Political Hay
Redistribution Justification
Raising present taxes in order to penalize past benefits smacks of retroactivity.
The Left’s favorite mantra justifying income redistribution is “excessive benefit from Bush policies.” The liberal illogic goes that “the wealthy” have been receiving too much and paying too little and should now make it up with higher taxes. The flaws in this slanted reasoning are many. The danger in it is even greater.
For those who missed it, let’s recount what “the wealthy’s excessive benefit” was. For one thing, they got to pay a top federal tax rate of 35 percent. That means the federal government got to take over a third of everything they earned. In reality, it means “the wealthy” got to keep well less than 65 cents of every dollar they made, once state and local taxes are added to the federal tax rate.
This “too-low” top rate means that “the wealthy” paid taxes at the same federal rate as corporations. Of course, as many correctly argue, the corporate tax rate is too high to be globally competitive. The fear is that businesses and investment will migrate abroad. For some reason, the same concern does not exist for top individual producers.
If the wealthy’s gains are ill-gotten, then wouldn’t justice be better and more quickly served to prosecute, rather than persecute, them? There rightly was no hesitation with Bernie Madoff. Seeking to tax the wealthy to justice is the least efficient manner for redressing the Left’s claimed wrong. Unless, of course, you presume that all the wealthy’s gains are ill-gotten…
Top earners’ real “crime” is success. What do they do with their excessive benefits? Invest, save, and start businesses. All of which employ others and give customers goods at the lowest possible prices. Criminal.
Who are these insanely wealthy souls? A married couple making over $374,000 this year would qualify for the top tax rate. It is impossible to put a face on them though — because their ranks change every year. As people age, they migrate through the tax rates — the “wealthy” one year, were likely “poor” earlier, and will likely return to lower tax rates again as they reach retirement.
This income migration points out the dangerous but implicit element of the Left’s redistribution justification. Raising present taxes in order to penalize past benefits smacks of retroactivity. As income migration shows, it is a very imprecise imposition — people who had lower tax rates in the past may no longer be in the top income group next year, and people in the top income group next year, may not have been in the top over the previous decade. No matter to the Left.
The retroactive nature of the Left’s justification should indeed be a concern to the rest of us though. It is more dangerous than the taxes themselves. It not only offers an unlimited rationale for raising future taxes, but leaves neither amount nor type of income immune from its rearward reach.
By all competent projections, Washington is on an unsustainable spending path. Generated by entitlements and inertia, there is no effort on the Left to avoid excessive spending. Its demand will therefore turn for more and more revenue. The two largest pots will be in baby-boomer savings and middle class earnings. If someone’s past success can justify a reach-back revenue-grab, what makes retirement accounts safe? If someone can be deemed to have benefitted “excessively,” why does anyone have comfort that today’s middle class do not become tomorrow’s wealthy?
We can never rest secure in liberals’ limits because there is no limit for liberals. The Left thinks in non-economic terms and acts under anti-economic rules. Under its system, there are no market forces to align supply to demand. Therefore there are no means to enforce boundaries on actions. There are only the Left’s own good intent and the inherent belief that it can order society better than society and markets can order themselves.
Thus liberals can not tell us how much “the wealthy” need pay in taxes. Already those in the top tax bracket pay almost 35 percent of all federal income taxes paid in the U.S. This despite the fact that they make up less than four percent of federal taxpayers. How much more a burden should they shoulder? The Left cannot be more precise than to simply say “more.”
The Left should say what it means. If it believes America is under-taxed — in whole or in part — it should say so. If it believes that Washington must have more revenue because spending cannot be cut — it should make the claim. Of course, it will say neither, because America would reject both assertions.
For this reason, the Left rarely says what they mean. But the Left does mean what it says. And often far more. The problem is America just does not listen.
About the Author
J.T. Young served in the Department of Treasury and the Office of Management and Budget from 2001 to 2004 and as a Congressional staff member from 1987 to 2000.
coal carrier| 3.23.10 @ 6:57AM
In Mark Levin’s book “Liberty and Tyranny” he states “ The individual’s right to live freely and safely and pursue happiness includes the right to acquire and possess property, which represents the fruits of his own intellectual and/or physical labor. As the individual’s time on earth is finite, so too, is his labor. The illegitimate denial or diminution of his private property enslaves him to another and denies him liberty.”
Communism, socialism or any other government-generated control over the individual is a direct affront to ones liberty. I am not talking about taxes for roads and bridges. I am talking about the insatiable appetite the progressive has for another’s possessions.
The government has turned into a slave master.
Tex| 3.23.10 @ 7:51AM
If you think Madoff ran a huge scam, Amway has ripped off millions of people for several decades, to the tune of 10s of billions of dollars.
Amway is a scam, and here's why: Amway pays out as little money as they can get away with, so they support the higher level IBOs ripping off their downline via the tool scam.
As a result, about 99% of IBOs operate at a net loss, while the top 1% make several TIMES more from their Amway tool scam than from the Amway products. This was made illegal in the UK in 2008, but our FTC is unable to pull their heads out of their butts to stop it here.
Read about it on my blog, I suggest you start here: http://thenetprofitgroup.yolasite.com and forward the information to everyone you know, so they don't get scammed.
Flee| 3.23.10 @ 4:45PM
What does this have to do with the subject at hand? If Amway is a scam, don't participate. No one was ever required to take part or listen to an Amway presentation or purchase their products. Let's try to stay on topic here.
Ryan| 3.23.10 @ 8:13AM
Add in the matter that there are plenty of uber-wealthy who have overseas accounts to protect themselves from over-taxation.
Imagine the trouble we WOULDN'T be in if taxes were low enough that the wealthy would have a good incentive to keep their money in American banks.
Cris Worth| 3.23.10 @ 9:05AM
"The power to tax is the power to destroy." Liberal redistribution schemes will destroy us retroactively.
Tony in Central PA| 3.23.10 @ 1:07PM
I recently read a book about the Peloponnesian War. What I found interesting in comparison to our situation today is that as the city - state of Athens declined, it was obtaining taxes from an ever - shrinking proportion of its population. Probably just a coincidence.
Joe| 3.23.10 @ 1:35PM
Tex, You are obviously wrong since anyone sponsor can and does become bigger than the sponsorer with the right effort and time. So do your homework next time before you bring that Leftist thought process to this round table.
And No I am not one of the big boys in the legal Amway network. I know how it works though from the inside.
irvpost| 3.23.10 @ 1:42PM
Every American needs to read The LAW! http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html
Oldefarte| 3.23.10 @ 3:02PM
The primary issue behind wealth redistribution is RACIAL REPARATION. Europeon immigrants of Irish, Italian, Polish, Greek, etc [and presently Spanish] decent came/come to this country not to capture/confiscate the WEALTH of others; but to prosper economically/financially themselves and gain their own [earned] wealth. Alternatively, African-Americans have failed to rise up the economic ladder and gain their own [earned] wealth. They traditionally complain, gripe, moan and groan that RACISM, GENTRIFICATION, DISCRIMINATION, DISENFRANCHISEMENT,etc are the causes of their misery, pain and inability to prosper as other races/ethnic groups have done. Their lack of success in school is due to their rebellion against white-Europeon social mores, attitudes, traditions, etc, contained within these schools. If a black child in school attempts to perform well academically, he or she is ridiculed/humiliated by black peers for being an OREO [and for not being true to
their African-American heritage]. Thereafter, being uneducated, they are incapable of financially providing for themselves, and society/government/taxpayers have to provide for their financial welfare. Consequently, they elect politicians that will provide government REPARATIONS/BENEFITS to them as their just rewards [for slavery,etc]. In their reasoning, wealth redistribution is their RIGHT, and all taxpayers are morally obligated to provide those government benefits [IE health insurance]!!!!!!
Flee| 3.23.10 @ 4:49PM
So true Oldefarte. The scale has nearly tipped towards those receiving rather than contributing to the govt coffers. When it does those that earn $ will be forever beholden to those that take and give to their supporters. Moving to another country looks better with each passing year.
Roy| 3.23.10 @ 5:13PM
If that were the case, then only 12% would be in favor of it("African Americans").
I don't think it's hard to understand why most people think the free economy can't hold a candle to the "me" economy - all wealth is put in a pot and distributed to me.
Oldefarte| 3.24.10 @ 1:23PM
That 12% is WHO is essentially responsible for this ["....If that were the case, then only 12% would be in favor of it African Americans...."]; in addition to the dumbass college professor elitests, the Hollywood morons, and the pathetically stupid non-African-Americans [who THINK that they are getting a good deal for themselves out of this welfare]!!!!!!!!!!
My Thoughts| 11.23.10 @ 6:22PM
Oldefart,
Wealth redistribution had and has nothing to do with race or ethnicity. It is based on Marxist principles which call for the destruction of the bourgeois class in order to establish a system of equality(socialism). The problem with redistribution is that it spread poverty. So yes, it is not economically logical. However, to say that Blacks or anyone else has failed because of "rebellion from white-European social mores", ect. is just racist. Redistribution of income is inefficient because of the high costs associated with its administration. Simple. Some people will succeed, some will fail and we will always hear from the failures. The Black kid who claims he never had a chance, the white girl who turned to crystal meth cause Daddy didn't love her, we will hear from them all. The truth is, we will not all be rich. This country was not designed to benefit everyone. The owners of production will always prevail.
Louis Jenkins| 3.23.10 @ 4:52PM
"By all competent projections, Washington is on an unsustainable spending path. Generated by entitlements and inertia, there is no effort on the Left to avoid excessive spending. Its demand will therefore turn for more and more revenue. The two largest pots will be in baby-boomer savings and middle class earnings."
So let me guess? You've put your ear to the ground and heard hoof beats? There is no end to the revenue gathering (stealing) that these scum sucking, dirt bag, knuckle dragging, back stabbing, steal the formula out of your baby's mouth idiots. Anyone with two brain cells can understand that those people will not stop until the last drop of blood is squeezed from everyone.
Neil| 3.23.10 @ 7:08PM
What I have always found most disturbing is the assertion that we are "taxing the wealthy". Actually, what we are taxing is any high income which occurred in a single calendar year. Wealth is the net worth of an individual, not how much income he/she might have recieved in a single year. It is very possible to have a high income in any given year while still having a low net worth.
This isn't rocket science. Anyone who thinks about it for more then a moment or two would realize that fact. So, the left must not be seriously interested in taxing wealth. The truly wealthy need not fear taxes because they, having sufficient assets, can get enough income from investing in low return, tax exempt bonds. Case in point, John Kerry and Theresa Heinz.
So, it appears to me that what the left is really doing is placing onerous taxes on those who are working hard to try and become wealthy. A variety of surveys show that the left tends to be wealthier then the right. Perhaps this is all really is, is an attempt to exclude newcomers from the club. the intent is not to punish the rich, but rather to keep others from becoming rich. Keep the elite as the elite.
Anonymous| 3.23.10 @ 8:06PM
Everyone who might vote for Demo-rats is "poor" and open to government handouts in order to ensure they vote that we. "Rich" people are ones who don't liberal/leftard, see?
Pingback| 3.23.10 @ 8:59PM
The American Spectator : Redistribution Justification Federal Me links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
taxstudent| 3.24.10 @ 12:48PM
regardless if you agree or disagree, everyone should read this (read the summary at the end, as its an academic paper, OR the tables on page 6 & 12)
http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez.....axprog.pdf
another tax student| 3.24.10 @ 4:38PM
taxstudent's study is a joke. The must-see chart shows estate taxes at 2 or 3%. You must have just been admitted to your program if you think that's accurate. Try a 45% marginal estate tax bracket (assuming we go back to that). That means the last dollar you earn in the year you die could be taxed at 35% income plus 15.3% payroll ( if you're self-employed) plus 45% if you leave it to your estate. The IRS ends up taking about 73% of that dollar and don't forget to pay your state comrades.
To think that professor's wrote this. What an embarassment. If one of the authors/jokers is your professor, drop that class quick. I guess you could say the paper isn't bad for government work.
Erik| 3.25.10 @ 4:03AM
"Raising taxes to compensate for the excess benefits of the Bush era smacks of retroactivity?' So does increasing prison sentences to address crime increase Sir, are you stupid or simply pretending to be?
Noir| 3.26.10 @ 3:19AM
retroactivity,redistribution,reparation=retribution train.
All words to steal what *I* HAVE WORKED FOR.
All aboooarrd! Next stop: Amnesty. Kindly remember to take your belongings as you exit the train including you 401Ks!!
Hydraulic Tools Manufacturer | 5.12.10 @ 9:06AM
Hydraulic Tools Manufacturer.
Defender72| 7.2.10 @ 1:36PM
OK, Neil, I have done a quick search, and I can't find any studies that show "A variety of surveys show that the left tends to be wealthier then the right." Not arguing, and I know this is an old article, but I've been overseas for awhile and I'm playing catch-up. Just give me a link or something so I can find these studies.
I will say, I think you may be wrong, but show me the study and I'll believe.
Biloxi Tickets | 9.9.10 @ 2:19PM
On the back of that, never one to stop the momentum - we’ve teamed up with Donaeo to put on yet another rave for Haiti, this Friday, February 12…
Ken Hill | 3.6.11 @ 5:56PM
Manchester Escorts Premuim Exclusive Company Escort Agency, Based In North West England For Out Call Services
出会い | 7.21.11 @ 3:47AM
itumomiteimasu
yanyan | 10.10.11 @ 10:11AM
I found very useful and interesting posts in this blog which is the great signs for a good bloggermesothelioma attorney