Posted on 04/15/2002 4:34:52 AM PDT by Fintan
|
It's tax day. So let's consider some basic facts. The wealthiest 1 percent of the taxpayers pay 34 percent of all federal income taxes. The top 50 percent pay 96 percent of the total bill. This means that the least wealthy 50 percent pay almost nothing. In short, the income tax system soaks the rich. In the name of justice, the President, Congress and the American public should be demanding a tax cut that lowers the tax bill of the wealthy.
But the opponents of tax cuts do not want justice. They want redistribution of wealth. They want to confiscate the income earned by the wealthy and give it to people who have not earned it. They want the rich - which includes the most productive people in society - to be the servants of the poor.
The moral principle used to justify income redistribution is altruism. Altruism does not mean generosity or benevolent concern for the less fortunate. Altruism means: other-ism. It is the doctrine that it is your moral duty to live for others and to sacrifice your life, property and well-being for theirs. It is the code of self-sacrifice. Under altruism, the productive are the ones who must give and the nonproductive are those who receive. The inability or unwillingness of the nonproductive to create wealth gives them a moral claim upon those who do.
The tax code enforces altruism through coercion. Earning money through voluntary trade is replaced by getting money by force in order to achieve the altruistic goal the government desires. But when the property of some people is seized and given to others, it is an injustice. The doctrine of altruism induces (and is meant to induce) guilt. It makes the successful feel that they have no right to their achievements. The goal of altruism is to disarm the producers morally so that they will not defend their right to their lives and property. Thus the rich often support higher taxes for themselves. Remember in recent years, just as one example, billionaires Bill Gates and Warren Buffett attacking a repeal of the estate tax. Most Americans would be shocked to learn that altruism is the moral code that underlies Marxism (and thus communism). Marx's credo was: "From each according to his ability; to each according to his need." Humans have no right to exist for themselves in this view; they are servants of the state, to be disposed of as the state sees fit. No, we have not gone all the way down that road yet, though the progressive income tax has been a step in that direction.
Altruism is the opposite of Americanism. Americanism means you have the inalienable right "to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," which includes property rights. It means that your life and property belong to you, not to the state or to society. It means that the government's proper job is to protect, not to violate, rights. Acting in one's own self-interest (while respecting the rights of others) is fully moral - it is the fundamental requirement of a successful and happy life. It means that you are not an object of sacrifice but a sovereign being. It means that your property belongs to you. It means that every individual, whether rich or poor, has the same rights. Self-reliance, not self-sacrifice, is the American ideal.
On tax day, support tax cuts by promoting the idea of a truly just society: where each man keeps what he earns and has no claim upon the life and property of others.
Edwin A. Locke, Dean's professor emeritus of leadership and motivation at the University of Maryland at College Park, is a senior writer for the Ayn Rand Institute (http://www.aynrand.org). |
Once again, BY DEFINITION, this is not an investment, which imples a voluntary commitment of capital. Anyway, confiscatory tax rates are not required to ensure the things you listed. It is only when the government gets into the business of redistributing wealth and buying votes that it becomes necessary to raise rates to higher levels.
One thing to consider...is a plastic surgeon in Beverly Hills really 500-1,000 times more productive than an elementary school teacher? Is that plastic surgeon more productive than a farmer who grows enough food to feed 10,000 people? Using income as the only measure of productivity seems a bit myopic.
The only vocation in America which is absolutely essential is farming. Without doctors, we'd suffer a 1-5 year loss in longevity, without farmers we'd suffer a 90+% population decline in a matter of 2-3 years. Are farmers more productive than doctors? Not according to income statistics.
|
And creativity, entrepreneurship, jobs (which create more wealth), individuality, independence from government, happiness, self-fulfillment and freedom, to name a few. |
In other words, pretty much everything that scares the hell out of socialists.
There are also wealthy who do stupid things like all those VC's who forgot about the need for revenues and profit during the so-called ".COM boom" of the 90's. Big help, they were!
If the wealth isn't used, isn't pro-actively invested, is badly invested, is badly managed, leads to unemployment, disrupts an industry... this might be adding to overall economic activity but isn't necessarily leading to further wealth creation or ensuring an vibrant economy. Further, you're wrong to dismiss the idea that outside influences (9/11 depressing travel, for example) can impact an economy adversely irrespective of what the wealthy alone are doing. In fact, in the airline case, if they'd done a better job (proper cockpit doors) they'd not have allowed the circumstance which hurt the economy to begin with. Realistically speaking, the government couldn't have really acted any more effectively (you either have or don't have the human intel) but the airlines sure could have.
An economy is vibrant when there's a good match between the geo-political and economic opportunities made possible by government--through tax dollars--(i.e. a war or post war economy, getting tarifs lifted, NAFTA) and private wealth's (hopefully) wise investment.
Are you suggesting that, as a whole, government can invest and manage wealth more wisely than private enterprise?
That may be correct. It is also irrelevent. What the "wealthy" do with their money is their business.
It is their money.
Arrgghhh! Perhaps you need some more information. Money "at such levels" doesn't just magically produce more money. Money is valuable, and can create more wealth if applied to proper ventures. What those horrible alchemist-millionaires are doing is lending their money to individuals and institutions for innovation and investment. In turn, these evil rich people are compensated in the form of interest, or dividends, or an increase in the value of the holdings for which they have traded their money. Believe it or not, even disgruntled non-millionaires such as yourself are completely entitled to this same process....
An excerpt from the book, The Millionaire Next Door:
PORTRAIT Of A MILLIONAIRE
Who is the prototypical American millionaire? What would he tell you about himself?(*)
* About one in five of us is retired. About two-thirds of us who are working are self-employed. Interestingly, self-employed people make up less than 20 percent of the workers in America but account for two-thirds of the millionaires. Also, three out of four of us who are self-employed consider ourselves to be entrepreneurs. Most of the others are self-employed professionals, such as doctors and accountants.
* Many of the types of businesses we are in could be classified as dullnormal. We are welding contractors, auctioneers, rice farmers, owners of mobile-home parks, pest controllers, coin and stamp dealers, and paving contractors.
* About half of our wives do not work outside the home. The number-one occupation for those wives who do work is teacher.
* Our household's total annual realized (taxable) income is $131,000 (median, or 50th percentile), while our average income is $247,000. Note that those of us who have incomes in the $500,000 to $999,999 category (8 percent) and the $1 million or more category (5 percent) skew the average upward.
* We have an average household net worth of $3.7 million. Of course, some of our cohorts have accumulated much more. Nearly 6 percent have a net worth of over $10 million. Again, these people skew our average upward. The typical (median, or 50th percentile) millionaire household has a net worth of $1.6 million.
* On average, our total annual realized income is less than 7 percent of our wealth. In other words, we live on less than 7 percent of our wealth.
* Most of us (97 percent) are homeowners. We live in homes currently valued at an average of $320,000. About half of us have occupied the same home for more than twenty years. Thus, we have enjoyed significant increases in the value of our homes.
* Most of us have never felt at a disadvantage because we did not receive any inheritance. About 80 percent of us are first-generation affluent.
* We live well below our means. We wear inexpensive suits and drive American-made cars. Only a minority of us drive the current-model-year automobile. Only a minority ever lease our motor vehicles.
* Most of our wives are planners and meticulous budgeters. In fact, only 18 percent of us disagreed with the statement "Charity begins at home." Most of us will tell you that our wives are a lot more conservative with money than we are.
* We have a "go-to-hell fund." In other words, we have accumulated enough wealth to live without working for ten or more years. Thus, those of us with a net worth of $1.6 million could live comfortably for more than twelve years. Actually, we could live longer than that, since we save at least 15 percent of our earned income.
* We have more than six and one-half times the level of wealth of our nonmillionaire neighbors, but, in our neighborhood, these nonmillionaires outnumber us better than three to one. Could it be that they have chosen to trade wealth for acquiring high-status material possessions?
* As a group, we are fairly well educated. Only about one in five are not college graduates. Many of us hold advanced degrees. Eighteen percent have master's degrees, 8 percent law degrees, 6 percent medical degrees, and 6 percent Ph.D.s.
* Only 17 percent of us or our spouses ever attended a private elementary or private high school. But 55 percent of our children are currently attending or have attended private schools.
* As a group, we believe that education is extremely important for ourselves, our children, and our grandchildren. We spend heavily for the educations of our offspring.
* About two-thirds of us work between forty-five and fifty-five hours per week.
* We are fastidious investors. On average, we invest nearly 20 percent of our household realized income each year. Most of us invest at least 15 percent. Seventy-nine percent of us have at least one account with a brokerage company. But we make our own investment decisions.
* We hold nearly 20 percent of our household's wealth in transaction securities such as publicly traded stocks and mutual funds. But we rarely sell our equity investments. We hold even more in our pension plans. On average, 21 percent of our household's wealth is in our private businesses.
* As a group, we feel that our daughters are financially handicapped in comparison to our sons. Men seem to make much more money even within the same occupational categories. That is why most of us would not hesitate to share some of our wealth with our daughters. Our sons, and men in general, have the deck of economic cards stacked in their favor. They should not need subsidies from their parents.
* What would be the ideal occupations for our sons and daughters? There are about 3.5 millionaire households like ours. Our numbers are growing much faster than the general population. Our kids should consider providing affluent people with some valuable service. Overall, our most trusted financial advisors are our accountants. Our attorneys are also very important. So we recommend accounting and law to our children. Tax advisors and estate-planning experts will be in big demand over the next fifteen years.
* I am a tightwad. That's one of the main reasons I completed a long questionnaire for a crispy $1 bill. Why else would I spend two or three hours being personally interviewed by these authors? They paid me $100, $200, or $250. Oh, they made me another offer--to donate in my name the money I earned for my interview to my favorite charity. But I told them, "I am my favorite charity."
|
This is exactly what I tell telemarketers and everyone else with a hand out. |
Ahhh, a Clintonian euphemism for taxes.
LOL! I like the sound of that!
Is there any chance of getting this question answered?
ONE MORE TIME:
IT’S ABOUT P O W E R AND C O N T R O L!!
CHECK OUT HTTP://WWW.SALESTAX.ORG to find out how you can help!
Did you ever get the feeling that it's going to be one of those days???
:)
|
Not a snowball's chance. |
Well said, and I fear that the situation will only get worse over time.
The de facto tax strategy of politicians (all Dumbocrats and unfortunately most Republicans.....grrrrr.....) is basically "Tax the rich." But according to the current tax code, "rich" can mean as little as $60,000 per year.
"Tax the rich" is a safe, self-serving strategy for politicians, because the number of income tax free-loaders who vote will always outnumber voters who get screwed on income taxes.
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.