Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Show Me the Dirty Money

I’ve finally gotten fed up with the stock statement of conservative columnists to the effect that “the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 40 percent of all federal taxes”, or some such figure – the point being, the Democrats and/or liberals should stop trying to “soak the rich” because the rich are already being soaked. And this is a perfectly reasonable argument given the premise that the “rich” (however that term is defined) came by their wealth in a legitimate manner, subject to the whims of the marketplace, the laws of supply and demand, and so forth, within the capitalistic/free enterprise model. But can this really be claimed? Now, I’m not one of those populist types who claims that, as has been said, “behind every great fortune is a crime”. I believe that it is not only theoretically possible but not at all uncommon for a person to become rich by providing goods and services that other people really want, and are willing and able to pay for. However! It would not take more than a glance at the fortunes of most of those we define as “rich” to see that the basis for those riches is highly suspect. To begin with, do they own or hold stock in a company that enjoys “tax increment financing”, government contracts (especially of the noncompetitive or “sole source” variety), outright subsidies, a government-granted monopoly, trade barriers or tariffs, government regulations that suppress their competition, or some other form of “corporate welfare”? And, is this rich guy one of those types who makes out like a bandit even when the company he runs crumbles to dust under his feet (with strong implications of fraud or at the very least gross mismanagement)? Again, I’m no populist, but call me a skeptic when it comes to the “purity” of most of today’s fortunes. In fact, I would be willing to bet that the cleanest money out there is held by people in the entertainment business, since the last time I checked, their success or failure was based strictly on market forces and not on subsidies or coercion, with the exception, maybe, of a few geeks on NPR and "public television". (For anyone tempted to add professional athletes, I would ask them to point out a single American city without at least one gleaming, taxpayer-financed athletic palace.)

So – bottom line – we could, if we were so inclined, think of the “confiscatory” taxation rates on “the rich” as being merely a way of forcing them to give back some of their ill-gotten gains – not because (as the liberals would say) wealth per se is evil, but that this form of wealth is something that should not be found in a free society. Of course, the ideal solution is to eliminate the income tax altogether, and also all forms of government subsidizing of business – but that’s one ray of hope that’s just too audacious for any of our political geniuses to imagine.

No comments: