BrianGarst.com

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

class warfare Archive

Wednesday

8

December 2010

1

COMMENTS

Kamikaze Democrats

Written by , Posted in Economics & the Economy, Taxes

As has been widely publicized, the White House and Congressional Republicans have forged a compromise that will prevent tax rates from going up at the end of the year (except for the death tax which will return with a 35% with a $5 million exemption).  In exchange for extending the current individual, capital gains and dividends rates for 2 more years for all Americans, Republicans agreed to support another year’s worth of unemployment benefits (which will reduce employment) and some various tax credits, which will do nothing. Overall, compared to what would happen if capital gains and dividends rate went up, this is a good deal. It’s certainly not the best policy (permanent extension would do a lot more to reduce uncertainty), but it’s better than tax increases (even, yes, on the wealthy).

It’s hard to see what democrats can really complain about either. They get their entitlements, and even by CBO’s gimmick accounting (where keeping tax rates the same has “costs”) most of the bill’s costs still comes from their entitlements, so they cannot complain about that. So why are so many so pissed off that they’re willing to try and scuttle the deal, taking America’s economy down with it?

The only explanation that makes any sense is that they’ve backed themselves into a corner with a decades worth of nonsensical class warfare demagoguery. They’ve falsely blamed Bush’s rate cuts “for the wealthy” (I’d point out for them yet again that Bush made the tax code more progressive, and not less so, but we all know I’d be wasting my time with these people) for everything from spending induced deficits to the financial crisis. Most of them probably really didn’t even believe this crap, but class warfare sells. Why argue for policy based on principle or careful analysis when you can just get one group of Americans pissed off at another group?

Democrats weren’t always this way. JFK argued for significant tax cuts as a way to grow the economy, and he was right. But for the hard left, to not raise taxes now would be to admit that their last ten years worth of rhetoric was a lie. We all know it was, but they are desperate not to admit it. And to protect their baseless ideology, they’ll happily fly the class-warfare fighter into the American economic ship.

Tuesday

10

August 2010

0

COMMENTS

When Soaking The Rich Doesn’t Sell, Soak The Super-Rich Instead

Written by , Posted in Economics & the Economy, Taxes

With the public unconvinced of the wisdom of soaking the rich, the latest hot idea floating around in statist circles is not to soak the rich, but rather the really, super-duper, ultra rich.

In a class-warfare filled screed, James Surowiecki wrote in the New Yorker on the need to “Soak the Very, Very Rich.”

A better tax system would have more brackets, so that the super-rich pay higher rates. (The most obvious bracket to add would be a higher rate at a million dollars a year, but there’s no reason to stop there.) This would make the system fairer, since it would reflect the real stratification among high-income earners…

Ezra Klein then blogged at the Washington Post that he is “very sympathetic to the idea that there should be more tax brackets,” reasoning that  “It would be a lot easier to fight the super-rich than to fight the super-rich, the really rich, the pretty rich, and well-off.” If there was a bracket just for the super-duper-really rich, you see, it could be more easily raised to unconscionable and economy killing levels without public objection.

Adding more tax brackets would complicate an already inexcusably incomprehensible tax code, resulting in increased economic waste and compliance costs, more expenditures on lobbying and even greater uncertainty than is currently holding down economic growth.

Furthermore, tax policy should not be decided based on which group is easiest to demagogue and demonize. Nor is it the purpose of the tax code to enshrine into law a particular view of economic fairness, which in the case of Surowiecki and Klein, means redistribution.

There is one legitimate reason and one legitimate reason only for taxes, and that’s to raise the funds necessary for the limited functions of constitutional government and rule of law. There is no honest assessment of those functions as enshrined in the US Constitution which can find that the present revenues received by the state are insufficient to provide for those functions.

I’m sure it’s too much to ask, but rather than ruminate on which of its citizens the government and its statist boosters should declare war on next, the Ezra Klein’s of the world should think about how government spending can be reduced, and our federal government brought back into the bounds of legitimate, constitutional governance.