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). |
Pay up or face the possibility of seeing MP-5's in person! Yes folks, a full-auto version not unlike 228 years ago....only the coats ain't red today.
And of course include both DemonCrats and Really-UH-Like-'EM-too's.....all going along with the charade....
Something is worth what someone else will pay for it. Perhaps your problem is with the people who consume the products or services. They seem to put a higher value on plastic surgury than elementary education.
Sounds like they bought your loyalty for $300. They would make that deal everytime.
After all, it was your money they bought it with. Or mine.
So you are prepared to tell me that the Republican party opposes and is going to actively seek the end of it?
Historical note, the first income tax in this country was enacted by Lincoln and the REPUBLICAN party.
Do you deny taking payments "off the books" or charging personal items as business expenses?
You a government thug? IRS agent?
And yes I deny it, as if I owe you an answer.
I'll ask you another thing, if someone is coming to steal your money, and you hide it in the back yard, is that a problem? Or are people supposed to make sure all their property available to the thieves?
If you broaden the concept to taxing all economic transactions including physical asset purchases, finacial transactions, derivatives, non-retail business transactions, etc. a miniscule tax of under 1% would probably be revenue neutral as well as place the burden of taxes on those who benefit most from society's existence.
In any case, why would any of that matter since I am carrying your slothful ass by paying hundreds of times more than you have paid? You must think I should pay thousands of times more.
Both. Not that I owe you an answer either.
I'll explain it since you can't figure it out.
I pay taxes because we live in a tyrannical society and I'm afraid of the government thugs. More precisely, I'm afraid it would disrupt the lives of my loved ones if I was forced to put a bullet in the thug who showed up to force me to pay or take my property.
I have no problem however, with people who are not afraid of the consequences of protecting their property from thieves. Government type or freelance.
In a free society the wealthy are wealthy precisely because they've made the greatest contribution in making the economy vibrant. The poor benefit most from low crime -- the rich can afford private security for their persons and property.
"At such levels, money is just making more money."
And a good thing too.
"It has little to do with their continued daily effort,"
So? Why should daily effort be the basis of anything?
" nor even really what their contribution is worth to humanity."
"Humanity" is not a decision-making unit. Nothing can have worth or value to it.
"any tax on the poor has a bigger impact on that person's or family's buying power."
So what? That's always true. The only way to make it not true is to forcibly equalize incomes.
"At those levels it can mean passing on necessary health care"
B.S. Many, many, so-called "necessary" procedures and services today simply did not exist until quite recently.
"Businesses and conservatives already grouse at increases in minimum wage, imagine if we were all paid like lawyers (or, in some places, like teachers!)."
If at some point in the future most people had the purchasing power of doctors today, they'd still be griping about how they couldn't afford the things tomorrow's Rush Limbaugh could.
If one wishes to invest in struggling young families one does not do it through the tax system. If one wishes to encourage home buying one does not do it through the tax system. It seems a scholarship type program of "grants" or "cost-sharing" would accomplish all of these things. The purpose would be the positive payback the society receives from more highly capable and productive individuals and families.
Wealthy who are not adding to the economy? Rubbish.
Name one.
Who are those who benefit most? Those who have "society" pay for their meals, education, and the roof over their heads? But if that's who you mean, how would the burden be placed on them? Now, if you think the "rich" benefit most from society's existence, I daresay you have it backwards.
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.