- DHS accused of holding U.S. citizen at airport, using emails to pry into her sex life
- Seattle socialist: Minimum-wage discussion skewed by ‘right-wing’ GAO analysis
- U.N. warns of Muslim ‘cleansing’ in Central African Republic
- Senate blocks change to military sex assault cases
- Drug mix may have cured child born with HIV, doctors say
- De Blasio’s wife irks former mansion chef with ‘servant’ remark
- Russia’s neighbors shiver amid Putin’s Cold War moves in Ukraine
- New SAT: The essay portion is to become optional
- Military group can’t march to honor the fallen at Boston Marathon due to security changes
- Senate passes bills deleting ‘retarded’ from laws
FEULNER: Coveting the golden goose
How taxing the rich leaves everyone poorer
Are tax hikes on the way? Some federal lawmakers hope so. “It’s a great opportunity to get us some more revenue,” Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, recently said of the upcoming debate over the federal budget.
You know what that means: calls to raise taxes on the rich. Lawmakers can’t seem to refrain from eyeing the golden goose.
It seems fair to most Americans that those who earn more should pay more taxes. But how much more?
In a report that drew on 2006 tax data, Heritage Foundation scholar Curtis Dubay showed that a family in the top 20 percent of income-earners pulled in 50 percent more than a family in the next 20 percent, but paid 253 percent more in taxes.
Even more strikingly, a family’s income in the top 20 percent income bracket was 122 percent higher than a family in the third 20 percent bracket. Yet it paid a staggering 943 percent more in income taxes.
Are these huge differences justified? Do they help make America a more just society, or is their real purpose to help politicians win votes by redistributing other people’s incomes?
One way of making sure the rich pay more is through a proportional tax, also known as a flat tax. With a 10 percent flat tax, for example, someone earning $40,000 would pay $4,000 in taxes, while someone earning $80,000 would pay $8,000.
The United States, however, has a progressive income tax. The tax rate you pay depends on how much you earn. The more you earn, the higher your rate.
The people who pay the highest rates are often unfairly vilified, but they shouldn’t be. “In America, ‘the rich’ are overwhelmingly people — entrepreneurs, small businessmen, corporate executives, doctors, lawyers, etc. — who have gained their higher incomes through intelligence, imagination and hard work,” the late Robert Bork once pointed out.
Depriving these Americans of their hard-earned financial rewards through higher tax rates does not seem particularly moral. Rather, it seems unjust.
The moral argument against progressive taxation is strongly reinforced by the economic argument. As tax rates at the higher end go up, incentives to work, save and invest go down. As a result, fewer new jobs are created. Both rich and poor wind up worse off.
Even small changes in the tax code can have a major impact. For example, shortly after he became New York City’s mayor, Rudolph W. Giuliani cut the city’s hotel tax from 6 percent to 5 percent. “Within months, net revenue from the hotel tax was actually higher at 5 percent than it had been at 6 percent, since far more visitors were coming to the city,” he later said.
True reform will move us toward a flatter tax code. “Under a flatter tax system, those who pay more income still pay more taxes, but that difference will be more proportional to income,” Mr. Dubay writes. “A code more in line with the flat tax is necessary to remove the barriers that block entrepreneurship and innovation.”
Americans usually oppose attacks on the financially successful because they hope to be financially successful themselves someday. The statistics show they may well be. “Soak the rich” policies often just end up hurting the poor. After all, only people with money can invest and create jobs and opportunities.
“Entrepreneurs must be allowed to retain the wealth they create,” writes George Gilder, author of “Wealth and Poverty,” “because only they, collectively, can possibly know how to invest it productively among the millions of existing businesses and the innumerable visions of new enterprise in the world economy.” Money flows to those who can use it best and create the most value.
© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
About the Author
TWT Video Picks
By Tammy Bruce
Get Breaking Alerts
- Putin has transformed Russian army into a lean, mean fighting machine
- Bill Clinton cashes in on struggling nonprofit hospital
- DELAY: A revolution for the Constitution
- Unemployment insurance vote could happen next week
- Otter attacks, kills alligator at Florida wildlife refuge
- Back to the Future: HUVr Tech marketing video goes viral with hoverboard release tease
- Russias Putin nominated for Nobel Peace Prize
- R-S-P-E-C-T: Find out what it means for Obama
- BRUCE: Obama's bizarre immigration rules
- PRUDEN: Likening Putin to Hitler on Ukraine shows Hillary's shaky grasp of history
Recent Letters to the Editor
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Turkey not committed to Cyprus peace
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Spoiled-kid culture creates greedy adults
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Obama's flawed Mideast 'peace' plan
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Foreign policy would distract Obama from social hour
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Hit Putin where it hurts over Ukraine