You’re Being Punished For Your Greed, Not Your ‘Success’

There’s a difference between fair taxation and “wealth redistribution”

Whenever the debate over tax increases rears its ugly head, political conservatives tend to trot out the same generic argument. When opposing changes to the tax code that would shift the greater burden of taxation onto wealthier people, the Right invokes a common protest, almost as though it’s been rehearsed:

“People shouldn’t be punished for their success.”

What they are saying, here, is that it’s unfair for millionaires and billionaires to sacrifice higher percentages of their incomes in order to support the middle class and the working class.

The insinuation is that poorer people haven’t displayed enough work ethic or stamina to deserve the same level of wealth and financial security that rich people enjoy.

Essentially, this is tantamount to the stupid slogan peddled by Milo Yiannopoulos:

“Stop being poor”

Even people on the Left can be lightly susceptible to these fallacies.

My Ninth-Grade Social Studies teacher, Mr. Boerger, was overall a compassionate and progressive soul. If you were paying attention, it was obvious he considered himself to be a leftist — although, unlike some teachers, Mr. Boerger (at least in my experience) never threw it in the faces of us students.

During one class discussion, Mr. Boerger asked us to weigh in on why we thought there was so much tension in U.S. politics. Mind you, this was 1996 — and many folks nowadays seem to yearn for what they harken back to as such a simpler time.

When I raised my hand, and he called on me, I said:

“Greed.”

Mr. Boerger gently pressed me further, playing devil’s advocate. “Are we a greedy people, Anthony?” he countered.

“Oh, I’m not talking about the American people,” I clarified. “I’m referring to politicians.” “Ah!” said Mr. Boerger, clearly appreciating how I was willing to give him more context for what I meant. “But not all politicians, right?”

“Most of them,” I said, bitterly.

Although I’m not an economist, allow me to offer my quaint little thoughts on the wealth gaps that persist within the United States…

A Taxing Debate

In general, my ideal American tax plan would be a hybridized cross between a flat tax and a progressive tax.

While a flat tax would be theoretically fairer than progressive taxation models, it probably wouldn’t raise enough revenue to meet our budgetary needs.

And, while a progressive tax would shift more fiduciary responsibility onto wealthier people, the potential gaps between percentage rates of each bracket are larger than I feel would be fair.

As of the date of this writing, the United States has seven tax brackets. The income tax rates are, successively, 10%, 12%, 22%, 24%, 32%, 35%, and 37%. If an American earns less than $10,275, then they fall below the lowest tax bracket of 10%.

In my opinion, we should have *more* tax brackets. Their percentage rates should be more evenly dispersed along something akin to a sliding scale.

For example, why not have twenty tax brackets:

10%, 11%, 12%, 14%, 15%, 18%, 21%, 22%, 24%, 25%, 26%, 27%, 28%, 30%, 32%, 33%, 34%, and 35%.

This would spread out everyone’s liability in a more proportional manner than our past progressive tax brackets have while avoiding the regressive nature of a 15% or 20% flat tax.

A complete nonstarter is the ultraregressive (so-called) FAIR Tax — for all the reasons (and more) that tax analyst Len Burman cited in a 2015 Forbes piece.

Or, I could get onboard with something similar to Florida Democrat Winston Negron’s FAST Tax, which I wrote about last year:

I certainly don’t agree that millionaires or billionaires should have to part with 50% of their income. But we still need to find a way to generate enough revenue without such a lopsided burden falling upon those who are in the lowest brackets.

It Isn’t Malevolence…It’s Math!

Given my centrist mindset, I sympathize with high-earning businesspersons who fear that the federal government will misspend their tax dollars. Considering all of the government waste that exists, this distrust is 100% understandable.

I would just ask them one question…

We need funding for transportation, infrastructure, education, agriculture, and general healthcare access. At the very least.

So, if we’re not going to place some degree of a higher proportion of tax burden onto Americans who generate more wealth…

Then *where* is all of this money supposed to come from?

State governments and local municipalities can’t pay for everything.

Charities and the private sector are unable, or unwilling, to pay for a lot of things.

This isn’t a matter of trying to “punish” anybody due to the amount of money that happens to be in their bank account.

Rather, it’s a conundrum where we must figure out how much to spend — and who is going to shoulder that burden in which proportion.

When poorer people simply have fewer resources or conveniences at their disposal, it isn’t logical to expect them to contribute to the same degree as those who are financially secure.

People who possess wealth privilege and class privilege.

Yes, there’s that dirty, forbidden word again…

Privilege.

Is Capitalism Inherently Bad?

I disagree with those on the Left who claim that socialism or communism is the only feasible way forward.

Capitalism, in and of itself, isn’t necessarily the problem.

Chris Drew PhD, aka “The Helpful Professor,” identifies six variations of capitalism:

Oligarchy — where elitists control both the economy and the legislative process through bribery and monopolization (e.g. Russia).

State control — the government dictates regulation and capitalistic economics at the discretion of elected officials (e.g. China).

Neoliberal corporatism — also known as “crony capitalism,” it involves privately-run corporations being owned by their stockholders but continuing to monopolize sectors (e.g. Facebook, Toyota, Samsung).

Pure entrepreneurship — where a wide variety of small-scale businesses compete with minimal regulation, although its levels of efficiency and industrialization may fluctuate in order to adjust to modern-day realities (e.g. Ireland, Switzerland).

Laissez faire economics — the purest form of capitalism, featuring across-the-board open trade and a largely hands-off approach from central government (e.g. Singapore).

Welfare states — the private market has the ability to thrive, but it’s under the watchful eye of a governmental regulatory body that ensures a portion of those profits are redistributed amongst the poorest citizens (e.g. Finland, Sweden, Norway).

Out of these variations, I’d say that capitalism based on oligarchy, state control, neoliberalism, and/or corporatism are systems that epitomize greed. They serve to benefit only the political ruling class — and their donors — which is what I was trying to express to Mr. Boerger.

Here’s the bottom line: if you want to guarantee that capitalism persists, which specific iteration of capitalism are you going to promote?

What policies do you believe will best support that capitalistic model, and why?

And, finally…

If you are trying to claim that following regulations and paying a large chunk of your income as taxes somehow means you’re being “punished for your success”…

Then does that mean poverty, bankruptcy, and financial destitution would indicate that those who suffer from these blights are being “punished for their failure”…?

Click here to subscribe to my stories.