I've been meaning to post about this topic for a while now. Browsing the web the other day, I ran across a perfect example of the sort of pervasive attitude I consistently find from “progressive” folks regarding who (or what) is responsible for individual success in this country, and what obligations should be placed upon those who are successful.
I get really tired of anti-tax, morally corrupt idiots posting on here. You want to cut taxes until bridges fall down, believe that everyone must pull themselves up by their "bootstraps", but the irony is you ARROGANTLY refuse to realize that this country and all of its social benefits and taxes has allowed you the opportunity to be successful.
This reminded me of another comment made in an earlier thread by one of the founders/editors of that web site, in direct response to something I had posted:
[T]he idea is that wealthy people have, by definition, reaped more of the rewards of our society and our democracy and our economy than have low-income people -- and so, they have an obligation to contribute more back to that society.
Which I proceeded to argue against in that thread (curiously, nobody had an answer for the points I made there).
This is something that really gets my blood boiling, so it’s time to vent a little bit on the subject…
First off, yes there are certainly some people who believe that all taxation is bad, and all tax cuts are good, and that “gub’mint” never did anything for them so why should they have to pay, yadda yadda yadda.
I’m definitely NOT one of those people. See my comments in the above-cited thread, as well as various postings here on this site.
But on the other hand, the attitude expressed in the quotes above really pisses me off, because it’s incredibly insulting to those of us who have managed to make some small success of ourselves, largely through our own skills, talents, and efforts. It is terribly demeaning to those of us who have worked hard to get ahead.
And it’s just plain demonstrably wrong, besides.
Look, obviously there are communal benefits that each of us enjoys from society as a whole. Nobody, but nobody, does it all on their own. I’m the first to admit that whatever success I’ve enjoyed personally would never have been possible without a solid public education, a reasonably secure neighborhood in which to live, and a legal and market-based economic system that allows for and protects ownership of private property. These are all good things, and yes we all have an obligation to help provide and maintain them.
Taxes, per se, are not necessarily bad.
But how the burden of those taxes gets allocated – how the burden should be allocated – is a sticking point.
You see, the attitude expressed above is essentially that those who are successful owe that success to society at large, and therefore must contribute back more than those who are not successful (or, more properly, are not as successful).
I’ve already acknowledged that society made my success possible. But what I do not acknowledge is that my success, whatever the level, was somehow specially conferred upon me by society at large. The society we live in makes everyone's success possible. Whether or not you actually are successful depends far more on you than on the government.
The above-stated "progressive" theory fails to account for varying levels of success among people who have had more-or-less identical levels of support from society at large. If the largess of society is solely to thank for one’s individual success, then why are not all individuals (given the same societal benefits) equally successful?
Take my high school graduating class, for example. According to the Census Bureau I’m comfortably in the top 5% of individual incomes nationwide, so let’s assume that I’m also in the top 5% of individuals from my graduating class (which may not be a valid assumption – my school included some fairly affluent areas as well as some fairly modest parts of town). Yet what great societal benefits were offered to me but not to 95% of my classmates? We attended the same schools, drove on the same roads, lived in the same democracy under the same laws and economic system.
Family background and support was doubtless widely different among the 500+ students in my class, though in my case I was at best in the middle of the pack. My parents didn’t exactly give me a huge leg up on everyone else – in any event, my family resources were nowhere near the top-5% mark.
So my point is that, while there were some personal variations due to family circumstances (and individual abilities, of course – not everyone could qualify for advanced classes, for example), there was very little variation in the societal benefits available to each of us.
How then to explain this supposed dependence upon good government for my own personal fortunes? What magical government program, subsidy, or benefit was offered to me (but apparently denied to 95% of my comrades) to “allow” my own success but prevent the success of others?
The answer, of course, is that good strong government simply can’t explain why I have been more financially successful (again, presumably) than 95% of my high school classmates. On the other hand, my own abilities, skills, talents, and (perhaps most of all) hard work go a very long way toward explaining that difference.
So for a person to claim, based solely on my personal income, that I somehow owe a bigger debt to society than others who have received the same (or more) benefits from that society, is incredibly insulting and wrongheaded. Government did a lot for me, but government didn't do more for me than for many of those who have been less successful than I have. So why am I specially obligated to pay more back?
Again, I’m no anti-tax zealot. I fully believe that public services have a place in society, and that many public services (even if I do not directly benefit) enrich the community as a whole. Structurally sound bridges are actually a fairly high priority for me, along with other critical elements of public infrastructure. And I realize that public services must be paid for by the public at large. No problem there.
But this attitude that somehow one’s personal success relative to others confers a greater proportionate obligation to pay for public services is simply indefensible. Yet it is so ingrained in our tax code, and society at large, that most people just accept the premise without any critical thought whatsoever. And really, who can blame them, if they’re at the lower end of the economic scale? Let some other schmuck pay higher taxes -- after all he makes piles of money sitting on his ass while I'm slaving away on my feet all day making minimum wage, right?
When you get right down to it, we're really just talking about simple class jealousy.
Nobody has yet explained to me a valid rationale for why person A, who makes exactly 10 times what person B makes, actually does have a moral obligation to contribute more than 10 times what person B contributes back to society. (For that matter, person A has no moral obligation to pay anything more, let alone 10x more, than person B regardless of income.)
But I do understand and appreciate the practical rationale behind a progressive tax scheme. It’s the same reason mythically given for robbing banks -– because that’s where the money is. Likewise, if you need to get tax money, it’s easier to take it from people who actually have it than from those who don’t.
But to wrap that pragmatic approach to tax collection in the faux morality of some presumed "greater obligation to repay society" is patently offensive. Or, possibly, simply indicative of a complete lack of understanding as to the true origins of personal success. (But still offensive, even so.)
And in any event, when it comes down to practical brass tacks, the tax code assumes some pretty strange things about when that “obligation” kicks in. As I posted in my follow-up comment in the Warren Buffett thread, forget about the mega-wealthy versus the dirt-poor. Why is it that a guy who makes $40K is presumed to be deriving a great deal more benefit from society than a guy who makes $30K? Can the actual difference really be that great?
Nobody on that “progressive” site had an answer for me. If somebody can provide one here, I’d be most appreciative.
And without some greater reason why wealthier people should (in the moral sense) pay a bigger percentage of their income than poorer people, it seems to me that as a policy matter the relative progressivity of the tax system ought to be minimized as much as is practically possible in order to derive the amount of tax revenue desired. In other words, while taxes themselves are not evil, progressive taxes are at best a necessary evil, and thus should only be used as much as is absolutely necessary and no more.
Which, of course, runs counter to the leftist/"progressive" political agenda.
Comments