believing that the golden geese have metal hearts and that there’s no limit to their avarice, no matter what the social price.**
M.D.T.
*Newly released data from the IRS clearly debunks the conventional Beltway rhetoric that the "rich" are not paying their fair share of taxes.
Indeed, the IRS data shows that in 2007—the most recent data available—the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 40.4 percent of the total income taxes collected by the federal government. This is the highest percentage in modern history. By contrast, the top 1 percent paid 24.8 percent of the income tax burden in 1987, the year following the 1986 tax reform act.
Remarkably, the share of the tax burden borne by the top 1 percent now exceeds the share paid by the bottom 95 percent of taxpayers combined. The Tax Foundation – Washington D.C.
** The owl of Minerva flies at dusk ( hopefully before the lights go completely out )
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The wonderful thing about the study of history - is that all of the errors of the past are plainly in view for all to see. There is no such thing as a "mysterious consequence." Human behavior, for all of its irrationality, is highly rational -- and predictable-- when it comes to the study of economics. The debates that pretend to rage in modern times have settled outcomes that the Left only pretends not to know. I have always believed that the Left is fully aware that a "millionaire's tax" or any such formulation is counter-productive and in the long run forever makes for less -- and not more in society. So why do they always push for it? Simple. They don't care about the consequences since they believe that shared poverty is a virtue and that pulling in the runner in the lead is always fair to the pack. This bizarre notion is of course contradicts social and economic progress -- and such inevitable Sovietizing of society steals from the future and oppresses the present. But I know -- and they know - that they don't care, because it is all in the name of social fairness - the only thing that counts - not human happiness, individualism or progress. And, of course, any social suicide pill that is taken, must be taken collectively - ala Jonestown -- and not individually. (Yes, why didn't Jim Jones only kill himself?) This explains why socialist rich people always engage in the greatest of hypocrisy - which is that they NEVER send it in to the Government voluntarily on their own. Do you really think that Gates & Gates and Buffet who proclaim that taxes on the rich are too low write an extra check to the government each year rather than taking every deduction they can? Of course they don't - you will never hear them say that I raised my OWN taxes and sent it to the Gov in order to set an example for those other rich people who should follow my individualist collectivist example. No, any such social step must be undertaken COLLECTIVELY, not individually since we must all walk off the socialist cliff together. This, of course, proves a simple truth that everyone on the Left knows a cherishes -- Collectivism, the home of the Left, is the ultimate beehive of slavery.
ReplyDelete'They don't care about the consequences since they believe that shared poverty is a virtue and that pulling in the runner in the lead is always fair to the pack.'
ReplyDeleteHerr Foley, They don't care because they, if forced to make a choice, will take a less morally repugnant world than a more affluent world. For them, it is simply intolerable to have rich people simply existing in a society where there, simultaneously, exist poor people. Their feigned superior and heightened moral sensibilities make the world as it is intolerable and worth paying any price to rectify human nature's resulting inevitable inequalities. You're comment is accurate. They'd rather that everyone have one dollar than one person have ten dollars and the rest have two dollars.
Absolutely -- your simple numerical example is as spot on as possible and hearkens to Ludwig von Mises' short, but unforgettable work: "The Anti-Capitalist Mentality" -- an absolute must read for any follower of "The Biscuit."
ReplyDeleteLess is More -- but only if you are a socialist. Also remember, Freedom is Slavery, War is Peace -- and two feet are bad, four feet are good.
The left will always stand Truth on its head. In fact, brothers and sisters, whenever ANYONE becomes rich, others always prosper. A productive market economy raises all boats. Yes, ALL boats without any exceptions whatsoever. Without a wealthy society, the poor would even be poorer. Given a choice, would you rather be poor in America or in Bangladesh? 'Nuff said.