19
All tax plans are wealth redistribution
Commentator Will Wilkinson
To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.
TEXT OF COMMENTARY
Renita Jablonski: Joe Wurzelbacher, aka "Joe the Plumber," has become something of a celebrity. It's all thanks to his opposition to Barack Obama's plan to increase taxes for people making more than a quarter-million a year. Wurzelbacher in particular slammed Obama for wanting to quote "spread the wealth around." Joe and John McCain have called that socialism. But commentator Will Wilkinson says all tax plans, even McCain's, are by nature wealth redistribution.
Will Wilkinson: If you ask Joe, the money Joe's earned is Joe's money, and it should be up to Joe, not the government, how to spend it.
Well, I'm on your side Joe. Sort of. I dream of a government limited to a few essential functions with a minimum of redistribution. Sadly, no major candidate is offering that.
In the system we have, as opposed to the one you and I might want, democracy just is one big machine for spreading the wealth around. The real question is how much of whose money is taken, and who gets it. Politics gets nasty because everyone wants to control the business end of the tax-and-spend stick.
Joe, Did you, like John McCain but unlike Barack Obama, support the invasion and occupation of Iraq? Well, that's cost taxpayers over a trillion dollars so far, and has, like it or not, spread a whole lot of wealth to defense contractors.
What do you think of McCain's proposed $5,000 family health care tax credit? It might be a great idea, but it's not a way of not spreading wealth. The wealthiest 5 percent pay almost 60 percent of all federal income taxes. They'll be footing most of that bill, too. And if you're sniffing around for socialism, why not try Gov. Sarah Palin's Alaska, where every year the state pays residents equal shares of state-owned oil revenues?
The one thing McCain and Obama seem enthusiastically to agree on, "energy independence," would spread wealth from consumers and taxpayers to politically favored energy firms. The big difference is which companies gets the subsidies.
Joe, if you're listening, I feel your pain. Because it's worse than you think. There's no way out. My guess is that under McCain's slightly more pro-growth economic policies, there may be a bit more wealth to spread, and the weapons manufacturers will be secure in their meaty share. Under Obama's policies, the ethanol racket is safe, labor unions may see their fortunes rise, and even you get that middle-class tax cut.
If you can plumb the depths of that choice, Joe, give me a call.
Jablonski: Will Wilkinson is a research fellow at the Cato Institute.
Pages
The statistics speak for themselves. Only 62 percent of Americans pay federal income tax, meaning that 38 percent get a 100 percent refund of any taxes withheld. So Mr. Obama's 95 percent that will receive money from the government includes roughly 33 percent of Americans who pay no income tax. One-third of Americans pay no income taxes yet would receive a government check of perhaps $1,000 or more. ------------------------ alex <a href="http://mls.fastrealestate.net/b/mls-listings">mls listings</a>
Re: Maureen Riley's comments on my use of grammar...
First of all, I would like to point out that you are completely off-topic. Your comments on my post is a perfect microcosm of how the liberal media is scrutinizing "Joe the Plumber". Shortly after Joe confronted Senator Obama on his socialist economic policies, the liberal media was digging up any dirt they could find on Joe. All the liberal media could find on Joe was that his first name is not really "Joe", that he owed back-taxes, and he was not a licenced plumber yet. None of the before-mentioned is relevant to what Joe was asking Senator Obama. None of what you wrote in your reply to my original post is relevant either...
That being said, you are correct. I did have a couple of typos, and over-used commas. I even typed, "American Public Radio", when it was "National Public Radio" that I was listening to. When I typed that post I had just got home from a hard days work in construction, and my children were anxious for me to get away from the computer to play with them. Please accept my apology for not having the time to proof-read what I had typed...I had no idea that my blatant mis-use of grammar was that offensive. After all, I am a product of the American public school system, with which the teachers are about 90% Democrats...
Ms. Taha has every right to be proud of her and her husband's accomplishments. I admire the effort they made and the hard work they undertook. But she loses me when she pretends this was in a vacuum. She's upset at paying taxes when the poor pay nothing. But when she was poor, did she not benefit from that system? Their reduced tax burden was certainly one way the wealthy assisted by shouldering a heavier tax load. But now that they have their own tidy bundle, they resent the same system that helped them when they needed it. Just because they did not receive food stamps or unemployment benefits (while being mum on whether or not they were eligible), does not mean they did not benefit from government assistance through a tax structure that lessens the burdens on the poor. If they received those benefits from other wealthy tax payers, why should they grumble about doing the same for the current poor, hard-working families trying to better their lots?
Both parties want to confiscate your income. Republicans want to borrow even more money to fight wars. They fool voters with "low taxes", while they charge and spend, exploding the debt and degrading the currency. Democrats want to give you cradle to grave service whether you want it or not. They take from the rich and give to the poor, which works as long as productive people keep working, or republicans return.
When one party does a terrible job, they know they will lose a few elections, but will be back in power soon enough. No other party is allowed to get a foothold. In business this is called a duopoly and it is very profitable.
How much income should the government confiscate? Is $3 or 4 trillion per year enough for the president and congress to take and spend?
Should we keep borrowing half a trillion dollars per year or more for wars and other government spending? When our debt is $20 trillion will we be able to pay the interest? Will the US government have to repudiate its debt one day and start over?
Will the American people be better off if the government takes $6 or 8 trillion each year? Is the US really a democracy if the government takes 1/2, 2/3 or 3/4 of the total national income? Doesn't that mean you are merely working to support the government?
Can the government spend your money more wisely than you can? If you now work 5 months per year to pay your taxes, will you work 8 or 9? If the government takes half of your income when you are alive and half of what is left when you die, this means you worked from January to September for them and only 3 months for yourself and your family. What will happen if most of the 79 million baby boomers decide to retire in 2009 instead of working and paying taxes?
If government takes too much, productive people will stop earning income. They will stay home. Why start or expand a business, if when you succeed you forfeit 75% to the government?
The answer is to shrink government and pay off the national debt. End the 2 wars. Close the foreign bases. Bring the military home to guard our borders. Cut the federal spending to $2 trillion.
Grow our manufacturing sector. If a company builds something in America they should not have to pay corporate taxes on their profit. We should build it here, not buy it from overseas. Companies that invest in new equipment and new plants should be able to immediately deduct it. High paying jobs would be created and tax rolls would increase.
The best social policy is a rock solid, growing economy. If we choose policies that encourage investment and savings we will enjoy prosperity. Instead we have bailed out banks and others who made risky bets and lost. Our government punishes work, savings and investment. It rewards and protects dangerous leveraged financial speculation. Wouldn't it be interesting if the senators and congressmen who voted for the financial bailout plan were voted out of office?
If we punish productivity and continue to enlarge our national debt we will face very hard economic times. Rich people will continue to do fine, but the rest will suffer greatly.
Re: the comment by Patrick below. I must be a liberal as I can hardly agree with anything you've written. But I can say that, based on your comment, I guess plumbers don't need to know anything about good grammar (check your use of its and too). Or is good grammar something only liberals are supposed to appreciate?
Well, you could think of the Iraq war as a wealth redistribution program, but on reflection that really makes no sense whatsoever. It's a war; the major considerations are things like how many people get killed and whether it actually does any good.
Put another way, a reasonable person might support the Iraq war or alternative energy subsidies *in spite of* the redistributive effects. That is not possible in the case of tax breaks for the middle class, which have no other purpose.
Mr. Wilkinson, I heard your commentary on American Public Radio this morning on my way to work (I am a plumber...imagine that). I listen to APR to get my daily dose of liberalism for a good laugh from time to time. I sense some jealousy that you seem to have for "Joe the Plumber". The condescending, snobbish tone in which you presented your commentary on the radio reeked of envy...All you need to do is ask Senator Obama a tough question or two, and you too can be put on center-stage. The problem is that you are among a multitude of bloggers, reporters, correspondants, etc., that drink too much of the liberal flavored Kool-Aid, and do not put forth meaningful questions for Obama to answer. It is hard for someone such as yourself to shine in the lime-light, when you are basically another one of the sheep.
Your spin on economics is mildly amusing, and just another example of extreme Kool-aid exposure. For instance:
Your comment about the Iraqi war. The spending part of it is mostly true. The part about who supported the war/occupation is also true. Except, that you failed to mention that in 2003, McCain was a senator making tough decisions based on information that President Bush, and Congress was given by the CIA. Obama, at the time, was in the early stages of his political career at the "State" level. Therefore Obama was not able to make an "informed" decision on the Iraqi crisis at the time. Really, President Bill Clinton should have attacked Iraq when Saddam's forces were shooting anti-aircraft missiles at our Air Force pilots while patrolling the "No-Fly" zone in northern, and southern Iraq. To put it in terms even a child can understand...If you shoot at my military forces, with your military forces, that is an act of war.
Your comment about the sharing of "state-owned" oil revenues by Alaska to it's residents, is just another example of you putting a liberal spin to fact. Yes, Alaskans do get what is called "royalties". Governor Palin fought hard to get those "royalties" for the Alaskan people because the oil industries was, and still does, make billions from oil profits from their holdings in Alaska. Besides, something that is "state-owned" is owned by the people...
And last, but not least...Your frivolous closing statement makes no sense. How about researching what "plumb" means before you use that word in future ill-concieved blogs. And, besides, I think "Joe the Plumber", is way to busy, and way to smart, to give you a call and immerse himself in the cesspool called liberalism. I, on the other hand, will be more than happy to call you, and discuss political matters with you, even though I know it will be like talking to a week old fish head. You have my e-mail send the number.
Pages
