I just got back from my American Government class where we had a heated debate about tax policy. I made a comment about how strange it is that so many Americans argue for a flat tax rate based on social justice
. They claim that “it is unfair to tax someone who earns more money”.
This makes no sense at all. If anything, the rich use more public resources than the poor and it is fair
to pay for it. For a good summary, read The Life of Joe Republican.
On my way back from home, as I was crossing the foot bridge, I thought of a line that I could have used during the discussion:
Tax is only burden if you cannot afford it. If you can afford it and still call it a burden and ask for relief, then that is lazy and weak.
For a long time, I have been puzzled as to why some many supporters of Republican policies choose to do so; most of them I know are simply not rich enough to benefit from those policies. I think this Slate article answers some of those questions for me.
“The people with less than $10 million are still very focused on their personal financial situation in the short term,” he told the Wall Street Journal, where the results were first published.
At a certain point—somewhere north of $10 million—wealth may become “f*** you and f*** you, Republicans” money…. People with such sums don’t need to worry about how income or capital gains taxes affect their daily lives. Raise ‘em, lower ‘em, who cares? They’re still going to be disgustingly rich. And so they are free to devote their attention—and resources—to other areas: the environment, education, foreign policy, the Supreme Court, social issues, stem-cell research, the war on drugs, whatever. And it seems that for many of the truly wealthy, focusing on those other issues leads them to favor Kerry over Bush.
I think the key quote is this: Taxes are a byproduct of wealth, not an obstacle to its creation.