Home > Opinion > Bonnie Erbe > Democrats’ Meaningless "Tax the Rich" Proposals Will Lead to Class Warfare

Democrats’ Meaningless "Tax the Rich" Proposals Will Lead to Class Warfare

Reader Comments
Back to blog

First, let me say this, I said I didn't agree with redistributing the wealth. I've yet to hear anyone suggest that we tax the rich and literally give it to the poor. However, I do believe in a progressive tax system.
I don't believe that anyone "owes" me anything; accept maybe American Express, but that's a whole other discussion ;) But, I do believe a country is more prosperous when its people are healthy and well-educated. As such, the goal of any social and economic policy should be to guarantee equality of opportunity to obtain an education and maintain their health.
The problem, as I see it, starts in assuming that the top got where they are and have stayed where they are because they are overachieving geniuses. And, the bottom got where they are and stayed where they are because they are lazy, dummies. The logical end to the assumption is that leveling the field takes away their natural, biological advantage of being hard-working eggheads. And, if that were true, then I'd completely agree with you.
But, we all know that that's not the case. Sure, there are plenty of Americans who have worked their butts off and, through initiative and ingenuity, made a better life for themselves. But, there are also plenty of people who were lucky enough to born with economic advantages that stack the deck in their favor. The only advantage being stolen from those people is their unearned, economic advantage.
This brings me back to the idea of equality of opportunity; because, equality of opportunity actually increases competition. If every kid had access to a quality education and college counseling services, then there would be more seniors competing for places at colleges. Poor kids who used to get substandard educations would have a fighting chance against wealthy kids with access to tutors and private college counselors. All kids would have to compete on their actual, individual merits. That's a gap I'd love to see closed.
Here's my best analogy: a third grade class project. One child's parent does the whole thing for them. Another child does the project entirely on their own. Although ultimately they will be, we inherently know it's unfair to grade them on the same scale. We would probably all agree that the child who did it all on their own is deserving of a better grade than the child who did nothing, even if the final product doesn't measure up. Certainly, the child who did the project learned more. Now, imagine if that third grade class project was graded on a curve. That poor little guy worked so hard. But, because half the class got help from their parents, the bar was set higher and he got a failing grade.
That's what it's like to be a poor kid in America. Work ethic, my a$$.

Meryl of CA 4:20PM July 25, 2009

In response to Meryl of CA.....
Why do "we still need a solution to the growing income divide in this country"?
Capitalism says, if you earn it, it's yours
Marxism says, everyone is the same. The government redistributes the wealth so everyone is the same.
The consequences of capitalism is that the economy grows, the middle class grows, even if ONLY by 40%, the government takes in more money in taxes....etc.
The consequences of Marxism is that the economy goes flat, jobless rates rise, the number of "poor" explodes because the government takes everything. So much so that there isn't enough to go around so everyone suffers.
What this country really needs to decide is whether or not a person should be rewarded for the "sweat of our brow and the stength of our backs and the courage in our hearts" (to take a line from Pirates of the Carribean). Or, should a person be punished because they work hard or are smart enough to make good investments, etc.
We need to decide what is it that makes a person truly believe that someone else "owes" them something. I'm not wealthy by any stretch of the imagination. My family lives a good life and we struggle just like everyone else....maybe not with the same issues, but we have our struggles nonetheless. I do however aspire to be one of the wealthy someday. But what is the point in working hard and being creative or revolutionary or industrious if all that is going to happen is that the majority of my money is going not to my benefit or the benefit my family but the benefit of those who had nothing to do with my success? Will the poor share in my failures? Will the middle class participate in the risks I take to become wealthy? I think not. Why then should they participate in my sucess and prosperity? (Out the goodness my heart I will give to those who do not have, not out of necessity, but because of the cheerfullness I gain from doing so).

Scott Anderson of OK 2:18AM July 24, 2009

Things may appear black-and-white when you look at them simplistically, however once you dig into them, things become far more complex. With regard to the 'growing gap' there are several reasons for it.
One thing is the worsening work ethic. More and more people have come to believe that they are 'entitled' to high pay, benefits and such as opposed to having to work for them (the primary reason why jobs go overseas). This is part of the general cultural decline of humanity, albeit it's not as far advanced here in the US as it is in Europe and it has yet to penetrate China. As people loose their work ethic, they will be less likely to make more money, instead spending their time whining and complaining about the obvious: life is not fair. At the same time, you have mobility in this system. People who are both poor and determined can rise above poverty and join the 'other half' as you put it. A decline in the number of motivated people in the 'bottom bracket' combined with the poor work ethic is one reason for the lower growth rate.
Another obvious reason is jobs. When the economy goes into a recession, as it did in 2000 and 2007, the most disposable jobs are cut the first. Usually people in the 'lower bracket' fall into this category, as if you run a business, it's easier to let a paper-pusher go than a computer expert, and it's easiest to let a part-timer go. Not to mention, if your in a franchise business like Burger King, you lay off or fire some employees at each store, but leave enough to keep it functioning. Things aren't the same for specialized jobs which require college degrees, or jobs which don't require them, but require several promotions to get. In short, the security of your job, and thus you income depends on how high up on the ladder you are and how your work ethic is. I mean if you have two people doing the same type of low-skill job, the one with the better work ethic keeps theirs in a recession.
"Several years ago Congress placed a 10% tax on luxury boats. Sales of these boats were cut in half and many middle class workers lost their jobs building those boats."
My father told me about that....in how the taxes cut a lot of jobs, made companies go bankrupt and did absolutely nothing to 'punish the evil rich,' the reason why that tax was passed to begin with. The wealthy simply chose not to buy the boats. However those who enacted and supported the tax policies in question still refuse to accept responsibility for the lost jobs and that their plan had no effect, indeed they never repealed the failed tax. Instead they brush it under the rug as if it never happened, content on blaming the 'evil rich,' even when it was the fault of the 'progressives.'

Stephen of WI 1:53AM July 24, 2009

The rich are rich because they've either earned their money or inherited it. The poor are poor because they choose to be. There is no problem in the divide as I see it. The problem is the lack of desire amongst the poor.
Besides that, if the pres taxes the rich heavily, the jobs tat the poor depend on will start to vanish. But, this could be a good thing. The poor would start to lose jobs and may get the desire to start a business.

Will Mosley of GA 12:17AM July 24, 2009

I don't necessarily agree with redistributing wealth. But, we still need a solution to the growing income divide in this country.
If tax cuts for the upper-income brackets created jobs and increased the wealth of everyone, then presumably the income percentile floors would shift. As everyone became more prosperous, the amount of money you'd have to make to go from the bottom 50% to the top 50% would increase. But, in the last 5 years, (adjusting for inflation) that amount has gone down. Which means that the bottom 50% isn't seeing those promised benefits.
The top 1% makes 22% of the income. The bottom 50% makes only 12.5% In 20 years, the top 1% has seen their share of the wealth double while the bottom 90%'s share has consistently decreased.
The average person in the top 1% has seen there income increase by 114% in the last ten years. The average person in the bottom half has only seen theirs increase by 40%.
The only real significant change we've seen in the last ten years (strictly looking at IRS numbers) is that the top 1% has more than doubled their total wealth while reducing their average tax rate by more than 6%. No other discreet income group can claim anything close to that.
I'm not positive what the proper solution is, but more tax cuts for the wealthy definitely is not.

Meryl of CA 6:30PM July 23, 2009

Raising taxes on the rich gives the government more money to spend, but the rich now have less money to spend. So the same amount of money gets distributed differently. The real question is do we wan't the marketplace to distribute the money or should the government do it. There needs to be a balance betwen these two methods.
Having the government spend the money will help some groups, while having the rich spend less will hurt others. There will always be winners and losers when the balance of who controls how the money is spent is changed.
Several years ago Congress placed a 10% tax on luxury boats. Sales of these boats were cut in half and many middle class workers lost their jobs building those boats.
If the government raises my taxes I might cut my contributions to charity, or spend less on lawn care services , or maybe fire the personal trainer I use. I can live without the trainer, but she is trying to earn money to finish college. The government might help someone with my tax dollars. But my cutting my spending will likely hurt others.
No one ever thinks about these "unintended" consequences.

Bob of TX 2:36PM July 23, 2009

As things are, the top 1% of the population earns 20% of the income in the US, but pay 40% of the taxes, something which is an abomination. They should be paying 20% of the taxes prior to factoring in the Cooperate Tax. Now to mention you have over 30% of the population of the US with incomes paying nothing in taxes....and yet people want to make this worse?
As for the economy as a whole, it is a fact that taxing the 'rich' leads to higher unemployment, whether you like it or not. The more you tax business owners and businesses, the less money they have to pay for buying goods, advertising them, maintenance and most importantly, the less money they have to pay for employees. As a result, the higher the taxes, the fewer employees a company can afford. An old saying is "socialists love jobs but hate job providers" and it is 100% on. They cannot figure out that taxing job providers will lead in a loss for jobs. When the jobs are lost, they blame the job providers as opposed to opening their eyes and realizing that it was their policies which caused this to begin with.
As for the remarks about closing up shop, I highly doubt people would do it personally, unless they have long had financial issues and know that their employees are all or almost all in favor of such measures. If they are in that unique situation, then I have nothing against the 'fire them and quit' idea, because they brought it on themselves.
As for employees having "built the business as much or more than the owners did," such statements make it obvious that the person in question knows nothing of business. It is the enterpourners who are the driving force behind building businesses. They have the ideas and the will to create something, they are the ones who go out and search for employees, winning people over with promises of pay and business growth.
My father, who ran a small business (100 employees, 8 leased stores) for nearly 30 years told me a story of a guy who had a lamp shop. He decided to retire and sold out to his employees, who wanted to run the shop. The first thing they did was give raises around the table. Within two years they had gone bankrupt due to this and a lack of understanding with regard to how to manage money and manage a business.
Not to mention, this kind of taxing is what encourages businesses to go overseas and move their bases to China and other countries which actually allow them to grow.

Stephen of WI 12:36PM July 23, 2009

"So for a dual-income, childfree couple living in Des Moines, $250,000 in annual income might qualify them as rich. But the same is hardly true for a family of four in Manhattan, or San Francisco, or Boston, D.C., and so on."
Sorry, but the family of four made a decision to have that many kids - if childfree couples get taxed because they have a higer income, then the same should apply to familys who have 4, 5, 8+ kids.
Remember people - a condom can be your friend if you want to live a nice lifestyle!

Emily Johnson of CA 11:08AM July 23, 2009

Making a pretty good living these days, eh, Bonnie?

Bob of VA 10:24AM July 23, 2009

If one person owned all of the wealth, he would have no choice but to pay all of the taxes. If two people split it, they would go 50/50.
It may be a simplistic way to look at things, but I think each of us should pay a share of the tax burden comparable to our share of the total adjusted gross income.
Now, here's the shocker. In 2006, only the wealthiest 1% paid a significantly disproportionate share (the top .1% owned about 11% of the wealth but paid about 20% of the taxes, as did the rest of the top 1%). And, their average tax rate was still below 23%.
If you were in the top 2-5%, you paid only slightly more than your share (no more than a 5% difference). And, your average tax rate was below 17.5%
If you were in the bottom 95% (as in pretty much everybody!), you paid less than your share.
And, surprisingly enough, these numbers don't vary all that much over the last few presidencies.
Sure, our definitions of "rich" may vary. But, if you make more than 95% of the country, I think you're doing okay.

Meryl of CA 11:40PM July 22, 2009