The Rich Should Pay Their Fair Share! Well, What Is Fair?

The absurdity of this statement is not evident to enough people, and our “brilliant intellectuals” often repeat it. I tune in to the mainstream media and listen to an expert tell me that the rich have money, that the poor do not and that therefore we should take more money from the rich. Gosh! That is wonderful analysis. I think I learned sharing in preschool, too. But is that the correct way to tax the American people? All Democrats love personal liberties of speech, press, assembly, etc. But when it comes to economic liberties, it seems some people are rather selective…

Is an argument about taxation a worthy argument, or is it so simple a preschooler can understand it? Is this an argument about sharing? No, it is an argument about defending economic liberties for every American. This is why we need to consider restructuring the tax system. Do not be mistaken – I do think there are greedy people out there, but I am all for wealthy individuals giving to charities and those in need by means of free will and genuine generosity. However, this is not an argument about welfare– this is an argument about economic liberties and being able to decide what you want to do with your income.

But let us get back to the title of this article: Do the rich pay their fair share? It all depends on how you define “fair.” Fair should mean equal. Some would say we could have a fair system by making sure the rich, after taxes, earn just as much as the poor. But I hope most of us have already realized that socialism is not the answer. We could tax the rich significantly more to make things “fairer.” But this definition of fair does not mean equal, so then what is the definition of fair?

Fair is when every American is granted the same economic liberties. A man who has a better command of the English language is not limited in his freedom of speech so that an underprivileged speaker has a better opportunity in this country. A man who is a better writer is not limited in his freedom of press so that bad writers have a better chance to succeed. Every American shares the same level of freedom. Therefore, a man who is wealthy should not have the government take more from him and continue to take more from him as he earns more just because he is wealthy. He should not be punished for his ability to earn income whether or not he was born into wealth. He should be free to earn without the government categorizing him as rich or poor. Economic liberty is knowing that the harder one works, the less one is going to be penalized for his hard work. The problem with a progressive income tax is there is no incentive to progress! Yes, he can “earn” more if he works more, but the personal value of his additional work is diminished. There comes a time when he will value leisure over additional work, and that is human – but if he is constantly aware that the returns he gets diminish as he does more, then he is going to be wasting time a lot sooner. An incentive to progress shared equally by all Americans is economic liberty.

Americans should not be categorized. We are obsessed with the notion that the rich do not deserve their income. Ronald Reagan once said, “We have so many people who can’t see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion that the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one.” Should we limit our great writers from writing more books because they already wrote too many and the less accomplished writers need to write more books? This is an absurd but incredibly accurate analogy. We can give economic liberties to all while also collecting tax revenue by implementing a percentage of income that every American, rich or poor, pays in taxes.

Therefore, the argument for what is called a flat tax sounds fair. The flat tax does not take into consideration how much more you earn – it only considers what you actually do earn. It is a set percentage taken away from your income regardless of how much you make. For example, a 10 percent flat tax on a salary of $100,000 a year would be $10,000, and that on a salary of $30,000 would be $3,000. This system rewards greater productivity because individuals have a greater incentive to climb the income ladder as they are not taxed based on each additional income bracket. However, what is most important is that there are equal economic liberties for both individuals here. Both are taxed by the same percentage, and therefore, both are treated with equality.

Republicans have fought for ending these over-encumbering taxes again and again. The question is whether these Republicans have logical arguments or are just greedy. After all, we all know the stereotype of the Republican. They are all super rich and take advantage of the weaker man. These super rich people then send their children to the top schools like the Ivy League. Yet I do not see many of them on campus. Interesting…

 

Tags: , ,

 
 

About the author

More posts by

 

 

 

Add a comment

required

required

optional


 
 
Kyplex Cloud Security Seal - Click for Verification