I’ve been asked to consider many “enlightening” conservative economic anecdotes, but the one in the bar is my favorite…10 guys go into a bar for a round of tall daddies. At the end of the night, there is a $100 tab. The bartender distributes the owed amounts to the different gentlemen to the effect where three are not required to pay, two pay a small amount, yada yada, and the tenth is finally given a tab of $40 – 40% of the entire tab. This analogy is supposed to be representative of the democratic "tax and spend" system. There's just one problem with this comparison – the top 1% and those along the poverty line are not drinking the same amount of beer. When you're making $250K+, the government does MORE for you, i.e. protection via fire depts, police depts, etc. Therefore, since the top percentile’s interests are more substantial, shouldn’t they be required to pay more? I think so.
Additionally, the Democratic notion of taxing the top 1% is not as simplistic as taxing the successful to "redistribute wealth." Rather, it's an altruistic formula, where a “rising tide raises all ships.” (If you don’t believe me, just ask your parents how well they did under Clinton’s tenure)Since I'm no more than a closed-minded Southerner, I'll give you an example Beaux and I can easily relate to. I have no problem with the fact that my parents' taxes go to the funding of the public schools in the area of Ruston, La., as I would eventually like to return there. By donating pieces of salary, the top percentile can benefit from a surrounding educational system, workforce and society in general who benefits from the allocations. With educated people an economy can prosper. With an uneducated constituence, an economy and society will stagnate at best, but more likely deteriorate.
Obama’s theory of taxation is a reciprocating system which benefits all, not just those receiving benefits directly. If we as a supposed democratic, welfare nation took the cavalier approach of every man for himself, we would inevitably wallow in our self-created demise. Call me a whacky, slippery-slope of a blogger, but revolutions happen, largely due to greed of few coupled with neglect of many.
Undoubtedly, we as a nation should encourage self-responsibility. But we should also have a system that is forgiving, to an extent, and helpful to the less fortunate. Not that I’ve amounted to anything yet, but if I ever do, I’ll be the first to tell you whatever success I have is largely (if not entirely) due to the chances I was given, not earned, but given. There are a whole hell of a lot of people who haven’t been given a lick, and I believe it’s the government’s responsibility to provide at least the most basic sense of welfare for everyone. Kids born into poverty did nothing wrong in utero to “deserve” to be cursed for a lifetime. It’s damn near impossible to pull yourself up when your boots don’t have straps, or when you don’t have boots at all.
A really wise woman once told me, “there’s a difference between hitting a triple and being born on third base.” Think about that.
Mis Hermanos y Yo
17 years ago
2 comments:
Excellent post, Ignatius.
The question to tax or not to tax is not as simple as politicians make it out to be. Compared to spending, how much either benefits the nation, individuals, etc., is highly disputed. The conclusive evidence, according to Davidson College Professor of Political Science Hassan El-Menyawi, is that the conclusion is inconclusive. Both have worked and not worked depending on other variables and specific situations.
But perhaps it is better that we examine where to appropriate that tax revenue. This is, by all accounts, the more paramount political and economic issue at hand.
Obviously, the "redistribution of wealth" doesn't literally happen; the government doesn't hand over checks to its citizens. Therefore, what should the government provide to straps to the strapless and boots to the bootless?
Well, Plato offers u.s. a clue. In The Republic, he wrote “The direction in which a man starts his education will determine his future.” Perhaps we should heed his sagacious insight and devote a significant amount of our resources and attention to the abysmal public education system in the United States.
First, I second the previous comment. Fantastic post Ignatius.
Secondly, who the hell is Ignatius? Why couldn't I be some Greco-Roman mythological figure? Why am I "Marcos"? And why is Sous "Jonathan"? That's super lame.
But seriously, that was a great post. I've not heard the bar analogy explained in such a way. Top notch.
Post a Comment