Skip to Content, Navigation, or Footer.
The Daily Lobo The Independent Voice of UNM since 1895
Latest Issue
Read our print edition on Issuu

COLUMN: Higher tax on wealthy unfair

Michael Moore has a new a book out, which means - among other things - that there will be ample opportunities to see the highest paid slob in America on television in the near future. Without trying I have already seen Mr. Moore on shows ranging from The O'Reilly Factor on Fox News to The Daily Show on Comedy Central, as he promotes the "on-dead-tree" manifestation of his particular brand of politics.

Mr. Moore is a funny man and gives a very entertaining interview. During one of his interviews, Bill O'Reilly asked him what level of taxation would be appropriate for the wealthiest Americans. Mr. Moore answered that a 70 percent tax rate would be fitting, with the rationale that the poorer people deserved the money. Later on in the discussion Mr. Moore equivocated and said he really didn't know what the best rate would be, but I am certain that it probably wouldn't have been too much lower.

This exchange highlights a sensibility that seems very much alive among those who believe in the soft socialism of Moore or of Ralph Nader - that there is a class of people that have entirely too much money and they should be relieved of their burden to the benefit of others. A necessary corollary to this belief is that the rich obtained their resources through the application of methods closely related to exploitation or theft; this concurrent principle is required so that it is clear that the rich in no way deserve their money.

These redistributionists seek a reallocation of wealth through means that are entirely vague, and seem to continually express regret that ordinary Americans have yet to wake up and accept their message. The fact that most Americans seem to value their right to hold property has clearly not entered into their plans.

The ability to earn something and claim it as your own is a right, granted not by the Constitution, but by God, or by nature for the atheistically minded. The concept of private property being a right is explicitly stated in the Declaration of Independence and assumed in the Constitution. It is most definitely one of the fundamental natural rights of mankind.

While we often accept limitations on our right to property - the acquiescence to taxation is an example - no act of man or government can ever take it away. If the confiscation of seventy percent of your property isn't a violation of this right, then nothing is.

Enjoy what you're reading?
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
Subscribe

For the sake of argument, let's suppose that either there are no natural rights or that the right to property isn't a natural right. There are still insurmountable problems that crop up with any serious examination of redistribution.

The act of creating wealth is one of discipline and one of making correct and responsible choices. When wealth is redistributed the virtues that go along with the accumulation of it are lost. What is left is a class of people that are not unlike the heirs to fortunes that redistributionists love to hate; this class would be totally bereft of the skills and the responsibilities that are necessary for making money. They would be juvenile tyrants, given to excess and eventually falling into contempt for those they were dependent on.

High levels of taxation would also assault the group of Americans that form the economic and civil core of our society. The vast majority of high ratepayers are not multi-millionaire fatcats, but rather the members of the upper-middle and middle classes. They are the people that own small businesses, work for the larger ones, care about politics, uphold the ideals of free enterprise and generally keep the country running. This is not to say that others do not contribute to our nation, but rather that on the whole this group of people has an extraordinary impact. High levels of taxation would destroy this class and remove any incentive for the hard work it takes to become a member of it.

It seems uncharitable to attribute the contempt for the rich to just a strong envy or an unabated jealousy, although I am sure that there are many with exactly that. I would rather assign the cause to a misplaced and unexamined sense of compassion or a mistaken concept of justice. Either way, those that actively believe in and promote radical income reallocation do nobody a service, for such a policy if ever implemented, it would not only violate a vital right, but also destroy the dignity of those it was designed to assist.

by Michael Carrasco

Daily Lobo Columnist

Questions or comments for Michael Carrasco can be sent to mjc_carrasco@hotmail.com.

Comments
Powered by SNworks Solutions by The State News
All Content © 2025 The Daily Lobo