Reblogged: The Left’s Egalitarian Trap (and Why Republicans Must Not

[Blog Auto Feed Retired]

If Republicans cave to the Democrats’ demand to raise taxes on “the rich,” they will have conceded the left’s immoral premise that the highest income earners—the so-called one percent—deserve to have their wealth confiscated because they are the wealthiest.

What will be the consequences of capitulating to this obscenity?

The left’s immediate goal is to forcibly redistribute the wealth of the top one percent. But if—as the left asserts—this is the “moral” thing to do, why stop there? The top 2 percent have more wealth than everyone else, too. So do the top 3 and the top 5 and the top 11 percent. If Republicans accept that it is “moral” to confiscate and redistribute someone’s wealth because he is wealthier than others, then Republicans have no defense against tax hikes on anyone and everyone who earns more than anyone else.

The left’s “one percent” strategy is an egalitarian trap. The logical endgame of their premises is a collectivist society of universal economic, rather than legal, equality—a society in which everyone is equally poor. This scheme is an assault not only on the so-called rich, but on every productive American. If the Republicans accede to the Democrats’ demands, the Republicans will have handed the left a political “gift that will keep on giving”—which here means redistributing—as long as there are differences in income.

Everyone who understands arithmetic knows that whatever increase in tax “revenues” follows from increasing the top tax rate from 35 percent to the pre-Bush 39.6 percent will barely dent the deficit, but the left calls for the increase anyway. Why? Because the left’s goal is not to reduce the deficit, but to redistribute wealth—and this is just the beginning.

Like this post? Join our mailing list to receive our weekly digest. And for in-depth commentary from an Objectivist perspective, subscribe to our quarterly journal, The Objective Standard.

Related:

• Capitalism and the Moral High Ground
  
• The Justice of Income Inequality Under Capitalism
  
• Laughing Joe’s Egalitarian Aim
  

Creative Commons Image: DonkeyHotey

Link to Original

[putofftoolong]

Why is it assumed there will be an increase in revenue from the tax increases. When the bush tax cuts went into effect, was there a revenue decrease? Revenue in 2002 was 1.8 trillion and by 2006 it was up to 2.6 trillion, the problem was the spending

[Nicky]

Why is it assumed there will be an increase in revenue from the tax increases. When the bush tax cuts went into effect, was there a revenue decrease? Revenue in 2002 was 1.8 trillion and by 2006 it was up to 2.6 trillion, the problem was the spending

You're right, the Bush cuts did actually increase federal tax revenues, even in a shorter term than the four years you've noted.

In this case, it will depend on the nature of the tax hikes. If all of the tax cuts are allowed to expire, then there will be an increase, in the short term (because a lot of the tax cuts were on the income of middle class and lower income people, who will be able to do nothing to avoid paying them). The long term depends on the economy (not so much these particular tax hikes though).

But, if they reach a deal to only target high incomes, dividends, capital gains and estates, then that will more than likely result in a net loss of revenue.

The UK for instance passed a so called millionaire's tax in 2009, that taxed their incomes at over 50%. Numbers came back recently, Britain has less than 1/3 the millionaire taxpayers it had in 2009, and lost more than half of its revenues from taxing millionaires' incomes.

As it turns out, in several US areas the three levels of gov. will be taxing the incomes of many rich people at a rate of over 50% (California, Hawaii, and NYC - though not the state). This will no doubt result in further exodus from those locations, often from the US altogether. But, even if they stay, they can take measures to reduce taxable income. Companies are already borrowing money just to hand out dividends this year, to beat the rate hikes, and capital gains earnings can be capitalized on now or delayed indefinitely. So, luckily, there is no way in hell those three tax hikes can possibly result in revenue gains for the feds.

[tadmjones]

The adage about politics being local , has for me, at least, the biggest redistributive bite. If I live in my current house for thirty years the term of the original mortgage, I will have paid more in real estate tax than the original cost of construction.