Published on October 29, 2007 By Artysim In Politics

Should the rich be taxed more heavily than the rest of society? Yes. Why? If they don't get taxed, then they'll have all the more money to invest in the economy which will create more jobs right? Maybe. The argument about taxation of the rich has been debated from an ideological standpoint many times, but when the great depression hit it wasn't "the rich" who helped put the world back on it's feet. It was Keynesian economics. Economics that the wealthy of the day were so incensed by they actually tried to overthrow the U.S government with the help of a former Marine General named Smedley Butler. Thankfully, Mr. Butler was tired of fighting wars for his corporate paymasters (look him up, he wrote a book called "War is a Racket" and fought plenty of dirty wars in central and south America so that United Fruit could do business in peace) and he warned the government what these people were trying to do. Prescott Bush, GW's grandpappy was one of the conspirators, FYI. So anywho, FDR (a democrat) ushered in the New Deal and is largely responsible for your present economy, which is called a "mixed" economy.

The whole point of a mixed economy is balance- wherein the good of society and the good of individuals are weighed out, so that everyone settles for a compromise, in which most people can have a good life, rather than a small number are very well off while the rest of society is in the poor house. In order for this balance to be achieved, everyone has to give up something- the system just doesn't work otherwise. This does mean that yes, the wealthiest members of society will be more heavily taxed than the less well off. This is not to punish them or to try and hinder their development, but part of the great compromise. In order for a mixed economy to work, a nation must have a very large middle class. In order to have a middle class, you need to have at least a basic framework capable of turning most people into middle class citizens. This means decent universal education, relatively inexpensive (preferably universal, I will say this to my grave!) healthcare, overall good public (not private) infrastructure. Creating this framework that will allow for a large middle class requires a lot of money, some of which does come from taxes on the working poor, some from the middle class, and the most from taxes on big business and rich people. Most of the money comes from big business and rich people, because THEY HAVE MOST OF THE MONEY!!! There need to be clear laws on the rights and responsibilities of individuals and businesses, and those laws need to be properly enforced, to limit abuse from both ends of the spectrum.

 Now, the champion of lower taxes on the rich is a fellow named Milton Friedman (posthumous) and his "Chicago School" doctrine argues for a pure free market. No taxes, or if absolutely necessary a flat tax that is as minimal as possible. Minimal or no social spending- just as much is necessary to prevent civilization from falling apart. And of course no government regulation in the marketplace, as that is seen as interference in some kind of natural economic order...although there is no such thing because the economy isn't "natural" and is entirely man made so I never quite understood that one.

In this supposed pure free market, everything is supposed to be self-regulating. The almighty invisible hand of unhindered commerce is considered a mighty force of nature, like a river, that shapes the surrounding geography that is society. There can be no tarriffs to protect national industries from foreign competition, nor can there be any price controls, wage laws or God forbid labour unions! All that is considered to be mucking around with the "natural order", and of course taxing wealthier individuals more heavily than the lower classes is a major taboo as that is just considered being punished for being so succesful.

Okay, so I've blabbed enough about theory, and I acknowldege that there are many many counter-arguments for both sides. So let's talk about how things have worked out in the real world-

 
Round One- Fight!
September the 11th.

1973 that is. On this day in a South American country called Chile, the popularly elected democratic government was overthrown by a military coup and turned into a laboratory for Milton Friedman to truly have a free market, where the rich would no longer suffer under the oppressive yoke of unfair income taxes. Finally, the gloves had been taken off for the doctor to do his work. Until the coup Chile was a mixed economy, left leaning (but by no means communist by any stretch of the imagination) and the democratically elected president, Salvador Allende enjoyed a comfortable majority. The Keynesian, or "developmental" policies at the time were hugely popular. Although Chile was still a poor country, the quality of life of the average citizen was surprisingly good and getting better. Labor unions were strong, major industries were nationalized, not privately owned and generating a modest return on their operations. The average person could afford all the basics- due to price controls, the government forced industry to make the prices of essential goods such that they cost a reasonable part of the the average monthly income. In short, life was decent and getting better.

This situation was completely unacceptable to the wealthy elite of the nation and especially to Mr. Friedman back in the States. The richest people in the country were quite upset that they were being taxed more than the less well off and that their businesses weren’t making as much of a profit as they could, if the government would only stop meddling! The business owners, with extensive support from the CIA (this is not made up) tried extensively to get Allende and his leftist government unseated through elections and the political process but Allende was too popular with the people. American business was quite unhappy with the Chilean economy too- Ford had operations in country and was suffering the indignity of dealing with a strong labour union in it’s factories that the government actually supported!


Eventually a combination of the local business elite teamed up with the Chilean military and police, Chicago School trained economists, and the CIA to institute a coup d’etat. The military used the excuse of getting involved that they were ridding the nation of communism- which to this day is a farce. This group of people behind the coup comprised a very, very small minority of the populace, and on September 11th, 1973 tanks were rolling down the streets of Santiago blasting away with fighter planes screaming overhead. It looked like a war, but to which there was only one side. The country was literally caught off guard with the very people sworn to defend it acting as aggressors to take over. There were no communist guerillas waiting in the wings to fight back, and the only actual fighting happened at the presidential palace, where a few dozen of Allende’s bodyguards and supporters had the audacity to shoot back at the tanks and soldiers coming their way. The military responded by firing 24 rockets into the palace and shortly thereafter the democratically elected president’s corpse was hauled out on a stretcher.


So, what’s the point of this whole story? Well, shortly after taking over the dictator Augusto Pinochet gladly enacted the changes that Milton argued were necessary. The tax system was thrown out and replaced with a minimal flat tax that hit everyone equally, regardless of income. Social spending was cut to the bone, tarriffs that had served to protect the local economy from foreign investment were removed, and government stepped out of regulating the marketplace. Local unions were smashed too- the military actually sent a battalion of infantry to the largest Ford factory, where union leaders were pointed out by management and taken for some “aggressive questioning”. Unions didn’t last long in that environment, and Ford was thrilled! They even donated a large number of green Ford Falcons as a token of gratitude, which became the defacto vehicle for Chile's secret police.


Finally, the rich people were in control of the country, backed up by a dictator who had no qualms with sending in the troops whenever those ungrateful poor people got uppity! No more meddlesome elected government could tell them what they could and couldn't do with their money! What followed next was an utter catastrophe. To maximize their returns, most big business downsized immediately, creating more unemployment. The country was flooded with cheap imports that put many small local companies out of business (kinda like what companies like Walmart are doing to the States!) Inflation soared. With no government regulation on what the poor rich people could do with their money, speculative financing reigned supreme and a cabal of rich bankers came to be known as "the piranhas" reigned supreme. It was this cabal of bankers that then purchased most of the nations major hard assets with borrowed money that they were then unable to repay, further adding to the countries economic woes. With no price controls, the benevolent rich people hiked prices on all the basic commodities- by the late 70's, a "middle class" family was spending almost 70% of it's income for bread. People were dying of diseases and medical conditions that were easily treatable but prohibitively expensive for the average person- because when the dictatorship came to power just about every public institution was privatized (with the exception of the military of course, whose funding skyrocketed)


Chile is a living example of what happens when the rich are given a complete free hand to do as they wish, with no oversight, no taxation. This is not an attack on the rich, but acknowledgement that people act on self-interest, and you need a  watch-dog to control the good of society. This watch dog is called the government. If you don't have this kind of oversight and re-distribution of funds, you will get Enron. You will get criminally negligent speculative financing that will ruin the lives of many of your average citizens all in the name of a dollar. At the end of the day, the key is balance. That's all that taxation of the rich is trying to accomplish- keeping society balanced so that the majority of people can have a good life!


Comments
on Oct 29, 2007
While I enjoyed your little story and trying to compare it somehow to America, their is just one huge difference, we are not Chile, we are a huge country with an armed population, while the military is better armed, I cannot in any way imagine how the American Military would Attack America, and if they did there are around 100,000,000  guns and owners Like me who would be willing to die first. Remember their are More war vets around than actual armed military.
on Oct 29, 2007
So, I'm now wanting to know how much the inferior officer, Clueless Old Liberal will (a) sue you for borrowing his alarmist article posting style of cheering for higher taxes on the rich; or ( pay you for taking up the attack in his stead.
on Oct 29, 2007
My curious question is this, for anyone who thinks the rich should be taxed more. Would you be OK with this "tax the rich more" mentality if you won the lottery and became rich and somehow managed to stay rich by investing properly?
on Oct 29, 2007

I don't care about theories or ideology when the facts speak for themselves.  Fact: In the U.S. when tax percentages are lowered, the total take into the treasury increases.  This has happened every time it has been tried.  Class warfare bigotry has been proven wrong, at least in the U.S.


The reason "The Rich" keep the fires of the economy burning isn't about how much they pay in taxes, it's how much wealth they generate... in other words, it's not about how much money "the rich" amass... it's how much wealth is generated for everyone because they are "the rich".


Let's use Bill Gates for example. He started out, as we all know, in a garage with a computer, he ended up the richest man in the world.


Even if the income taxes from his $56 Billion net worth was all there was to the story, it would be impressive. However, that's only the beginning of the dollars his enterprizes have added to the Federal Treasury.


He pays taxes, his company, Microsoft pays corporate taxes, each of the employees of Microsoft pay income taxes.


For any company there is a supply and support base. Someone else sells goods and services to Microsoft. All the companies that supply Microsoft pay corporate taxes, all the employees of all those companies pay income taxes.


Enterprizing people have created businesses using Microsoft products. The companies pay corporate taxes, and the employees of those companies pay income taxes.


Each of those enterprises need to buy goods and services from other companies. Those companies pay corporate taxes and their employees pay income taxes.


All of those investors and employees buy goods and services from other companies, which pay corporate taxes and have employees who pay income taxes.


Now, take all those taxes and multiply them by every company owned or invested in by "the rich" and please try to keep a straight face when you try to tell me that "the rich" should be paying more taxes.

on Oct 29, 2007

moderator note: I edited this article to make it easier to read (the font sizing was getting messed up).

 

on Oct 29, 2007

Thank you for cleaning up the article, and thanks for providing this forum where alternate voices can be heard!

In response to terpfan-

So, I'm now wanting to know how much the inferior officer, Clueless Old Liberal will (a) sue you for borrowing his alarmist article posting style of cheering for higher taxes on the rich; or ( pay you for taking up the attack in his stead.

I like your sense of humour. I don't know who "clueless old liberal" is. In regards to being an alarmist, a little paranoia never hurt anyone, no? The sad truth about most of the major catastrophes that have befallen man is that they have not come suddenly by surprise, but were predicted long in advance and people tried to warn the public at large about for years but no one listened. Keynes for example saw what was happening to Germany in the 1920's and was horrified, tried to warn the powers that be that all was not well in the Rhineland. The army corps of engineers knew decades in advance about the weaknesses in the Levees at New Orleans and tried to get funding to shore them up, but were mostly dismissed as alarmist!

In response to Moderateman-

While I enjoyed your little story and trying to compare it somehow to America, their is just one huge difference, we are not Chile, we are a huge country with an armed population, while the military is better armed, I cannot in any way imagine how the American Military would Attack America, and if they did there are around 100,000,000 guns and owners Like me who would be willing to die first. Remember their are More war vets around than actual armed military.

It's funny you mention this, because the planned coup that was going to topple the U.S government in the 1930's was actually going to be done by veterans led by General Smedley. That way it would appear that concerned vets were taking back the country to set things right, when in reality they would be controlled by big business! (If you don't believe me, research it yourself!)

In response to Parated-

I largely agree with alot of what you are saying. I'm not arguing about the benefits that entrepreneurs bring to society- I'm just saying that in order to have a decent country you need to have a framework that can keep a large middle class- this framework has to be public, hence funded by the government because if it's privatized everything will be turned into a "for profit" venture, thus destroying the very middle class you're trying to create by squeezing every last dime out of the poor mooks. The rich end up paying more to keep up this infrastructure because they have more money, while the poorer still pay taxes they pay less taxes because what little money they do have is needed for the basic necessities of life!

 

on Oct 29, 2007

Here is my problem with your premise:

The whole point of a mixed economy is balance- wherein the good of society and the good of individuals are weighed out, so that everyone settles for a compromise, in which most people can have a good life, rather than a small number are very well off while the rest of society is in the poor house. In order for this balance to be achieved, everyone has to give up something- the system just doesn't work otherwise. This does mean that yes, the wealthiest members of society will be more heavily taxed than the less well off. This is not to punish them or to try and hinder their development, but part of the great compromise. In order for a mixed economy to work, a nation must have a very large middle class. In order to have a middle class, you need to have at least a basic framework capable of turning most people into middle class citizens. This means decent universal education, relatively inexpensive (preferably universal, I will say this to my grave!) healthcare, overall good public (not private) infrastructure. Creating this framework that will allow for a large middle class requires a lot of money, some of which does come from taxes on the working poor, some from the middle class, and the most from taxes on big business and rich people. Most of the money comes from big business and rich people, because THEY HAVE MOST OF THE MONEY!!! There need to be clear laws on the rights and responsibilities of individuals and businesses, and those laws need to be properly enforced, to limit abuse from both ends of the spectrum.

You seem to imply that people like me object to being taxed.  That's a strawman argument because I don't know anyone who thinks we shouldn't be taxed.  Milton Friedman is a strawman argument because no one seriously imagines us not having taxes.

So let's stick with the reality: The federal government apparently has so much money at its disposal that it contemplates providing health INSURANCE to middle class children.  We're not talking about infrastructure. We're not talking about education. We're not even talking about health care. We're talking about giving free insurance to citizens that is paid for by other citizens without their consent.

We do walk a balance. The more money the government has, the more tempted it is to behave as a tyranny.  Let's let the government provide the health insurance. But then, of course, to save costs, it will need to tell us what things we can and can't do. It would start with things like smoking. Then drinking. Then junk food. And pretty soon the government is telling us how to live every element of our lives because we've given it power over us.

You say the rich should be taxed more.  But you never provide any rationale for it.  If the government is already taking billions in taxes to hand over to other individuals then it obviously must see itself having enough for the basic elements of government that we have a consensus on right?  So why does it need more?

on Oct 30, 2007
In response to Parated-

I largely agree with alot of what you are saying. I'm not arguing about the benefits that entrepreneurs bring to society- I'm just saying that in order to have a decent country you need to have a framework that can keep a large middle class- this framework has to be public, hence funded by the government because if it's privatized everything will be turned into a "for profit" venture, thus destroying the very middle class you're trying to create by squeezing every last dime out of the poor mooks. The rich end up paying more to keep up this infrastructure because they have more money, while the poorer still pay taxes they pay less taxes because what little money they do have is needed for the basic necessities of life!


Way back in 1964 we lived in a neighborhood smack dab in the middle of "middle class". My dad made around $2/hr as an electronic tech, which also put us firmly in the middle of "middle class" (btw, $2/hr in today's dollars is $13.27... or $27,603/yr.). The mortgage on his brand new Split Level, middle class house was $175/month. ($1,161 in today's dollars).

So, please explain to me how the "middle class" is dissappearing when "middle class" today goes from around $40,000 up to $150,000? (hint, that is a widening gap, not a shrinking one).

Again, I don't pay much attention to "theories" and "ideology" when I have facts to back me up.
on Oct 30, 2007

Boy do I have differences here.  But let me hit 2 of them now, and then get back on the others.

First, Keynes failed on the world depression!  Oh, not for lack of trying.  Here in the colonies, we had massive alphabet soup, that basically did nothing (the unemployment rate in 1940 was only a few points better than in 1932).  The world was still in a massive depression when WWII broke out, and that was what pulled it out of the depression - a buyer to buy goods to stimulate companies to produce more.  Wars do that.  So keynes failed right off the bat.

Second, You can argue that the CIA was behind the Chilean revolution.  But to drag Monetarists and Friedman into that is being disingenious.  He was asked there after the fact, and only in a pure advisory capacity to try his theories out.  He was not part of the planning or implementation of the coup.  But such are some on the left who so want to tarnish his reputation that this is a very common myth (advanced on these pages before by latour).  The facts do not bear out this new age myth however.

But to judge his theories on the basis of Chile is also a red herring as it was not (before and definitely not after) a model for them.  The Military Junta did not allow free markets, only the espousal of them.  One can argue that this then was a failure of Monetarist policies, and that would be a good debate.  However to accuse the Chicago School of being behind the coup is akin to blaming Bush for 9-11.  Makes some feel good to find such an easy target, but has no basis in fact.

on Oct 30, 2007

You seem to imply that people like me object to being taxed. That's a strawman argument because I don't know anyone who thinks we shouldn't be taxed. Milton Friedman is a strawman argument because no one seriously imagines us not having taxes.
So let's stick with the reality: The federal government apparently has so much money at its disposal that it contemplates providing health INSURANCE to middle class children. We're not talking about infrastructure. We're not talking about education. We're not even talking about health care. We're talking about giving free insurance to citizens that is paid for by other citizens without their consent.

I apologize for any miscommunication- what I am trying to argue for is the premise that in general, the well-off should be taxed more than those that are less well off. I am not saying that the rich should always have more taxes heaped on them regardless. For example, here in Canada the government (which is a conservative minority government) has succeeded in a budget that will produce approx. 15 billion surplus this year- so because they've covered all costs for this year and have a big chunk left over, they're actually going to be cutting taxes, to the tune of an estimated 5 billion that they'll give back to the people.

In regards to health insurance I agree that the government should not pay for it, as the government is essentially paying into a for-profit venture that benefits a handful of special interests in private industry. I think that if government is going to pay for healthcare they should make it a public institution, like the post office!

 

on Oct 30, 2007

Way back in 1964 we lived in a neighborhood smack dab in the middle of "middle class". My dad made around $2/hr as an electronic tech, which also put us firmly in the middle of "middle class" (btw, $2/hr in today's dollars is $13.27... or $27,603/yr.). The mortgage on his brand new Split Level, middle class house was $175/month. ($1,161 in today's dollars).

So, please explain to me how the "middle class" is dissappearing when "middle class" today goes from around $40,000 up to $150,000? (hint, that is a widening gap, not a shrinking one).

This is an interesting argument ParaTed, however I think our numbers are in disagreement. I was under the belief that adjusted for inflation and cost of living, the last time the average hourly paid worker made the most amount of money was early to mid 70's.

Think about it- back then "middle class" typically meant that one average income could provide for an entire family. It was entirely feasible for a young man in his early twenties to be able to afford a house, car, support a family, and take said family on a vacation once a year, and do so largely debt free and even putting little in the bank, all on his hourly salary.

These days for a family to be able to do all that, realistically you really do need two incomes and quite often families are maxed out with thousands of dollars of debt, AND have to end up using their house as an ATM through mortgage refinancing etc.

The days of an enterprising young guy or gal going to college, graduating and then shortly thereafter buying a house and starting a family are drastically different from the 60's or 70's- to boot, your average grad starts off with tens of thousands of dollars of debt, good luck buying a house and car and feeding a family on less than 20 bucks and hour!

on Oct 30, 2007
Nope, you only need two incomes because 1) Too many 20 somethings expect to maintain the same standard of living their parents worked their way up to, and 2) Local, State and Federal taxes are taking a bigger bite out of our incomes.

Here in Wisconsin, a full 1/3 of a monthly mortgage payment goes to taxes. Back in the 60s, if politicians tried that, there would be riots.
on Oct 30, 2007

I apologize for any miscommunication- what I am trying to argue for is the premise that in general, the well-off should be taxed more than those that are less well off. I am not saying that the rich should always have more taxes heaped on them regardless

Ah ok.  So we actually are agreeing.  I agree: The rich should pay more in taxes than most others.

I thought you were asserting that the rich should pay more than they currently are paying.

on Oct 30, 2007
Yep let's tax ourselves out of our jobs so Uncle Sam can care for us. Or is Uncle Sam now Aunt Hillary?
on Nov 01, 2007
Think about it- back then "middle class" typically meant that one average income could provide for an entire family. It was entirely feasible for a young man in his early twenties to be able to afford a house, car, support a family, and take said family on a vacation once a year, and do so largely debt free and even putting little in the bank, all on his hourly salary.
The reason for that seems to be mainly that property prices have gone up. The reason for that is that the earth does not grow with the number of people living on it. Thus while demand for properties goes up, supply remains at a fixed level. Hence prices go up. (How can salary be hourly?) It is also possible that taxes and opther payments were lower back then, allowing our 20-something man to finance everything himself, without knowing what government programme he has to apply to in order to get government to use HIS money to support HIM. (For example, I pay social security taxes but I have no idea how to apply for unemployment support or whatever it is I could get out of it.)