Sure, the Democrats Want to Tax the Rich. (But They Also Think They're Entitled!)
Is there a kind of noble consistency in insisting the rich pay more taxes and not be entitled to government payments they don't need?
Peter Lawler is Dana Professor of Government and former chair of the department of Government and International Studies at Berry College. He serves as executive editor of the journal Perspectives on Political Science, and has been chair of the politics and literature section of the American Political Science Association. He also served on the editorial board of the new bilingual critical edition of Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America, and serves on the editorial boards of several journals. He has written or edited fifteen books and over 200 articles and chapters in a wide variety of venues. He was the 2007 winner of the Weaver Prize in Scholarly Letters.\r\n\r\nLawler served on President Bush's Council on Bioethics from 2004 – 09. His most recent book, Modern and American Dignity, is available from ISI Books.\r\n\r\nFollow him on Twitter @peteralawler.
So this article calls attention to a fascinating inconsistency shared by our two parties:
1. Republicans (particularly Paul Ryan) want to cut taxes for the rich. But they also want to means-test entiltements--such as Social Security and Medicare. That means the rich will pay less to the IRS, but get less (or ideally nothing) from those programs--because they don't need government's help to sustain themselves.
2. The Democrats (particularly the socialist Bernie Saunders) wants to raise taxes on the rich--mainly to help pay for entitlement programs. Bu they also think the rich, like everyone else, are fully entitled to all the benefits available from those programs.
3. Republicans (meaning, in the extreme case, libertarians) think that taxing the rich is literally counterproductive. The less they pay, the more incentive they have to use their talents and resources in productive ways. The resulting prosperity benefits us all. There's also the libertarian thought that taxing productivity is unjust; free people deserve to keep what they earn through their industrious and rational exertions. What we have here, of course, is sometimes called SUPPLY-SIDE ECONOMICS--or, in a more unfriendly mode, TRICKLE-DOWN ECONOMICS.
4. Democrats tend to believe that entitlements should be thought of as something all citizens deserve--or not as charity. "Means-testing" would undermine support for these programs in a variety of ways--but, first of all, through a misconception of what they are.
5. The Republicans, it's true enough, want to "demoralize" entitlements by viewing them as aid to the unfortunate. Then they become something the individual should think of himself or herself as working not to need. The ideal of "entitlement," the problem is, leads us to think we have a responsibility to provide the program to everyone, no matter what we (meaning the government) can actually afford. Republicans don't want entitlement programs thought of as "rights," but as something, ideally, a free and prosperous society can minimize or get beyond.
6. The Democrats deny that taxing the rich is counterproductive. The Republicans say they forget that eroding the conditions that maximize productivity guarantees the implosion of those programs we may actually need.
7. Let's conclude by wondering whether there's a certain kind of noble consistency in insisting that the rich pay more in taxes and not be entitled to government payments they don't even need.
New research links urban planning and political polarization.
- Canadian researchers find that excessive reliance on cars changes political views.
- Decades of car-centric urban planning normalized unsustainable lifestyles.
- People who prefer personal comfort elect politicians who represent such views.
Progressive America would be half as big, but twice as populated as its conservative twin.
- America's two political tribes have consolidated into 'red' and 'blue' nations, with seemingly irreconcilable differences.
- Perhaps the best way to stop the infighting is to go for a divorce and give the two nations a country each
- Based on the UN's partition plan for Israel/Palestine, this proposal provides territorial contiguity and sea access to both 'red' and 'blue' America
Science and the squishiness of the human mind. The joys of wearing whatever the hell you want, and so much more.
- Why can't we have a human-sized cat tree?
- What would happen if you got a spoonful of a neutron star?
- Why do we insist on dividing our wonderfully complex selves into boring little boxes
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.