Posted on 11/28/2006 4:32:55 AM PST by Bigun
| 11/26/2006 |
| Redistribution and work |
| By William C. Whitbeck |
| Some time ago, Robert Herbert, a writer for The New York Times, authored a column in which he savagely criticized the tax cuts that President Bush had proposed and that the Congress had enacted. They were regressive, he said, designed to increase inequality in this country and the effect would be to send a "boatload of money to the rich." That last phrase has stuck with me. I have often wondered how Herbert, an obviously intelligent individual, could have reached the extraordinary conclusion that reducing taxes "sends" money to anyone. Clearly, to transfer money from one person to another, the government must first collect that money. If, because of reduced taxes, the government receives less money from a class of taxpayers -- whether those taxpayers are "rich" or not -- these taxpayers are not being "sent" anything; they are simply keeping more of what they earn. But in Herbert's world, apparently, this doesn't matter. He seems to believe that, in some fashion, the government constructively owns all of its citizens' income, collects a certain portion of that income through taxes, and then sends that which it collects here and there for various purposes. In that world, collecting money from the "rich" and transferring it to the less rich is always a good idea. By contrast, collecting less money from the "rich" is always a bad idea. Embedded in this philosophy is the belief that significant inequality of wealth is a bad thing, indeed a very bad thing. But is it? First of all, the federal government taxes income. But income does not always translate into wealth, although the two are certainly correlated. There are any number of people who earn boatloads of money but who spend even more. While they are living well, they are not wealthy. Rather, they are simply profligate. It may be emotionally satisfying to tax these individuals to the hilt. But since they do not have real wealth, collecting large sums of money of money from them in and of itself does little to decrease the disparity between the rich and the less rich. Secondly, even if we focus on income as a surrogate for wealth, that income is often directly correlated to the choices that one makes in life. One of these choices is how hard one works. This, in turn, correlates to one's level of education. As The National Review points out, "High school dropouts worked on average 38.5 hours per week in 2005. Those with high school degrees worked 39.8 hours per week. The number increases each time we jump to a higher level of education: The longest work weeks belonged to those with an advanced degree, who spent an average of 42.4 hours per week at their jobs -- 10 percent more than those without a high-school diploma." And the longer one goes to school, the higher one's income. So those who have advanced degrees (a) tend to work harder and (b) tend to make more money. Seen in this light, redistributionists like Herbert actually and inevitably favor, as The National Review puts it, "taking money from those who work hard and giving it to those who work less hard." Further, as The National Review also notes, almost all of the taxes are paid by those who receive the top half of income. That may be gratifying to New York Times columnists, but it is hardly the way to design and administer a system of taxation. Perhaps we should shift our emphasis from the taxation of income to the taxation of consumption, so that we more heavily tax something other than work.The concept of a national flat sales tax comes immediately to mind. |
It is amazing how you can be conditioned by the media. "Tax cuts for the rich". Then someone like this person pierces the bubble and reminds you of reality.
ping to read later
And the manner in which you must pay them as well!
I would like it if every time some politician says tax the rich, they were asked to define the rich.
Yes indeed!
And the reality is that we MUST rid ourselves of this mess of a tax system we currently suffer if we ever are to again be a truly FREE people!
Indeed it is! In fact, it is the very definition of slavery when you think about it!
If we could just get rid of payroll withholding and force all employees to write a check to the IRS every single pay period, we might begin to erode the mindset that the moneys paid into the income tax system is somehow derived from the ether.
It is money EARNED that belongs to the EMPLOYEE, who is subsequently divested of a portion of those earnings by the IRS. It never ceases to amaze me the number of people who, when asked how much they make in a pay period, will report their net income.
Withholding has made many of us very, very complacent about taxation.
How about "tax cuts for the only people paying any taxes anyway".
Better still, stop taxing income and tax consumption.
My bet is that there are very few FReepers (except those who are retired) who work 42.4 hours a week or less. My guess is that most work in excess of 50 hours a week, esp. those who own or run their own businesses.
"A liberal's compassion is limited ONLY by the size of YOUR wallet"!
ping
How about we just throw the ENTIRE communist inspired income tax system onto the ash heap of history where it so rightfully belongs and pay our taxes when we purchase new goods and services? We can do that you know and you can read all about the effort to bring that about right here.
Now there's an Idea for you! Not new by any means as virtually every one of our nation's founders endorsed the idea but STILL a great idea! I'm all for it!
I guess it all depends on how one defines "work".
I've head it said, and I subscribe to the idea, that if you find employment at something you love you will never have to "work" a day in your life!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.