] My own opinion is that the rich already pay too
] much -- it seems patently unfair to ask anyone to pay
] over 30 times as much as his neighbors (unless he
] receives 30 times as much in government services, which
] strikes me as implausible). If you share my sense of
] fairness, you'll join me in condemning the president's
] tax policy.
]
]
] But if, on the other hand, you believe that the tax
] system should soak the rich even more than it already
] does -- or, to put it more genteelly, that the tax
] system should be more progressive than it already
] is -- if, in other words, you are a mainstream
] Democrat -- then George W. Bush is your guy.

[ Hm. Without getting too deeply into the issue, the fundamental flaw i see here is the analogy of taxes as a direct payment for government services. They are not, never have been, and should not be. They are an investment in the infrastucture of the nation, physical and societal. Tax dollars fund education, health care and food and environmental protection, among other things -- spending which, by its very nature, is difficult or impossible to treat in a payment-for-services-rendered context. Investments do not always pay back directly to the investor. In this case, they pay back the future generations of americans, who will be better equipped to succeed with the benefits conveyed to them by current taxes. And are likewise payments into a system that provided the rich with the framework on which they could build their own success.

The rich have their success, in a large part, to hard work, personal ambition and shrewd action. However, it seems like many fall into the trap of assuming that such things are the entire cause of their success. That they are self-made in the most pure sense of the word. In reality, of course, they reap the benefits of a national infrastructure which was built and funded by earlier generations of americans. No one exists in a vaccuum, and it is interconnectedness which permits success to thrive through the exploitation of relationships. In the best case, these are positive-sum relationships, yeilding improvement for all parties, as opposed to the enrichment of one to the detriment of others. I see the progressive tax system as a way to ensure that positive sum result, by ensuring that those who have benefitted most from the world are paying back into the system, enhancing opportunities for future generations.

This argument doesn't even touch on issues of philanthropy, or helping others, but stems from a pure argument of fairness. Entitlements and government programs are often couched in the rhetorical framework of a reward for freeloaders... lazy people at the bottom of the food chain who can't be bothered to invest themselves in their own survival. Certainly, there are those who fit this description, but it seems untenable to assume they are the majority. Rather, the proper application of government funds as investments in the future serves to provide the very opportunities that will be exploited by a new generation of enterprising people. To succeed greatly, and then fail to return the favors granted to you by the society you live in is just as much freeloading as demanding unfettered welfare checks. Progressive taxes are right. -k]

Bush's Tax Cuts Are Unfair ... - To the rich. By Steven E. Landsburg