Why Do The Rich Have To Foot The Bill?

7/9/2009

While it's true that those with a lot of money have an opportunity to help out those who don't, I'm not sure that it's fair to write laws that make it seem like those a certain income bracket are obligated to help others, by force if necessary, through taxation.

But this is exactly what Congress is set to do with the new Healthcare Reform Bill that's sitting in the dredges right now. According to an Associated Press article I found yesterday, "House Democrats are Looking to Tax the Rich for Healthcare Costs."

Now it's true that the Rich can probably afford it.

But that's not the point.

The point is this- anytime we make a qualification that a certain individual owes the government MORE because of a quality they possess (in this case, the quality is that they have more money), we're opening the door to the erosion of liberty across the board- not just against the rich.

Perhaps the next move will be asking our scholarly students with a 4.0 grade point average to "donate" some of their grades to those unfortunate students who couldn't pass Business Calculus. It won't hurt that student to have a 3.9 GPA and the kid who's failing could really use that extra point so that he can get up to a 2.5 rather than a 2.4...

OK, you're right- it's a bit of a stretch to compare GPA's and Wealth.

But the fact of the matter is, you can't make qualifications about some people's wealth without effecting everyone's wealth. Eventually, the qualifier is going to point in the direction of the poor or the middle class- and when that happens it's going to seem unfair and unwarranted- and those of us who were complaining about this sort of thing all along are going to point back to these moments where property rights were eroded and we'll say, you're merely getting the same treatment you legislated on others.

Jamie Kite link

7/9/2009 02:17:42 am

I'm not a fan of the argument that increased taxes for those who have more will lead to decreased liberties across the board. It's all so speculative and (at least in this brief post) lacking a factual basis.

Maybe if we looked at healthcare as a human rights issue instead of something that should (also) be tiered according to wealth (as it currently is), it'd make us less apt to look for the slippery slope.

P.S. Professors do that whole grade-adjustment-for-the-worst-performers thing all the time. When they grade on a curve, those at the top don't get nearly the boost that those at the bottom get.

John Lewis

7/9/2009 03:55:10 am

A friend once commented to me that they didn't understand why there are middle class or even poor economic conservatives, as their self-interest should drive them to be more economically left-biased.

Ironically, it is these lower-class "greedy" conservatives who are the most selfless, as they are willing to work for themselves even when help from ... Read Moreothers is available.

Wealth envy drives us toward an inescapable caste system - those who create capital can no longer afford to do so, thus those on the lower levels cannot move up.

FTP Blog link

7/9/2009 05:45:39 am

Interesting.
I don't know.
Still thinking through the last few posts.
A lot is going on right now; lots of smoke screens.
As much as I think that 'curved' taxation is a quick fix, I am not sure I agree with what you present.

But, I will continue to think through your articles.

Nathan link

7/9/2009 06:09:52 am

Jamie: Unfortunately, I have limited time and am unable to always meet the "lengthy post" requirements to fully address the issues... one day when I don't have to work 12 hours a day I'm hoping this will change! =)

As speculative as the erosion of liberties may sound for those of us who have lived in a country with relatively honest people representing us, what we see in Sweden today and in Russia post WW2 is pretty solid evidence against the redistribution of wealth for any reason, healthcare or not.

Jeff link

7/12/2009 10:15:48 pm

Here's the thing that gets lost in this discussion, I think:
Nobody created wealth in a vaccuum.

A rich man either inherited or created his wealth within a certain context. This context included an educational, regulatory, legal, and infrastructure system. These were all paid for by numerous people, including those who never directly benefitted by these. I know a young lady who is quite poor and never left the state of Massachusetts. She has not directly benefitted by the Interstate freeway system, for example in that she has never ridden on one. (She has indirectly in that she's been able to purchase cheaper goods. But she's benefitted less by this than the makers and shippers of those goods.)
Wealth was distrubuted away from her and toward the makers and shippers of products. I'm not arguing that it shouldn't have been. I have no problem with the interstate system. My point is that this is wealth redistrubution.
Further, the wealthy owners of the company benefitted more than my impovershed friend did from the educational system which is largely public: statisctically speaking, it's highly unlikely that they never attended public school. If they are succesful, statistically speaking, it's much more likely that they attended a suburban school, where per pupil spending is much higher. Again, this is wealth redistrubuition.

I think we have this tendency to view our own wealth as not resulting from wealth redistrubution, and I think that's a false view. Nearly every thing a government does is an active choice toward the redistrubution of wealth. Therefore the question "Should government redistrubute wealth?" Is moot: I think the real question should be "Given that wealth redistrubution is inevitable, how can we justly go about this?"
Despite appearances to the contrary, I'm not unsympathetic to the importance of providing an incentive for hard work and risk-taking in the market place. I get it, that we need an active entrepeneurial class.
But my sympthaties are tempered with the realization that if one person doesn't have enough food to eat and another person has a yacht in their back yard, the person who has benefitted by societies' endless redistrubutions of wealth is the person who can afford to pay more for things that we all need.

Comments are closed.

Don't Panic

Why Do The Rich Have To Foot The Bill?

About Nathan