I want to tell you a story. The story is a real-life cautionary tale about taxes. Now, there are a couple of twists in the story and it is not a very happy story. What’s perhaps most interesting is that the ending is actually up to you. I hope that you make it to the end and craft a happy one.
* * *
Martin Ramos is a farmer from a small village near Riecito in Venezuela. Until 4 months ago he ran his farm business with the help of his wife, Celia. However, his wife recently died of breast cancer and he is left to care for their 4-year-old daughter and to run his business alone. Martin has 16 employees and his company turns a modest profit selling the cantaloupes he grows on land that he leases from Hugo Chavez’s government.
Typical of Venezuelan farmers, Martin is taxed at a very high rate. After paying all of his business expenses he derives a modest income, of which the government takes almost 1/3 straight off the top…and his remaining income is taxed at a ridiculous 35% (can you imagine!?). This confiscatory taxation by the socialist Venezuelan government leaves Martin with less than half of the income that he has earned, honestly, by the sweat of his brow. Not the fairest of rewards for someone who is providing employment for a good portion of his village and income and sustenance for their families.
Because of the heavy tax burden Martin is, not surprisingly, planning to reduce the size of his farm and to lay-off six of his employees. It seems that he will be better off being not so profitable. He has realized that if he shrinks his business he’ll be able to hold onto more of what is rightfully his. He’s sick about it, but he has a young daughter to think about. Outrageous and sad, right? Aren’t you glad you’re an American?
Well, here’s the really sad part: Martin is not a Venezuelan farmer. He’s an American small business owner. The taxes I referred to are what a significant proportion of small businesses owners are subject to by the US government. Now, wait. Did you initially pity the poor guy in Venezuela, but then think it not so bad once you knew it was an American business owner being taxed so much? If so, why? The answer to this question is very important for you.
The Politics of Envy
Tax burdens for Americans are about to get even worse, as President Obama and the Democrats in Congress dig their claws into our small business owners—you know; those people who employ the majority of US citizens. Think about this carefully. This means that the majority of US citizens are about to have a large bite taken out of their backsides. Mr. Obama is quick to talk about his inappropriately-named tax cuts for so-called “working families” (now a meaningless term, thanks to the Democrats), but of course crap rolls downhill. Your so-called tax cut will seem a paltry reward when you and/or those you care for are laid-off by now embattled employers. Many happy returns.
All of this is the result of the single liberal core value. Yes, there’s only one core value to which liberalism is beholden:envy. Seemingly not satisfied with simple enforcement of their mistaken perception of “the separation of Church and State,” liberal lawmakers make a full break with Christian morals and have institutionalized the breaking of the 10th Commandment.
Envy-driven government policy is responsible for our entire current economic fiasco in the US. In fact, all liberal governing policy is derived from this single core value. It’s an easy one to sell to people. It goes like this:
“There are people in this country who are better-off than you are. That fact, by itself, reveals a crime being perpetrated on you. It’s not your fault. I’m here to help and I’m going to make those better-off people pay for what they’re doing to you—and then you’ll be better off because of it…if you’ll only vote for me.”
Any intelligent and rational person can perceive the several lies and non sequiturs in that pitch; one being is that it is just and fair to punish success. Punishing success only damages economies and makes everyone miserable. No one gets better because of this sort of Socialist class war except those selling the weapons. Now, it is bad enough that liberal ideologues derive their life’s purpose from the core value of envy, but they are compelled to legally mandate that everyone invest in envy and cultivate its rewards to the fullest extent. Envy-driven values make clear the path to follow, but it’s a path that leads only toward tyranny.
It does not have to be this way.
Thanks for Your State-Mandated Generosity
It is a simple fact that every modern society contains people representing the full spectrum of economic achievement; very poor to very rich. In every society it is a measurable matter of the character of the society that those economically better-off choose to lend assistance and bestow charity upon those who are poor and/or needy. Because responsible and caring people are involved in this process, those who are truly needy (not merely the pretenders or the lazy) receive the bulk of the benefits of charity. According to the results, the character of the society is made clear.
It is also a simple fact that the United States is the most generous nation in the history of humankind. No other nation in human history has freely given more financial assistance to people. No other nation in human history has shed more of its own blood in service to people of other nations than the United States. Not surprisingly, no other “poor” people in the world are as affluent as the poor in the United States.
Adherents to liberal ideology are made blind to these ever-present and compelling facts. Faced with the issue of poor and needy members of society, liberal ideology cannot stomach the idea of free people giving freely of themselves according to their character. Instead liberals choose an outrageous and unthinkable response: to destroy the society.[1]
Instead of merely facilitating public participation in tending to our needy, liberal lawmakers have created a culture and policy of purposefully damaging everything in our society in an effort to somehow “level the playing field.” Of course, the only constant and sure level achievable with little-to-no effort from all involved is the lowest level. Success is demonized and penalized, wealth is reviled, and achievement is endlessly criticized. Thus, our society—along with common sense—is turned on its head. The result is that we now have many distinct categories of “the needy” and institutionalized, public-subsidized poverty. Oh, and suffering for those who need not suffer in a just and rational society. Thank you, Liberalism.
Liberal lawmakers do not care how responsible or caring you are. Your generosity must die on the altar of an irrational and forced “equality.” Liberalism mandates that in addition to the necessary taxation for Constitutional government needs, everyone is required to pay a further percentage of his or her hard-earned income to The State so that it can decide how best to distribute these funds. We don’t get a choice in the matter. And the results are nothing short of a tragedy.
In the liberal worldview, success among some people is not really success, but tyranny. According to liberalism, success is tyranny because there remain people who have not achieved equal success. It is bad enough that some are so ridiculously obtuse as to hold with this outrageous idea, but worse because they have power and they insist on imposing this ideal upon all US citizens. That, my friends, is tyranny.
Our nation has many laws, regulations, restrictions, ordinances, and policies that ensure that all Americans are allowed equal opportunity in a host of specific endeavors and circumstances. This is only right. However, equal opportunity in no way refers to, indicates, or ensures equal result. Liberalism sees this fact as irrelevant. In fact, liberalism sees this as a crime that demands recourse. Since everyone knows that there is no way to force everyone to achieve and excel, especially those being financially rewarded for laxitude and sloth, everyone else must be made to suffer if equality is to be achieved.
In Conclusion
Tax the very rich for more than 60% of their income, tax most of the rest in slightly less ridiculous proportions, and leave almost 35% of wage earners free from taxation. This is the current tax model in the United States. This model is perplexingly unfair, un-democratic, and un-American. It means, among other things, that more than 30% of Americans can vote and drive policy in this country without suffering directly in any way (that they’re aware of). Of course, they will always vote to tax others more. What do they care!? They’re immune to the effects of taxation (or so they believe).
With this sort of tax model it is easy to sell Socialism to envious masses. When those masses grow large enough they will become a burden on our economy too great to bear. Even the healthiest economy cannot survive a voting mob of needy, entitled, envy-driven, tax-immune people demanding sustenance from few successful members of society. The ending to that tale is predictable and quite sad.
* * *
So this is the story I set out to tell you. History is filled with examples of how this story ends. Will you work to change that ending?
[1] Mark Levin, 2009
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Andy Rutledge and Brian Purkiss. Brian Purkiss said: "equal opportunity in no way refers to, indicates, or ensures equal result" – http://j.mp/dRdFbx On the new blog by @andyrutledge [...]
I’m Polish, so I won’t comment on American tax law, but the logic in your post is what keeps me convinced of the immoral nature of Socialism and the “evil” of democracy, which is the rule of minority, as strange as it may sound.
When I ask those people, who believe that everyone could stand to pay “more” in taxes to help the poor, what a fair tax rate would be. They aren’t sure. Then I ask them would 100 percent be fair, 50 percent, or something else. I get no answer.
Envy is a powerful weapon.
I would recommend anybody interested in this topic to get hold of a copy of “Free to Choose,” by Milton Friedman. I found it worth the purchase price, but they are also freely available online at:
http://www.freetochoose.tv/
That series had a huge impact on my life, in terms of viewing economics, society, government and taxation.
Very well said, Andy. Selling envy has proven to be a very powerful thing for the political class. I especially appreciated your acknowledgement of the absurd notion of state-mandated generosity. Reminds me of something I wrote on my old blog sometime last year:
Those of us on the liberty-loving side of things are often confused with the uncharitable, the enemy of those in need. It’s not so much that we hate the poor, though, as we’re disgusted by those who, against the clear advice of history, advocate passionately for the sake of their own conscience that someone else’s money should be confiscated and shoved through the gauntlet of wildly inefficient government bureaucracies with only a tiny portion left at the end for the truly needy. The poor deserve so much more than the heartless compassion of big government.
Thanks for your post. You have articulated something that has been on my mind for quite some time now.
It’s not enough to just vote for the right people, we must all do things individually in our neighborhoods and communities to open people’s eyes to the truth. We cannot afford to let ourselves and our neighbors cultivate this spirit of envy.
Somehow we must turn the tide of modern liberalism that has taken hold of the people, and end this march toward tyranny.
You have diagnosed what ails this country, now what is the cure?
The politics of envy and demonizing of success is a much larger problem than most people realize. I am afraid California may end up being our first case study of how such policies lead to the killing of the goose that lays the golden eggs.
Excellent post. I will be directing as many people to it as possible.
Just so we all have this for the record, Andy: are you in favor of dismantling the social safety net in the United States (medicare, medicaid, social security, unemployment insurance) and replacing it with voluntary charity?
The fact that health care works (and to the best of the entire population) has been demostrated by Germany, France and other industrialized western countries. A country like Sweden got both excellent health care and one of the highest standards of living in the world. The average Swede is happier and healthier than Joe Six-Pack.
It’s people like you Andy, who driven by irrational, mal-informed fear that hold the US from taking the long overdue step into a modern, humane society thats centered on people, not companies.
If you ever got the time and will to truely get involved in this topic visited Sweden. Or Germany. See first hand how those systems work for both health and wealth. Don’t fall for shallow tea party lies.
What is a fair tax?
@Kelly:
Thanks for your question! What I and a lot of other people who are far smarter than me think is fair is a 17% (or so) tax on every wage earner in the US. This also means no tax breaks, no exemptions, no shelters, no nuthin…just 17% of what you earn goes to the government. Doesn’t matter if you earn $5,000/yr or $500,000,000/yr, you pay 17% of it to allow the gov’t to do what it is Constitutionally allowed to do (about 20% of what it does now).
With this tax format, individual liberty would be reinstated to it’s Constitutional level, our economy would be super-fueled and grow immensely. What’s more, every citizen would have, as Pres. Obama termed it, “skin in the game,” and each person’s vote would be valid and tyranny would be eliminated from the voting process (i.e. votes from those who have no financial stake in or responsibility for what they’re ushering in would be eliminated).
When we’re all in the same boat, we tend to keep that boat clean, efficient, well-run, and sensible.
Kind regards,
Andy
interesting article.
I have a question. Do you believe that children born in to poorer families have the same opportunities (i.e social, education, job prospects) in life as children born into wealthy families?
If yes, please explain how (for example) in a non-welfare state a single, working mother with 2 children could offer the same standard of living that, say, a 2nd-generation wealthy family could offer their children, with highly educated parents, probably only one of whom is working.
(and please don’t say that the child born to the working single mother _should_ have to endure a difficult childhood because it was some how their fault being born poor)
If no, then we both agree that growing up in a poor family affects your chances of succeeding, and in turn, your own children’s chances. Is that something you’re OK with knowing that ~20% of children in the US are growing up in poor families?
Hi Ashley,
I was born into and raised in a poor family. Not long after, my mom was on her own raising two kids. We were quite poor and stayed that way for quite a while.
I couldn’t afford to go to a “good” university and in fact I stopped going to my podunk school after just 1 semester and went to work.
Today, I own a business and pay my employees more than my mother ever earned. I own this business because I decided to and I did the work and acquired the education necessary for me to achieve success. And in the US one can still do whatever one has the interest and will to do.
There are many in the US who started with little and they’ll die with little, never having accomplished anything they wanted to accomplish in life. This is a situation of their own choosing. In a free society, people must be free to fail as well as to succeed. The fact is, despite your apparent desires to the contrary, freedom does not mean equality of result. Where there is freedom and individual liberty there can never be equality of result because the results are determined by free individuals exercising their free will.
Good day to you.
Being compassionate doesn’t mean you create forced equality. Compassion is something you exercise in free will. There will always be people who have less than someone else in a free society. The only way to have equality is to make everyone poor. For example, if you decide that everyone in the U.S. should make $100,000 across the board, then the price of a hamburger will go up to about $100. That’s how economies work.
The difference between a slave and a free person is the ability to own what you earn.
Fair point about the dangers of Envy. Seriously, why should I have to pay for something that somebody else doesn’t have to? Wish I could get the government to give me foodstamps and a welfare check.
I’d much rather buy into one of the core values to which conversativism is beholden: greed.
Love the strawman, by the way.
You write very well, you’re a great designer that I respect. But, I have a complete polar opposite opinion than you. Luckily we live in a country that allows us to disagree :)
I will try to make it short. My main issue I have with this article is that you are stating that the Obama administration is going to raise taxes. But in fact, we have the lowest marginal tax rate in history. The bush years showed us that this simply doesnt work (we just take money from China, a country that is formed upon morals you seem to dislike), margins between upper and lower class are at record high. So “raising” tax is essentially bringing them back to normal.
So I guess my question is really, how are we going to pay for it? Americans (and me included) are only interested in not paying taxes (who can blame them). So… where will the money come from. We wont increase tax to the rich, nor to the middle class. So, where’s the money? China?
Also this may be completely off topic, but it seems like you are scared of government controlled or funded institutions (correct me if I am wrong). I am wondering if you are against public schools, and if not what is the difference between that and public health care. If you are against public schools, then what will become of children who don’t have the money to pay for schools. To what extent does capitalism become socialism and vise versa. Just curious.
Anyways, it wasn’t a short comment, and there may be a lot to answer here. We have a few buddies in common, we should (if you are attending) chat at SXSW. I would love to chat with someone that has opposite opinions than me and is very keen on expressing them. You’ve got balls. I respect that.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Andy Rutledge. Andy Rutledge said: "The difference between a slave and a free person is the ability to own what you earn." http://bit.ly/gehqFZ (via @kerrydesign) // Property! [...]