President Barack Obama proclaims that the rich should pay their “fair” share of taxes. Hence, he advocates higher taxes on those making over a million dollars annually. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid backs that call and introduces legislation for a nearly 6% tax hike for the “one percent.”
But what is meant by fairness as the term is employed by liberals and their media friends?
According to a report by the Congressional Budget Office a few years ago, the top 1% of income earners paid over 28% of all Federal Taxes. And their average tax rate was about 30%. (Approximately half of all Americans paid no income tax.)
If we define fairness as equal treatment, maybe the one percent are the victims, not the so-called 99%!
Of course, perhaps when using the term “fair”, equal treatment is not at all what is meant by the critics of the rich.
If one believes in equality of results, something else entirely is meant by “fairness.” By that standard something is very wrong – unfair – when so few have so much.
It is true that the Administration might be – as GOP spokesmen claim – using the “tax the rich rhetoric” as a political ploy. There are far more non-rich voters than the other variety, after all.
I suggest that more than cynicism is involved. Isn’t a tendency toward leveling results, rather than opportunity, a common feature of liberal philosophy? It is hardly incidental that proclaimed socialist governments in the world have imposed confiscatory tax rates above income levels deemed to be “too much.”
The appeal of such policies to human nature’s less appealing aspects (envy and jealousy in particular) is undeniable.
But if America is to hold on to what opportunity still exists in this land, egalitarianism’s siren call must be resisted.
Otherwise, a positive aspect of human nature will be suppressed: initiative.
Taxes discourage it. Without it, businesses are not formed, workers are not hired and taxes are not paid.
Is that the cost of liberal “fairness” America should pay?
No comments:
Post a Comment