With the Other Party in power in the House here in the United States, I am expecting (and beginning to hear) cries for people to pay "their fair share".
When asked for a definition of what constitutes a "fair share", one never really gets a true definition. One can get a sort of anti-definition thought:
- "Fair Share" is not shared equally e.g. Not everyone need pay.
- "Fair Share" is defined by the amount you make, not the amount you use.
- "Fair Share" is defined in wild numbers (one recent comment was "70% for over $10 million in income").
In other words, "fair share" is really not defined by anything other than opinion and feelings.
To be clear, to tax is the power to destroy. To tax is the power to disincentivize productivity (if you disbelieve me, read a bit on how economies fared under Communist states and how they eventually had to figure something else out).
A simple example, and one close to my own heart: In California, beyond the Federal tax which every US citizen pays, beyond the gas and sales taxes which most people pay, beyond the property tax which any property owner in the US pays, there is a "state tax" which you pay for the privilege of living in California. Currently, if you make an adjusted gross income (to you outside the US, there is a formula) of $0, you will pay 1% of your income to the state government. If you make $16,080, you will pay 3%. If you make $38,002, you will pay 4%. On the other hand, if you make $105.224 (less than living wage for most of California's cities), you will pay 9.3%.
It does not take a genius to figure out that it makes more sense to make no money than any money at all.
I have said it before, but I find more and more that my goal is to make the least amount of money possible in order to pay my essential bills. Yes, I understand that this curtails certain activities and things I can buy and do - but honestly, the longer I go the less I need and the less I want to do (in places other than my home). I am inherently disincentivized to pay more taxes, so I will choose to make do and pay less.
The oddest part of this to me is the sense that somehow all of this is a moral obligation, that somehow by the efforts spent to move my education and career forward I am obliged to pay more for others. This is not a moral obligation, but rather an imposed obligation by those that feel that they can place their moral expectations upon me for no other reason than it makes them feel that somehow they are "bringing me to account" and "making me pay".
It is at moment's like this that I realize the wisdom and prescience of Ayn Rand:
"There, he thought, was the final abortion of the creed of collective interdependence: the creed of non-identity, non-property, non-fact: The belief that the moral stature of one is at the mercy of another."
If pushed to truly pay "their fair share", expect to hear more and more "Who is John Galt?"
Well said. I've come to the same conclusion about money. It makes no sense to try to make more if the government is simply going to take it away. The incentive under that line of thought is to make less. It's a waste of my time to do otherwise.
ReplyDeleteI've been suspecting that this "fair share" idea is part of the reason socialism has gained popularity. It seems the folks talking it up assume that socialism is going to grant them that fair share or somehow redistribute the wealth to create financial equality.
If you haven't read Atlas Shrugged, do so. Ayn Rand was no prophetess, but Atlas Shrugged was indeed prophetic concerning what is happening in our country right now.
ReplyDeleteIndeed, in California, if you make nothing, or can make it look that way on paper, you get free housing, healthcare, and utilities, on top of welfare and food stamps. Hell; you even get free internet and smart phones! Your poor, "underrepresented" children will go to college FREE. You fare even better if you're an illegal alien! On the other hand, if you're a veteran, you and your kids get a carton of goose eggs! The less you deserve, the more you get! Anyone who thinks what's going on right now is a good idea needs to have their meds adjusted or their heads examined... Anyone who thinks this "phenomenon" won't spread to the rest of the country if left unchecked needs to do the same...
To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, "that government governs best which charges you the least blackmail for leaving you alone."
ReplyDeleteThanks Leigh! I think that is exactly the reason socialism continues to grow in popularity, even as real world examples belie the dream. Most people that support the whole concept of "fair share" do not believe that such things will apply to them: they will be receivers, not "sharers". The rather sad reality - observe Venezuela for a real world example - is very quickly as people are disincentivized to make more, the wage earners disappear or make less. And suddenly everyone who was supposed to get something realizes they are now expected to provide for someone else.
ReplyDelete"It makes no sense to try to make more if the government is simply going to take it away. The incentive under that line of thought is to make less." That is a great phrase. I have never thought of it that way before.
Pete, I have read Atlas Shrugged three times at least and intend to again this year. Ayn Rand and I have numerous areas where we do not agree, but her economic philosophy as presented there is something I 100% support.
ReplyDeletePeople who think it is a good idea are feeling, not thinking. There is no logical consideration of where that money is coming from (the government they say, but the government does not create wealth. Only individuals and businesses do that). The only comfort I can draw from the situation is I suspect things will get bad more quickly than the government can react to making such things widespread.
True Reverend. Or another version, something along a government is a pair of wolves arguing over which one gets dinner (the taxpayer).
ReplyDeleteI was an outhouse objectivist of sorts at one time, and still am I guess. Rand makes several valid points. All men are not created equal. And altruism can be a road to hell paved with good intentions. She sees altruism as an evil whereas I do not. I see altruism in the hands of the govt as a means to corruption. Charity belongs in the hands of the church and the individual and has to be purely voluntary. Otherwise it becomes a vehicle for theft.
ReplyDeleteGlen, her complete and utter rejection of altruism as good was one reason I disagree with her - although as she rejected God as well, that is not a surprise I suppose. Also, we disagreed - rather strongly - on the interpretation of sexual morals.
ReplyDeleteAny government is never altruistic as it always acts with the money and power of others, not of its own making. It therefore can do nothing "good" that it did not get from somewhere else.
I didn’t get that far into her philosophy TB. She put me ill at ease for some reason. I think at the time I was becoming increasingly more uncomfortable with my own atheism back then... and the fact that a cult seemed to have set up around her... and some of her disciples I definitely did not like. I took what I wanted of the creed and left. Objectivists are like libertarians to me: well meaning folks that don’t have room in their intellects to make a leap of faith. They will fall to ruin the same way Rand’s socialists in her story did. Never got into her views on sexuality - she lost me at altruism and as I said - I didn’t like the looks of the dark side of her philosophy.
ReplyDeleteI’ve moved on to Stoicism and my preliminary view is that it might compliment my faith if carefully pruned and managed.
Glen, there was something cultish about her following in the 60's and 70's from what I have read. Like you, I culled what was useful like me.
ReplyDeleteInteresting and accurate (in my opinion) comparison of Objectivism and Libertarianism: theoretical constructs which never survive contact with the real world.
Stoicism has many noteworthy elements, as does Plato and Socrates. Certainly not replacements for Christian thought of course, but definitely useful in personal behavior and practice.