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). |
Somehow I missed this little gem. Unfortunately, the cockpit doors could have been as big as a bank vault's, and it wouldn't have mattered. The airline industry, in conjuntion with the FAA, had a policy in place prior to 9-11 to negotiate and acquiesce to the demands of hijackers. Strengthened cockpit doors would not have helped because they were opened voluntarily.
Looks that way.
Another hit-and-run socialist.
He probably had to take a nap.
Seeing as how the poor don't pay any income tax already, anything paid would constitute a major shift, I suppose. I would suggest lowering the tax burden on the "rich" by a drop in the marginal rates. I would lower the burden on the "poor" (and rich) by privatizing Social Security. Of course, this would require a simultaneous and massive spending cut.
How convienient that you have left out the Republicans in promoting the scam. It's laughable.
But, but, but...what about our $300 rebate? LOL.
The problem is : The grasshoppers are starting to outnumber the ants. At least we got $300 back. If Dumpocraps ran Washington, we'd have paid twice that to them!
Let me guess, you are a "salaried folk".
I am a self employed person. And if you are a salaried person, I gaurantee that I have paid more in taxes so far than you will ever pay in your existence.
If you take advantage of any program whatsoever, (I do not) you are a leech on me.
What is the evidence that taxes-any taxes-result in a "vibrant economy" which results in benefit to "the wealthiest"?
Think of how much more vibrant the economy would be without the drag of taxes.
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.