As many of you know, Lia and I aspire to be rich people. We hope that one day we will look back at things like college debt and budgets and chuckle heartily, rambling on about how bad things were back when we used to buy frozen chicken in bulk at Costco. This is not our sole intention in life, but let's just say that we hope for, and are actively working toward, a point where finances are not an issue. I think most Americans are in the same boat. We all have different levels of ambition, but I believe most people would love to live a comfortable life where all of their needs are met and most of their wants are taken care of as well.
This is why I find the recent rhetoric so disturbing. When Americans who earn very high incomes are singled out and targeted as somehow being evil or deserving of different treatment, I get a tingly feeling running up and down my spine, and not in a disco boogie kind of way. Why are we allowed to so openly discriminate against a very small minority that has essentially only committed the crime of being more successful than us? I think it is fair to say that I am not in the 1% in terms of income or net worth, so why am I so troubled by this movement?
I'll tell you why… because it sets a precedent that minorities in this country can be ridiculed, persecuted and even legislatively discriminated against so long as a majority of Americans are ok with it. Fairness has nothing to do with those who have the ability to pay more being forced at gunpoint to pay more. If you think that the gunpoint part is being dramatic, don't pay your taxes and see if a fancy little IRS agent with a gun doesn't show up at your door. Fairness implies that everyone is treated the same, regardless of their differences. It wouldn't be fair to make your smarter child do your dumber child's homework just because they are smarter. Both children should do their own homework as it is assigned. It also wouldn't be fair for one child to do all the chores just because they are better at scrubbing toilets. The work should be split equally between all parties. If you continually reward good work with more work and even hostility, you will quickly watch your high performers rejoin the herd. Fairness means blindfolding yourself and treating everyone equally. Period.
The true issue with the tax structure is not that the top few people are not doing their fair share, but actually that the overwhelming majority of people are not doing anything at all. I understand that we need to help the needy among us, but come on folks. When more than half of the country is claiming to be the needy, it is time to take a step back and redefine what being "needy" means. Most of the needy in this country own multiple cars, have cable television and eat at Chilis way too often. There are those that are truly struggling and need help, but a vast majority of them are just taking advantage of a broken system. If anyone would like to argue about whether 150 million people are starving to death, I would be happy to entertain that conversation for about 30 seconds.
More than half of the fine residents of this super cool nation do not pay any federal income tax at all. Their votes, however, count exactly the same as the dude who is paying millions in taxes. This is a bit terrifying, since what incentive does someone who doesn’t pay taxes have to curtail spending? When you walk into a restaurant and you know you are expensing the dinner to your company or client, are you going to order a sandwich or the prime rib? Economists refer to this as a third party payer system. Individuals become very price insensitive when they cannot personify the other individual who is picking up the tab.
People who don't pay any taxes at all now have enough votes to effectively govern those who do pay taxes. The system is designed to where the poor masses make the laws, but they have to maintain respect and appreciation for the wealthy. Aristotle saw all of this coming thousands of years ago when he wrote down a few fun things that have proven quite wise. I've taken some quotes from the Stoa Consortium below (A bunch of professors who cater to people like me who are too lazy to go buy the paperback.)
"democracy...when the indigent, and not the men of property, are the rulers."
"To endure, a democracy, like an oligarchy, needs both the rich and the poor. A democracy that destroys the well-off becomes unstable. Where the people have authority over the laws, demagogues tear the city in two by fighting with the rich."
" In democracies, the rich should be spared and not have their property or their incomes redivided [for distribution to the poor]. They should also be prohibited from spending money on expensive but useless sponsorships of public occasions such as leading choral groups for musical and dramatic festivals or officiating at torch races, even if they want to pay for such sponsorships."
No comments:
Post a Comment