Posted on 10/18/2010 3:27:30 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Congress adjourned last month without voting on whether to extend the Bush tax cuts. But the debate hasn’t stopped, with prominent Republicans and most of their conservative supporters pushing hard to preserve the cuts that fall exclusively on high incomes. Letting those tax cuts lapse, these conservatives say, would not only be bad for the economy. It would also be unfair.
For the most part, President Obama and his supporters have responded with a pragmatic counter-argument: Preserving tax cuts for the wealthy would drive up the deficit without substantially improving the economy. I agree wholeheartedly. For those of you unfamiliar with the contours of the argument, I’d recommend reading through the literature on taxes at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
But this debate isn't just about budget arithmetic. It's about morality, too. And I'm not sure that part of the debate is getting the attention it deserves.
According to the Republicans and many of their supporters, allowing tax rates on upper incomes to rise would punish the rich for their success, taking away money that the rich have earned. But this argument suffers from two key flaws.
One is that it fails to account for the power of luck. Almost by definition, people who are successful have benefited from some measure of good fortune. That fortune can take the form of obvious, material advantages--like access to advanced technology and good schools. Or it can take the form of more subtle, but still important, assets for moving forward in life--like good health or loving parents.
Yes, a good work ethic will take you far. And I know many well-educated professionals convinced that nobody works as hard as they do. (I’ve been known to indulge the thought myself.) But I’ve met many people at the bottom of the income ladder who work just as hard, for far less reward. Between 1980 and 2005, the richest 1 percent of Americans got more than four-fifths of the country's income gains. Does anybody seriously believe that the other 99 percent didn't deserve to take home a much larger share?
The other, albeit related, flaw in the conservative argument is that it fails to acknowledge the debt wealthy people owe to society. As Gar Alperovitz and Lew Daly argue in their 2008 book, Unjust Desserts, the proverbial self-made man is not exactly self-made. He (or she) is benefiting from the accomplishments of past generations, not to mention the support of public institutions (like the National Science Foundation) and services (like schools) that foster innovation and lead to greater productivity.
As Alperovtiz and Daly wrote in an excerpt
Warren Buffett, one of the wealthiest men in the nation, is worth over $60 billion. Does he "deserve" all this money? Why? Did he work so much harder than everyone else? Did he create something so extraordinary that no one else could have created? Ask Buffett himself and he will tell you that personally he thinks that "society is responsible for a very significant percentage of what I've earned."
But if this is true, doesn't society deserve a very significant share of what he has received?
You can take this argument too far, obviously. (For some intelligent criticism of Unjust Desserts, see here and here.) Then again, nobody is suggesting the rich to give up all the extra money they make. All anybody is asking is that the rich pay more in taxes--in effect, that they reinvest in society by a little more than they do now.
How much more? I'm honestly not sure. But restoring tax levels to what they were before the Bush tax cuts seems like a safe place to start.
Note: This is only marginally related, but if you haven't yet read Tim Noah's series on inequality, you really should.
One is that it fails to account for the power of luck.
He makes his sun rise on people whether they are good or evil. He lets rain fall on them whether they are just or unjust.<< Matthew 5:45 >>
Theft is never moral.
I agree completely: It is immoral to take money from those who earned it and give it to those who didn't.
The definition of ‘’luck’’: When preparation meets opportunity.
The problem with this argument - that the wealthy "owe" more to society than they pay - is that it assumes that society has some legitimate claim on the earnings and/or possessions of the "wealthy". Here is a pretty good rebuttal to anyone claiming that this is somehow a legitimate "moral argument" for "soaking the rich"
THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR'S POSSESSIONS.
Here are the behaviors, but recast as commandments. It can be easily imagined these hang on the wall of every progressive/liberal media figure.
With regards to the true point of this article, see "II"
I Thou shalt create an illusion of invulnerability shared by most members to foster excessive optimism and encourage extreme risks taking
II Thou shall not allow any member to question the group’s inherent morality, instead members shall be encouraged to ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions
III Thou shalt promote collective efforts to rationalize in order to discount warnings, or other information that might lead members to reconsider their assumptions before they recommit themselves to their assumptions
IV Thou shalt reinforce stereotyped views of enemy leaders as too evil to warrant genuine attempts to negotiate, or as too weak and stupid to counter whatever risky attempts are made to defeat their purpose
V Thou shalt self-censor any deviation from the apparent group consensus, inclining each member to minimize the importance of their doubts and counterarguments
VI Thou shalt create and maintain a shared illusion of unanimity concerning judgement conforming to the majority view
VII Thou shalt apply direct pressure on any member who expresses strong arguments against any of the group’s stereotypes, illusions, or commitments, making clear that this type of dissent is contrary to what is expected of all loyal members
VIII Thou shalt appoint mindguards to protect the group from adverse information that might shatter their shared complacency about the effectiveness and morality of their decisions.
Regards,
Eddie
No government "asks" anybody to pay taxes. They tell them to, at the point of a gun or a prison term.
Second, high earners already "reinvest in society" in the most direct way possible - by actually plowing their profits back into their businesses, or hiring more workers, or buying stock in other companies, all of which make everybody else better off. Taxes are not a reinvestment in society - they are protection money paid to politicians under duress.
Drug test all welfare parasites. I just finished another 12 hour day and am done with this crap.
The author has made a good argument for THEFT. Nothing more.
“Preserving tax cuts for the wealthy would drive up the deficit without substantially improving the economy.”
One Hundred percent of the deficit is SPENDING. Not one dime of the deficit is taxes. Tax cuts do not drive up the deficit, spending does.
Nobody expects the existing tax rates to improve the economy. They are already too high. But raising taxes for anybody will certainly NOT improve the economy.
The truth is, the Rats would spend any new taxes quicker than they could collect them, driving the deficit even higher.
The author has made a good argument for THEFT. Nothing more.
“Preserving tax cuts for the wealthy would drive up the deficit without substantially improving the economy.”
One Hundred percent of the deficit is SPENDING. Not one dime of the deficit is taxes. Tax cuts do not drive up the deficit, spending does.
Nobody expects the existing tax rates to improve the economy. They are already too high. But raising taxes for anybody will certainly NOT improve the economy.
The truth is, the Rats would spend any new taxes quicker than they could collect them, driving the deficit even higher.
When wealthy liberals live on tax-free distributions from trust funds - well, aren't they the "lucky" ones? When small business owners declare business income on their 1040 forms but still have to meet payrolls and cover other business expenses, they may have high "incomes" but live very middle-class lives on what remains after expenses.
Mr. Cohn of course, does not care to know any of this, nor does he care to understand that comparing the top 1% of this or that over any time period is a meaningless statistical exercise because of mobility, birth and death. What he wants to do instead is to justify theft, as excused by undeserved guilt and claim the mantle of virtue as a reward. Screw him.
high earners already "reinvest in society" in the most direct way possible - by actually plowing their profits back into their businesses, or hiring more workers, or buying stock in other companies, all of which make everybody else better off.All anybody is asking is that the rich pay more in taxes--in effect, that they reinvest in society by a little more than they do now.
Good catch. The old "government == society" swindle. "Liberals" say "society" when they mean nothing other than government. And the two can be identical only in the absence of freedom - only if everything that is not mandatory is forbidden.
Taxes are not a reinvestment in society - they are protection money paid to politicians under duress.
Since by the mere accomplishment of becoming wealthy, one has the ability to utilize capital (money) to generate new wealth. The wealthy are more likely to successfully utilize capital to generate new wealth. They are the wealth producers. When government taxes the wealthy, it takes away that capital to generate new wealth from those most able to generate new wealth. Economic growth is hindered most by the amount government takes from the wealthy.
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.