"Tax cuts for the rich"
People like Obama act like "the rich" are getting some undeserved gift when they get tax cuts. When Congress cuts taxes, they are not giving people generous gifts; they're just promising not to steal quite so much from them.
September 16, 2008
By Brett Turner
Every so often one of our politicians says something that grossly misrepresents how money is made and what Washington’s role in our economy is. Obama made one such remark recently.
I’m not sure to whom he was speaking, but I caught a 30 or 60 second sound bite, during which Obama contrasted the McCain economic plan with his own. He says that McCain, like Bush, favors an economic philosophy that “gives more and more to those with the most.”
I’ve heard him say it before; it’s this “tax cuts for the rich” mantra that we’ve heard from the Left ever since congress cut taxes during George W. Bush’s administration. What’s disturbing is that they act like the rich are getting handouts because they are allowed to keep more of their own money. The implication is that the money rightfully belongs to Washington and/or the poor and downtrodden, but it was unjustly “given” to the rich instead.
Here’s an example of what I mean; it’s from a 2003 article by Robert Freeman that criticizes Bush’s tax cuts. In the article, Freeman also denounces Reagan’s tax plan. He is paraphrasing Bush 41’s budget director when he calls the Reagan tax plan “a scam intended really to funnel more money to the already rich.”
Funnel more money? The only money funneling going on is when the government siphons it out of the pockets of those who produce it. A corporate subsidy would be “funneling more money to the already rich,” but not a freaking tax cut.
It’s as if socialists view a country’s wealth as an unchanging, pre-existing amount; an amount that ought to be distributed at least somewhat equally amongst all citizens. Someone with much more money than someone else must have muscled in and taken more than his fair share; very likely at the expense of his brothers.
Unless they want to reveal their true colors, socialists have to portray the rich as people who have reached into the cookie jar, taken too many cookies, and not left enough for everyone else. They ignore the fact that money isn’t distributed; it’s created. But they don’t want to talk like that. They want to talk in terms of a static amount that they have the right to “redistribute.”
Imagine if instead of that crap line about giving more to those with the most, Obama had said, “I know that money doesn’t exist until people make it. I understand that by the sweat of your labor you bring into existence things that didn’t exist before. But nevertheless, I don’t think that you have the right to keep the products of your life’s effort. I think you owe the people who have not produced as much as you have. I think that you are a partial slave to your neighbor, and must work for his sake whether you like it or not.”
Something tells me he wouldn’t be quite so popular.
I imagine I’ll have to devote my next post to rebutting some Marxist who will no doubt respond to this article by claiming that the rich have only made their money off the backs of the working class, who are of course the real producers.
Good luck, comrade.
Discussion
All comments are moderated by Kansan.com staff. For our full user policy, click here.
Thanks for speaking up for all the down-trodden hard-working kitten-loving rich people. What would they do without brave advocates like you?
Thanks for this blog. I enjoy reading something in the UDK once in a while that makes sense. I really almost think I'd like to remain poor in this country. I don't think I have it in me to work as hard as these "rich" people do and then have the government take 50 percent.
I'm beginning to realize how flawed the logic of most leftist people is. They see people getting richer and the poor getting poorer, and think the only solution is to tax the hell out of the rich and give it back to the poor.
The problem lies within our corporate engines, and the managers who run them. A CEO does not deserve a salary of over $10 million a year, and yet the competition among management dictates that he or she can receive that much money in salary. This needs to be changed. It is a business problem, where corporate big shots are demanding higher and higher salaries to make important decisions. If you can solve this problem, make management cost less, you will see the ranks of the very rich start to thin out, and the middle class return to the status it enjoyed 50 years ago.
The biggest issue with the redistribution of wealth argument that Obama endorses is that it fuels complacency. The big-time producers in the economy will lose incentive to keep producing. The poor folks will lose incentive to work harder/educate themselves to better their life. Why in the world would a person riddled with poverty take care of their children if the government will do it for free?
Another problem with this system is that it develops an enormous dependency on the government and its agencies. The problem with these agencies is the need of oversight. If you have ever worked in a grocery store(like I did) you would notice the ABUSE that goes on with food stamps. You would notice the complacent people. Not everyone enjoys holding the government's hand but too many people do. This need for more oversight creates more bureaucracy and more red-tape procedure.
It's just not that easy to tax the rich and give to the poor. The unintended consequence is to stunt the individuals economic impact/growth. It destroys the fundamentals of responsibility and warps the perspective of the poor. These people don't need handouts! They need opportunities. They need incentives. They need to be productive.
The thing is, however, when you look at Obama's tax plan it provides a bigger tax cut for a larger part of the population. If he's increasing tax for the top 5% I really don't have an issue.
Unfortunately free unregulated markets don't really work, and the rich often don't deserve the money they have. I part from the point of view that it comes to a point where contributing to society is more important, especially since you are taking advantage of that society.
If you want to argue otherwise fine. But may I point out that no, it is not technically your "hard earned" money. The federal government issues it, it puts its name on it and it sustains the systems from within that "hard earned" money can be used. If you want to go back to the barter system that is fine, but arguing for capitalism without state involvement is like arguing for babies without sex; one may seem immoral and etc, but it's hard to see how they can exist without each other (in vitro, yeah, I know).
Or I guess we can just go through the Great Depression again.
Upper class do not see their tax dollars like the lower class does.
Sorry for defending 'upper class' - but when do they ever use welfare programs or ask government for assistance?
The top of the country pays for the bottom, and I don't support that. Hooray for tax cuts for the upper class - they earned their salary, let them keep it.
Share your 2¢
(Requires free registration.)