Tax the Rich!

The circus that is known as election time is upon us.  On November 2nd, citizens of the USA get to elect  which sociopathic dimwit gets to rule represent us for the next couple of years.  Amongst the usual rhetoric in order to persuade the ‘useful idiots’ to vote for assclown 1 over assclown 2 is the call to ‘tax the rich!’.  After all, they can afford it and god forbid people have to live off there own labour rather than stealing from others. The cry to tax the rich particularly irks me though as politicians get the useful idiots all riled up as they believe they can get something for nothing.

Bearing in mind, the ‘rich’ usually own businesses,  I want to do a little mental exercise.   Please don’t get caught up with the numbers, they are merely pulled out of thin air to emphasise my point.

My name is Joe Bloggs, and I own a small restaurant somewhere in the US.  Each year, I make a profit total of $1 million USD.  After I have complied with the minimum wage regulations, health care regulations, and the other million or so regulations that all businesses have to comply with in the US, I now have a profit total of $500,000 USD.  Uncle Sam then comes in and hits me with taxes and my profits now fall to $250,000, but, due to the useful idiots who voted for the assclown who would ‘tax the rich’ at the last elections, tax is actually up this year so now my profits are actually down to $210,000.  The problem is, I still have to pay my suppliers for the year which is a bill of $200,000.  Last year, I had $50,000 left over which was just enough to put a roof over my head and food in my stomach.  This year, I have $10,000 left over.  I am now left with several choices;

  1. Increase my prices to make up for the shortfall
  2. Take a hit on my profit margin
  3. Fire somebody

With choice 1, the new tax I am hit with is passed onto the consumer.  With choice 2, I will not have enough money to survive on.  With choice 3, somebody has to lose there job.

Choice 2 is simply not feasible, and choices 1 and 3 means the tax on the rich is now a tax on the middle class!  (The person who was fired in choice 3 will now be on welfare thus living off other tax payers).

It is important to understand there is no such thing as a free meal.  Every time we want to live off the labour of others, other people have to do without.  This is precisely the reason Thomas Jefferson said “…democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%”.

This year, if you decide to vote for assclown 1 or 2, don’t fall for the usual rhetoric.  The only way to create prosperity is by removing the shackles that regulations and tax places on business owners.  Only then can we begin to restore this once great republic.  Until then, we are just another squallid democracy where “51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%”.  In this case, the ‘right’ is the fruit of people’s labour.

About Dan Gillings

I'm a former slave who is now trying to become a freeman
Tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Tax the Rich!

  1. Andrew Shemo says:

    it’s a known fact that taxing the rich is a complete and utter failure. yes, politicians are THAT dumb to even realize that it’s been tried here in America and has actually ended up causing more of a deficit then accomplishing anything.

    perfect example:

    Maryland tries to impose more taxes on the wealthy-
    http://www.keytlaw.com/blog/2010/03/tax-on-rich/

    other clueless states trying to propose similar measures to close the gap for their mismanaged funds and over spending:

    New York
    http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/ny-assembly-looks-at-millionaires-tax-20100526

    New Jersey
    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65J1NQ20100620

  2. Dan Gillings says:

    I think anybody who spends more than 30 seconds thinking about the concept of ‘taxing the rich’ knows it’s a failure. It still doesn’t stop assclown 1 or 2 spouting this rhetoric to get the useful idiots to vote him/her into office.

    There’s nothing like the temptation of getting something for nothing…

  3. Vernon Etzel says:

    I’ve spent at least 60 seconds thinking about this. If we’re talking about replacing the Income Tax altogether, I’m all for it. But unless we’re talking repeal, then the subject is “tax equity” with which liberty-minded people should concern themselves.

    Tax laws, the volumes of law that are incomprehensible to common taxpayers, are packed with the rules that allow high-income and corporate filers to minimize their tax burdens– shifting these burdens to the lower income payers.

    Consider that a corporation can deduct it’s operating costs and only pay on it’s “profits”, while you and I can’t deduct our costs of living and pay on what we have left. The rules were written by lobbyists and passed by politicians, and those politicians don’t work for YOU.

    A more equitable income tax would be a single-rate, flat tax utilizing a single, large standard deduction. Let’s say the deduction is $50,000– you pay on anything over that at a fixed percentage, no other write-offs.

    Of course, as a libertarian I’m more concerned about alternative systems of public finance. But in response to “taxing the rich”, I’d say “tax equity” is a more effective battle cry.

  4. bill tsafa says:

    I have been an Account for 17 years. I have had a lot of high net worth clients. I can give positive testimony that taxing the rich does not work. People with money have options that are simply not available to wage earners. Rich people do not simply get a weekly paycheck that can be taxed. They have control over HOW, WHEN and WHERE money owed to them is paid. Taxing them only makes them work slightly harder to work around the system. In working around the system, it usually means less money being invested into the American economy. Threatening to tax them even more, only make them less interested in investing in America vs somewhere else. Like it or not, that is simple how it is.

    • Vernon Etzel says:

      So tax the poor then?

      Bill, you’ve pointed out the crux of the issue which is the tax code itself. If you’re saying that the “rich” will simply live off-shore where money can be transferred without penalty, I’d call that another loophole.

      The rules are written by the rulers. I’m sorry, but I can’t get behind this “poor rich folks” image. Perhaps let’s consider alternative systems of taxation rather than claim the inalienable rights of privilege.

      Tax equity is a fair concept, one I believe is in line with liberty. IMO

  5. Andrew Shemo says:

    I’m still trying to find where in the constitution it authorizes any tax on the fruits of our labor. that is simply immoral.

    • Vernon Etzel says:

      Andrew: I think it’s called the 16th Amendment. It’s also in many of the original state constitutions that were subjected to the federal tax-the-states plan.

      But you’re right, the issue is that income tax is immoral. This has nothing to do with the USC, it’s an issue of justice and the role of gov’t in society. We hold these Truths kinda thing…

      Ultimately though, if you’re not looking for moral alternatives, then we’re stuck, as a nation, with the IRS. I’ve been working fervently on alternatives, and I’ve found a few good ones that work well as campaign policies.

      But that’s another issue. Your article was re: taxing the rich and the implicit failure of that strategy. I was simply pointing out that perhaps tax equity would be a better argument than the Atlas Shrugged angle.

  6. Andrew Shemo says:

    Vernon,

    the 16th amendment was never approved properly as defined in the U.S. constitution .

    can you explain your tax equity more?

    ps- this was not an article I wrote.

    • Vernon Etzel says:

      oops… you’re right sry. Any-whoos

      I’d say it was approved properly-enough from what I’ve read. I’ve heard the arguments, and I’m unconvinced. It is certainly not conventional wisdom. But we see history how we wish to see it I suppose, myself included.

      Tax Equity:

      1) That all men are created equal = equality of rights and hence the equality of our franchise in controlling our government. Consent of the Governed implies one man, one vote, each of our souls equal in value to one another. This applies to liberty etc.

      2) That the burden of government, or of oppression as we may see it, should rest equally among the People. If this is seen as a linear cost, it would imply that we owed an equal portion of cost. However, if it is seen as an apportioned cost, as in a percentage of our combined wealth, then an “equitable” distribution would imply a flat tax of some kind, with zero privileges to one class or another

      Therefore “tax equity” simply means fair distribution of costs. It’s common sense and common justice in my view. Again, I am against income taxes in principle. We’re not talking about bus fare here, we’re talking about securing the rights of everyone in the country. The burden of that, in theory, should be proportional.

      There are systematic injustices under the present tax law that could be argued as inequitable, and a simplified flat-tax is a populist view. Unfortunately there is a great bulk of work and rhetoric devoted to arguing otherwise and in support of Aristocracy.

  7. Dan says:

    “Everything the State says is a lie, and everything it has it has stolen.” – Frederich Nietzsche

    and

    “Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.” – Frederic Bastiat

    Taxes are theft. Pure and simple.

    • Vernon Etzel says:

      “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their powers from the consent of the governed.” — Declaration of Independence

      This is where, I believe, libertarianism and anarchism diverge.

      • Timothy Havener says:

        Taxation is an act of force but one that we allow as part of the contract of government. Taxation in its current form is theft. We have double, triple, quadruple taxation on the same income. This is unacceptable and needs to be abolished. A consumption tax is what I favor…it is the least intrusive and gets rid of the IRS and the government out of my bank account.

  8. Andrew Shemo says:

    the fair tax seems to be a better approach from what I’ve been reading. rather than taxing us on our labor, we’d be paying taxes for goods we buy. under that system, we’d be able to control on our own intuition how much we pay in taxes by managing the amount of products we buy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>