Why punish the rich for good choices?

Minneapolis Star Tribune ^ | 12/3/05 | Gregg J. Cavanagh

[rhema]

After reading the Socialist claptrap "Wondering if tax ride goes too easy on rich" (Nov. 20), I was left wondering if I should cancel my subscription to the Star Tribune. I decided to write a rejoinder instead.

Those in favor of soaking the rich cite "ability to pay" as if it were some immutable characteristic, like race or eye color. After all, if someone was lucky enough to be born with more "ability to pay," why shouldn't he or she share with the rest of us poor schlubs who were born without that attribute?

This attitude is fostered by the media's fixation upon the so-called "idle rich" -- those who acquired their wealth through the fortuity of birth. While I question society's claim on the assets of even those people, I can at least understand a philosophy that favors some redistribution of wealth to ameliorate the effects of truly random events.

But for most wealthy people (a class to which I do not belong), their "ability to pay" is the direct result of choices they made throughout their lives. They invested years in getting an education while others settled for entry-level jobs straight out of high school. They worked nights and weekends while others were enjoying happy hour or spending time on the golf course. They saved their earnings while others were buying new cars or big screen TVs or stereos. They invested their savings in start-up businesses or inventions or property or stocks. They steered clear of the temptations of alcohol, drugs, gambling and crime.

Could someone please articulate for me the moral principle that dictates that persons who study harder, work harder, relax less, save more, spend less and invest more should be compelled by government to give their earnings to persons who do precisely the opposite?

[Wristpin]

Yes, but then you have pieces of work like Terrazya Hienz who pay 11 percent tax rate and zero SS/Medicare.

[Gordongekko909]

Could someone please articulate for me the moral principle that dictates that persons who study harder, work harder, relax less, save more, spend less and invest more should be compelled by government to give their earnings to persons who do precisely the opposite?

Because according to leftism:

1. They don't study harder, work harder, relax less, save more, spend less and invest more. They cheat, exploit, and steal their way to the top. Nobody gets rich honestly. Therefore, people who are rich must pay. Yes, this includes rich leftists.

2. Even if the major premise of number 1 is not true, not everyone is able to study harder, etc. Some people are born with more natural talent than others, and the possibility that some people should go farther than others in life simply because of some inborn characteristic is unfair, and must be remedied.

3. Because if everyone was self-reliant, the Dems would lose their base.

[SQUID]

The title assumes that all rich people make good choices. The fact is many people inherit and are born into money and nobody has a choice in the latter.

However, I agree that hard work in school and in life is the ticket. If you work hard you will have something. That's about the only choice one needs to make. The rest will take care of itself.

[SolutionsOnly]

I have to admit that I'm surprised that the Star Tribune rand this excellent letter. It is quite a slap-down!

[GSlob]

Progressive tax is regressive, and vice versa:
The taxes are the payment for the social services consumed. The list of these services paid by taxation ought to be held to the barest minimum.
More, the tax fairness consists in nobody being forced to pay for anybody else - there are voluntary insurance schemes for that. Besides, getting a free ride is detrimental to the character building.
Most of these social services pertain to the "protection" [both external/military and internal/legal; even the health protection from terrorist-induced epidemics - let's be generous and include the CDC function here]. Protecting the person of Bill Gates and that of a street bum ought to be charged at the same rate, for the law [including tax law] must not distinguish between the persons - "poll tax" structure here.
Also, their property needs protection of the law and of the military, too. Again, the law must not make distinctions - and protecting one dollar's worth of Bill Gates' stuff ought to be charged for at the same rate as that for $1 of the bum's. Here one would have the structure of a flat rate property tax.
The remaining part of social services pertains to administrative costs like the maintenance of monetary unity, certification of the standards of value, weight and measure [probably professional certifications as well], maintaining the property registries and public records, patent service and the like. These, again, ought to be paid for in some combination of poll tax and property tax - plus user fees where appropriate.
The rest ought to be paid by user fees, pure and simple. Such a system would by its very nature be mildly regressive.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Memo to Mr. Cavanagh: Don't waste your breath. The Strib is incorrigible.

[johniegrad]

The author should have written the letter to the editor AND cancelled his subscription.

[Pukin Dog]

It doesn't matter how a rich person became rich, when determining whether or not anyone else is entitled to their money.

Anyone who gained their money legally is entitled to do with it whatever they please, no matter what.

Anything else is Socialism.

Now, back to watching Navy BEAT Army.

[brytlea]

I would love to see stats on how many people in the US are rich because they inherited the money. I'm sure that info is out there somewhere, but I'm not sure how to google it.

Most people I know who are well off have worked hard, and didn't make alot of the stupid choices made by many of those I know who still live paycheck to paycheck. This is not an across the board, hard and fast rule, but it's common enough that we warn people against stupid choices (drugs, alcohol, unwed pregnancies, etc). Of course, our government tends to subsidize those behaviors.

susie

[mr_hammer]

Welcome to the United Socialist States of America!

All kidding aside, I have been asked by many who see my family enjoying a boat ride. Who did you screw over to get that ride? A good number of the "less fortunate" as Boortz calls em are insanely jealous of others achievements. So it is very easy for an overly ambitious piece of crap politician to play the "soak the rich" card

[bert]

.......Could someone please articulate for me the moral principle that dictates that persons who study harder, work harder, relax less, save more, spend less and invest more should be compelled by government to give their earnings to persons who do precisely the opposite?.....

"I'm lazy and want what you have"....... that's all the principle needed.

[Pukin Dog]

Anyone living paycheck to paycheck in America made STUPID decisions. That does not mean that they want to admit it.

[ozzymandus]

The reason the left wants to punish the rich is totally obvious. They have money, which the left wants to buy votes and "love" from the proles.

[Cobra64]

Who, exactly are "the rich"? It is a meaningless expression.

[King Prout]

put bluntly: "progressive" taxation penalizes thrift and industry, and subsidizes sloth and incaution.

when you penalize a thing, you tend to get less of that thing.
when you subsidize a thing, you tend to get more of that thing.

simple empirical analysis of a great deal of readily available data is more than sufficient to rationally refute the arguments in favor of "progressive" taxation and tax-funded "entitlements"... and yet: The Leftists somehow manage to keep their nonsense going.

It is a puzzlement.

[Pukin Dog]

Just to follow up,

I have never met anyone who could not trim their living expenses by 20%. Most people living paycheck to paycheck could deny themselves something long enough to put 20% of their former expenses in the bank for a year or two.

Many in America have lost the ability to save money. My current girlfriend was spending $25 dollars a day on lunch and latte's. When I pointed out to her that she would have a down payment for a home in 3 years just on that money, she gave them up.

[george76]

"... I decided to write a rejoinder instead."

What is the inside email address?

[Pukin Dog]

Rich used to mean that you had the money to do whatever you wanted to do, whenever you wanted to do it.

Now, Rich means not having to depend on Democrats.

[King Prout]

Most individuals... made stupid decisions... or are young...

some very few were born into conditions which make measurable success in earning and garnering wealth essentially impossible, but this is not true for the overwhelming majority.