Fair Share

In a video released by the White House on January 2^nd, President Obama gave his explanation of the fiscal cliff agreement and what it means to Americans.  Much of it was disingenuous, implying that the agreement avoided a middle class tax increase, when, according to the Tax Policy Center, 77% of taxpayers will pay more in taxes this year. He avoided mentioning for every $1 of budget cuts there are $41 in tax increases.  He also didn’t mention that buried in the agreement is an extension of tax breaks for Hollywood, expected to cost the government about $430 million in lost tax revenue (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/01/fiscal-cliff-deal-also-doles-out-millions-for-hollywood-railroads-rum-producers/). And, more importantly, he did not mention that the Obamacare provisions that became effective January 1^st will cost taxpayers more due to a lower cap on flexible spending accounts and an increase in the threshold for the tax deductibility of medical bills (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/27/obamacares-costly-new-year/).

I am not surprised by what Mr. Obama did not say.  One thing he did say worries me, however.  He said, “I’m willing to do more, as long as we do it in a balanced way that doesn't put all the burden on seniors or students or middle class burdens but also asks the wealthiest Americans to contribute and pay their fair share.”

What is the obsession with taxing or punishing the wealthy?  The Occupy Wall Street movement was a protest against economic inequality.  The protestors’ slogan, We are the 99%, alluded to the fact the top 1% of income earners had a greater concentration of wealth than the other 99%.  The overall message of the protestors was, according to Bloomberg Business Week magazine, “They want more and better jobs, more equal distribution of income, less profit (or no profit) for banks, lower compensation for bankers, and more strictures on banks with regard to negotiating consumer services such as mortgages and debit cards.”

In order to have more jobs, there must be an increased demand for employees.  That requires an increase in demands for goods and services from the employers.  That’s basic economics.  Better jobs come from having the skills and education demanded by employers.  It’s the law of supply and demand.  There is a higher demand for employees with degrees in health and medical fields or engineering and computer science fields than there are for those with a comparative literature or art history degrees.  In addition to higher demand, the difficulty or specialization of knowledge required for the job will result in higher pay.  Skilled labor jobs pay better than unskilled labor.  Simply demanding more or better jobs without amassing the skills in demand in the job market is ludicrous.

 Demanding more equal distribution of income is not only ludicrous; it is Marxist (“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” – Karl Marx). If wages are unequal, how can income be equal without a redistribution of wealth?  If a person goes to college or trade school and works hard to acquire the education or skills necessary to get a job that pays well, should that person be punished for having a job that pays well?  Should those who consume but create nothing and do nothing be rewarded with the wealth of those who create and work?  Thomas Jefferson didn’t think so. He wrote, "To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

President Obama, Senator Reid, and others have said “millionaires and billionaires” should pay more but increased the taxes on those making $400,000 or more.  Redistribution of wealth is already in place in the way we pay taxes.  It is the categories and percentages that they continue to debate.  What’s to prevent them from changing the definition of wealthy to $100,000 or even $50,000 the next time around?  

A warning appeared in a 1909 New York Times editorial opposing the first income tax.  It said, "When men get in the habit of helping themselves to the property of others, they cannot easily be cured of it."  If we don’t cure Congress, and America, of the habit, we won’t have to worry about the gap between the haves and have-nots; we’ll all be have-nots. Heed the warning.  This is your hard-earned money they are talking about.  For too long, we, the taxpayers, have complied and provided them with an endless supply of funds without demanding fiscal responsibility.  Let them know it is time to break the habit or we will start calling it what it is, stealing.