« Previous — Next »
Progressively Speaking It is Socialism
27 March 2007I have always wondered what the term “progressive” meant. Why is one group allowed to call themselves progressives? Progressives tend to be liberals, does that make conservatives such as myself a “regressive”? Some would say so.
From Wikipedia.com, Socialism refers to a broad array of political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to social control.
All taxation is re-distrubtion of wealth. All taxation is social control, reward behavior, punish behavior.
Clearly progressives tend by and large to favor a progressive income tax, in other words taxing higher income people at higher rates than lower incomes. The Federal Income Tax is progressive, whereas the Connecticut Income Tax is only slightly progessive and for the most part could be considered a “flat tax”, pretty much a single rate for all taxpayers. Except the 38% of us who don’t pay any income tax.
Income tax only started in the United States in 1913 and the newspapers of the times did not like it. The New York Times, called the income-tax law “a vicious, inequitable, unpopular, impolitic and Socialistic scheme . . . the most unreasoning and most un-American movement in the politics of the last quarter century.” The Washington Post argued that record-keeping requirements would force an employee to be “catalogued by his employer, as though he were a beast of burden.”
Under progressive taxation, there is a constant temptation to raise tax rates on the rich to pay for new programs. Taken to the extreme persons with high incomes could be taxed up to 100 percent, and those with low incomes pay nothing. Raising taxes on the wealthy is the constant drumbeat coming out of the state capital. Make the income more progressive, it is only fair!
Why is a progressive tax fairer? Should people be punished for making more money? Why should certain people be singled out for special treatment? As a society do we want to punish and hence discourage successful individuals? Is that good and progressive policy?
A progessive tax promotes class warfare, the lesser-haves who will always be in the majority and will have the votes and the lackeys in government to force their will, have a self interest in re-distributing the wealth downward through progessive tax policy.
Progressive taxation presumes that the property rights of the wealthy are not as sacred as the property rights of the poor. Progressives pretend to be on the moral high ground but, in fact, they have no ground to stand on. Envy, not justice, is at the root of the argument for progressive taxation. That is why those who most strongly advocate progressive taxation are in favor of the welfare state. Often adding more progressivity in to the tax is justified by the added programs the additional monies could buy. “if only we could invest more in ……. it would save money in the long run”. If it doesn’t do I get my money back?
Pre-sell the tax increase by promising new entitlements. Sounds like Rell’s budget. While I’m at it, when the original income tax was started by Lowell “throw gas on the fire” Weicker, property tax relief was promised. It did not and the income tax is still here. Even “throw gas on the fire” Weicker said, “where did all the money go?”. How could he be so STUPID and not know where it went!
Based on past experience it is reasonable to assume that the additional money Rell raises would not in time be applied to education, but rather slowly transfuse into the general fund. When taxes are not earmarked for direct payment of services (called excise taxes) it is impossible to guarantee the collect monies are spent for a specific purpose. The is the rule not the exception.
We need to abolish progressive taxation, institute a fair flat tax which will limit the size of government. Limit government? How? At some point the lower incomes will not be able to afford more taxes and therefore tax growth will be stopped. A given in this arguement is that a large majority of citizens must pay taxes, otherwise there is no incentive to limit government growth and cost. If we allow as we do now to tax progessively, class warfare and welfare will be a constant danger.
I am thinking that no more than say 15% should be allowed not to pay taxes. This would be a hard cut off point. The number should be set statistically to make sure all of our citizens who truely need help get it, with just a few non-needy getting under the bar. This would ensure that government growth is limited. And ensure a rich participation in elections by all.
We will get more money out of the rich because they will make more, and their money will be un-fettered. Capital does not rest.
In 1848 Marx and Engels proposed that progressive taxation be used “to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeois (the wealthy). Although communism has failed, the idea of progressive taxation, as a means of achieving “social justice,” remains the holy grail of the progressives.
In our American culture we judge success by wealth. By that definition the most successful are the wealthy. Taxes punish and discourage behavior. By progressively taxing we are punishing the successful and it discourages or causes to move away those individuals who are successful. We punish success with a progressive tax. We encourage people not to be successful, how can any society survive with a social policy as this?
A society that tax progressively tends to become more and more “progessive”. I guess I am a regressive.
No comments yet