It would seem to be a no-brainer that if the left believes that the rich should pay the lion’s share of taxes, as in fact they do, then they would similary agree that policy should support creating the greatest number of rich possible; that it would actually be a good thing if economic inequality were increasing? Wouldn’t it be better, hypothetically, if 10% of the people made over $1,000,000 a year and paid 60% of the total tax burden rather than having, say, 20% paying 50%? Clearly that would provide beau coup billions more revenue to the treasury.
When the country was founded, extremely minimal taxes never provided for taking care of individuals that slipped through the Republic's cracks. It took 150 years for our country to buy into the idea that it was government's job to take care of people. Taxes started going up dramatically as the burden of caring for the destitute and the aged poor became a shared value. Clearly in America we'll never allow these aforementioned groups to suffer so the problem should simply become - what’s the best way to practically fund their requisite additional assistance? More rich people paying more taxes creates more revenue to help the needy. Simple right?
The vast majority methinks would agree with this syllogism but for a pervasive mass perpetrated popular delusion; that if the rich have more then the rest of us as a result must have less. This is a truly one of the most dangerous economic myths and contributes mightily to decreased productivity, social unrest, resentment and class warfare. Now I'm only going to say this once so please pay attention. Just because Bill Gates has billions it doesn’t necessarily follow that any of us have one dime less. His billions didn’t come out of everyone else’s pockets. His wealth was created, not moved. It’s not a zero sum game. The pie got bigger. Capitalism is a wealth creating system. What? Your social studies teacher never told you that?
The truth is that the wealthy in the USA are paying the biggest share of total taxes in our history even at the Bush tax levels and it's entirely possible that if their rates were lowered that their share might actually increase. It's unarguable that since the early 80's when tax levels were reduced on high earners their share has increased. So if it costs us, the less than rich, nothing to have more millionaires, ( kindly review the previous paragraph ) it would incontrovertibly behoove us as a society to adopt policy that creates as many rich people as possible so they can pay an even greater share! Now is there a clinically sane person in the country that would make the argument that higher taxes on the rich will create more millionaires? You'd have to be an intellectual to believe such a thing...
But why stop with having them pay only for 40% of the tax burden*? If we have enough of them they can pay for everything! Imagine.. no taxes unless you make over 100K... or 200K! We should be teaching Napoleon Hill in the 3rd grade. Does Trump get invited to talk to grade schoolers and high school graduates? Imagine all the people... living off the rich. But as for me fellow Americans, I don’t care how many billionaires there are in this world as long as they’re paying for my health care and social security... and why not green's fees. Love them rich folks! Maybe we should stop denigrating them and start thanking them? They might work even harder.....
*The last government reported share of taxes paid by the top 5% of wage earners.
M.D.T
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Yes, of course. And truckloads of common sense and ship loads and barges of the everlasting and obvious wisdom of the ages might never prevail against the cognoscenti who know best for us all.
ReplyDeleteAt this time more people officially are riding on the wagon than pulling it. Yes, less than half of all income earners pay income taxes. This is a dangerous line that has been crossed because the majority is now mugging a significant minority of middle class workers for its money - let alone the egregious rape of a small percentile of earners at the top.
Irrespective of morality, ethics and fairness - simple economics, in the end, rules. My father, a small business owner, always said: "How do you get more pigeons? Answer: Throw out more pigeon food." Well, the winged rats are aplenty and the notion that when you receive the benefits of statehood without having to pay for them, is a clear hallmark of failed social engineering. Entitlements mean: "I am entitled to your income." Yes, I am in favor of statues of Obama, but only because they would make excellent pigeon stoops.
We need as many wealthy people as possible. Even that reprobate socialist fascist islamist Ghadaffi said as much a dozen years ago when he was trying to make a social about face in his country when looking for a way out of mass poverty due to remarkable mismanagement and despite daunting oil reserves. The Communist Chinese - who are still at least politically Communists - also recognize this fact. The backbone of any society is wealth, not entitlement. Wealth funds, defense, investment, lifts all boats -- creates human happiness - and most important of all (and here is the real reason the Left hates the wealthy) fosters individualism.
Everyone should be wealthy, but if everyone can't -- everyone in society will benefit from a "wealthy society" which is wealthy only because its members are.
But hey, none of this can be true because it is just too simple and true. Just ask those nuanced and complicated thinkers who know better -- Karl Marx, Mao, Stalin, Lenin and Obama.