Left Said:
“Nothing can be said to be certain, except love and war.” — Benjamin Franklin
“All is fair in death and taxes.” — Anonymous proverb
Wait a minute. Something tells me I didn’t quite get that right. Regardless, the permanence of these four institutions as part of the human condition — and the permanence of their unfairness — strikes and moves me. And given that I’m limited to 500 words, I’ll stick to the last one.
“Hold it right there, pilgrim,” you may say. “A liberal complaining about taxes?” Surprising, I know. But in the depths of a vast recession and soaring deficits on both the state and federal levels that threaten both governmental solvency and the social services that all but the most privileged among us depend on, new economic measures are at the forefront of everyone’s mind. Tax reform addresses both the recession and the deficit because it helps account for the social services that are even more necessary when job losses skyrocket, and because it concerns the very revenue required to lower the deficit.
Progressive taxation is the tax system currently implemented by the United States and, well, almost every other country in the Western world. This structure, which calls for increasing marginal tax rates as a household’s income increases, has been embraced by economic writers across the political spectrum for centuries. In fact, it’s supported by 81 percent of American economists. My favorite historical supporter of progressive taxation was this crazy fringe socialist writer called Adam Smith. You’ve probably never heard of him. In his book The Wealth of Nations, he wrote that higher tax rates for wealthier individuals are not unreasonable or unjustified because as a person’s wealth increases they spend less of it on basic living expenses.
Say we have two individuals, Jon and Phil. Jon makes $100 a month, while Phil pulls in $1000. Normally neither would qualify for paying income taxes, making below the federal poverty line, but for the sake of argument we’ll say they do. If both are taxed at 10 percent of their income, that leaves Jon with $90 and Phil with $900 to spend on groceries, rent, etc. Even if the price of groceries was substantially lower than it is today (since I’ve given Jon and Phil such ridiculously low incomes for the sake of simplicity), this is still an injustice for Jon because the hardship imposed on him by the income tax is more than it is upon Phil.
Right now, there is a gigantic loophole in the American federal tax code that isn’t generally referred to as such because it’s not a secret: the capital gains tax. Essentially, those of us who hold a paying job are subject to payroll taxes on our income, but income derived from investments and dividends is taxed at a significantly lower rate. This means that professional investors can actually pay a lower percentage of their income than any other taxpayer in America — literally. It’s supposed to encourage investment, but it’s an effective regressive tax.
Before I go, I have a question for those of you from households of less than $250,000 per year. Did you know that Obama cut your taxes? It’s true — look up “Making Work Pay” — and he’s trying to do it again by extending a payroll tax cut for middle-income Americans. Congressional Republicans oppose the extension because they say this could “increase the deficit.” These are the same people who refused to cut the deficit by increasing taxes on extremely wealthy individuals even a little bit. Now that’s class warfare.
Daily Nexus liberal columnist Geoffrey Bell thinks Adam Smith was right on the money.
In Response, Right Said:
History has proven that the liberal economic policy of raising taxes, especially in the middle of a recession, contradicts their greater goal of expanding government, and stunts economic recovery. This is clearly demonstrated by contrasting the rapid economic recoveries of the 1920s, 1960s and 1980s — when income taxes were cut drastically at every bracket — in contrast to the extremely slow economic recoveries under FDR’s New Deal — when real income taxation on the rich once reached 120 percent — and under President Obama. Additionally, in each instance when taxes were cut, revenues to the government increased. In fact, John F. Kennedy, often cited as a liberal icon, is known to have said: “The paradoxical truth is that tax rates are too high and revenues too low; and the soundest way to raise revenue in the long term is to lower rates now.” President Obama has thus far failed to learn this lesson — even when directly confronted with the facts by debate moderators — pushing onward in the name of “fairness.” This is just more of the same uncivil class warfare liberals use to divide Americans because of political envy.
I’M NOT A SOCIALIST!
Why are you shouting? Who said you were a socialist? Calm down.
I think it was a pre-emptive attack on the commenters who will undoubtedly accuse him of being one.
To a reasonable person, it’s obvious that Geoffrey is not a socialist
The original byline replaced “Adam Smith” with “crazy socialist”. I immediately thought of future State Dept interviews or Fox News exposés and got a little paranoid. Haha.
Have you been watching the news for the last 3 years? I could see it.
Damn straight.
Everyone knows that the Nexus never lets an acknowledged Socialist write it’s official “Left” column.
This column is always delegated to a Democratic Leadership Council type Democrat. That seems to represent the allowable left boundary for political thought here at UCSB.
Way to distort the Wealth of Nations. Smith had no problem with the rich paying more for the legitimate functions of government, but would not endorse what you and I support. I press you to find where he advocates for redistribution of wealth, which (thankfully) our government is in the business of these day, and the Occupy patriots want. We want something for nothing. We want to take from one group we’ve deemed undeserving and give to another, one that supports our views. This is a system Marx would endorse and Smith would reject. Quit playing the conservative game and… Read more »
And he is the aforementioned socialist comment. No where in the article does the author suggest redistribution of wealth; that is something that you’re picking up from the article.
Progressive taxes would go towards services of government, not to another, lower-income group
I’m pointing out that Smith wouldn’t support what the author is suggesting he supports. He’s trying to outfox the conservative scholar and put words in his mouth. (Yes I’m being fair) He is suggesting Smith argues for progressive taxes, which was designed and implemented to redistribute wealth (read Marx’s 10 principals). The progressive income tax intentionally takes from one group and gives to another. Smith doesn’t view redistribution as a legitimate function of government. Marx does. And btw government services = payments to the poor, govt healthcare = payments to the poor.
I think there’s a difference (even if mostly connotative) between redistribution of wealth and reducing income inequality. The point is that progressive taxes aren’t a controversial point; basically every other advanced nation has some form of progressive tax.
Government services ≠payments to the poor. Although welfare and need-based assistance certainly are examples of government services, it’s insane to ignore the other services the government provides. Think about education, the military, national guard, national parks, Social Security, public goods, and more. These are far more costly than “payments to the poor”
We need get away from playing the GOP game and on their rules. Lets play on our rules and not theirs.
If you want a “redistribution of wealth”, do so by providing support for businesses to create jobs. Each manufacturing job requires suppliers to hire also. Asking the “rich” to pay off everyones debt will only push them futher away from investing in America. Those among us that are “well to do” are not responsible for running the country, blame the lawmakers for not having the backbone to stand up to forces on both ends of the spectrum. Or better yet we should all look in the mirror and blame ourselves for electing the nit wits.
“The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich… Read more »
Editor’s Note: Geoffrey does not write his own bylines, nor do any other Opinion writers. That is our job as the editors of the section. To clarify, he is certainly not a socialist, and the byline was not intended to be taken seriously!
“Before I go, I have a question for those of you from households of less than $250,000 per year. Did you know that Obama cut your taxes? It’s true — look up “Making Work Pay” — and he’s trying to do it again by extending a payroll tax cut for middle-income Americans.” Extending the payroll (i.e., Social Security) tax reduction is a rather transparent plow to further undermine the perceived solvency of Social Security. Anyone who has been half paying attention will realize that Obama has been chomping at the bit to cut Social Security and other “entitlements”. The payroll… Read more »