Fair Share Taxing

“Since this is an era when many people are concerned about ‘fairness’ and ‘social justice’, what is your ‘fair share’ of what someone else has worked for?”  Thomas Sowell.

George Rebane

Our socialist and proto-communist politicians have no policies to grow economies and generate wealth.  Instead, they buy their way into office by promising to take money from both Peter and Paul, and give it to their voters.  Trouble with that policy is that most of their voters turn out to be the Peters and Pauls.

The cry across the land, amplified by the lamestream, is that the ‘rich’ don’t pay their “fair share” of taxes.  Not only that, but included is the not-so-hidden message that the rich got theirs by taking what was rightfully yours.  This message works really well with those who can’t or won’t, and who still believe they are entitled to it all.  The Big Lie accompanying all this outrage is that America has an unfair tax system that favors the rich.  However –

Data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development show that the U.S. has the most progressive income tax system in the world, with the top 10% of earners paying 45% of all income taxes, including Social Security and Medicare taxes, compared with only 28% in France and 27% in Sweden. 

Economists Phil Gramm and John Early present the supportive data in their ‘Wealthy Americans Already Pay Their Share’.  The accompanying graphic shows how much the different earning groups pay as a function of their earned income and received transfer payments.

Add to this data that the top 0.1% of households paid a total of 45.1% in federal, state, and local taxes.  So how do we answer the ‘fair share’ question?  And why do we even ask it?   With our progressive tax system and generous transfer payment programs, our ‘poor’ are the envy of the world.  Why?  Because our battered capitalist economy still produces enough wealth to provide that envious QoL to those of us who can’t or won’t - enough wealth to waste on legions of government bureaucrats and ‘educators’ whose jobs (of last resort) primarily entail throwing sand into the gears of enterprise and commerce, and enough wealth to remain the white-hat hegemon of the world by keeping the bad guys at bay while giving entire continents a free ride on their security.

The socialists tell us that none of that is true or needed.  Government is the solution to all social problems, and more government is better.  And we don’t need no stinking military that is only used to create worldwide problems and support our country’s immoral imperialism.  Besides, everyone knows that tax rates don’t affect economic behavior – the filthy rich will keep working just as hard whether we tax ‘em low or tax ‘em high.  So high taxes will not reduce the wealth produced, but only redirect it through the government to more socially just uses.

With this logic, and the firmly held belief that the Laffer Curve is laughable, there really is no reasonable basis for any given level of taxation.  Who really needs to have more than a billion dollars anyway?  So in the final argument the notion of ‘fair share’ is moot.  In the near-term taxes should be raised to a level just short of armed rebellion.  And as the government succeeds in disarming the populace, there will be no need to stop raising taxes and confiscating wealth even when there is blood in the gutters, because that will not be government blood.

But then again you say, that can’t happen in America.

Comments

[The Estonian Fox]

Why do socialists think that capitalists are the greedy ones? Capitalists don't force anyone to buy their products. You are free to buy from anybody who makes the item you want to buy. If you think Jeff Bezos is too rich, don't buy stuff from Amazon. He won't be rich in a few years.

Did they consider that government might be the greedy one? If I don't want to buy what government is selling, many times I don't have a choice. There is no competition for our government.

[Bill Tozer]

@ 3:26 pm

And no penalty when they screw up.

[Scott O]

"Greed: a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (such as money) than is needed.
- motivated by naked ambition and greed"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/greed
OK - who gets to decide what is 'needed'? And needed for what?
Notice that greed is not a state of wealth, it is a motivation or desire.
I always include anyone who desires to have more than what they deserve or earn - anyone can be greedy.
I saw a quote just the other day from someone whose name I can't remember. "We don't need that many billionaires."
Won't some one just once, just once, immediately ask - "So, what is the correct amount?"

[Bill Tozer]

The American marxists believe our system is broken. Their solution is to expand the broken system.

[scenes]

I wouldn't fixate on the movement of wealth as a reason for controlling the government (Marxism is just one variety). Owning two private jets is nice but there's a low marginal value to the second one. Money is just a proxy.

It's really about power. There's something baked in the cake of humanity that enjoys being important, being the boss.

Whether it's your local planning commission or the Bernie Bros, there's a real joy in investing a small input (a Presidential campaign for example) to achieve a large output (redirecting the wealth of an entire country to your friends).

I think that viewing this all as an economics problem is a distinctly 20th C. viewpoint. The founding fathers (and their founding fathers) were more realistic.

[George Rebane]

scenes 1245pm - However, as far as voter sentiment and interest is concerned, the "movement of wealth" is their ONLY perception of beneficial government, to vote whether they want it moved by government fiat, or retained by those who earned it. Attesting the reality of that are both parties arguing their sides of wealth movement.