Many writers on the left call for the "rich" to pay their "fair share of taxes". A recent example was printed in the Reader Weekly of Duluth, "Obama is right to take on the very rich", written by Chuck Collins and Sam Pizzigati for Common Dreams. An aside, don't be thrown by the forms at the top of the page; the full article is below the form.
So what is this "fair share"? Many define it as people paying the same percentage of their income or even paying a higher percentage for higher income. This latter is called progressive taxation. Others define it as paying for what you use of government services. For example, if you don't have kids in school, then you shouldn't have to pay taxes to support the schools.
This latter is a very narrow-minded approach to government services. It's like saying that you don't drive anywhere, and so you shouldn't pay for roads. However, how are groceries brought to the store; how are packages delivered to your door; how does the ambulance get to your house when you have a heart attack? You'll need roads for each of these, whether you drive or not. And when you have a heart attack, you will need a doctor who most likely began his or her schooling in public schools.
Depending on others being educated is what makes many people rich. Do you think somebody like Bill Gates programmed every piece of software, wrote every piece of advertising, and wrote every piece of documentation? No, he depended on thousands of programmers, marketing people, writers, delivery people, sales people, and floor sweepers. Even the last had to be educated to read directions, cleaning supply labels, and signs in the buildings.
I don't deny that he came up with a clever idea when he wrote Microsoft BASIC, and horrors, according to the ethos of the time, he sold copies of it. He also had many other clever ideas and built a very large team to come up with more clever ideas. He also invested a lot of money into Microsoft. You can argue that he overcharged and engaged in monopolistic practices, but few would argue that he shouldn't have become rich from the effort he started. But he couldn't have done it without a lot of government support in the form of roads, schools, sewers, regulations that ensure a reliable supply of electricity, building inspections for safe workplaces, oversight of securities markets for fair buying and selling of shares in Microsoft, and on and on.
In other words, Bill Gates depended on a predictable, civilized society to create, build, and maintain his enterprise. The more money you have, the more you need a civilized society. "Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society", Supreme Court Justice, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
Somehow, our politicians have bought into the myth that rich became so by their own individual efforts and that government taxation will take funds from further investment. That would be true if government confiscated all, or even nearly all income above a certain level. On the other hand, if government didn't tax at all, there would be no infra-structure to support investment, no educated people do all the work investors need to be done, and even no educated people to use many very sophisticated products that have been produced with investors' money.
This myth has led to more and more tax breaks for those who merely move money around, and less civilized society for those who really make the increase in money possible. Because our government withdrew from many of its responsibilities because of a disdain for government and taxes, even the wealthy have become less wealthy, and many of those who the wealthy depended upon are losing almost all of their own wealth.
For more of my thoughts on taxes, see "Straight talk on taxes" as well as the articles listed in the "Related Articles" sidebar.
