Confused? You’re not alone. Let me help.
A piece appeared in a Twitter post under the headline “If we’re going to end welfare the rich should be the first to lose it”. Naturally, I was intrigued. According to this Administration I’m “rich” and as I’ve received no welfare I thought I might be missing out. No such luck.
The article laments that extending Bush tax cuts “costs” the government more than planned welfare reductions.
Apparently the author believes there is a moral equivalence between not raising tax burdens on the income an individual earns and the distribution of those hard-earned tax dollars to those who have not earned the services they receive from the government, at the former’s expense. In other words, not taking more from the rich is the same as the rich receiving welfare.
What’s truly sad is this kind of thinking can only stem from the belief that your income belongs to the government, not to you. By not requiring you to pay higher taxes the government is providing you a benefit no different from a food stamp; that the government dispenses both benefits because it owns both resources.
And all of this just from the Twitter headline…
As for the article, it is rife with tax “savings”, in absolute dollars, attempting to twist your heart over the inequities in “dollars saved.” The utter nonsense here is that nowhere does it discuss “dollars paid” or “percent of income paid.” I’d love to see that analysis. But then the article would be pointless.
To create truly fair taxation we would take total government spending and divide it by the number of adults in America – that’s your share. A loaf of bread or a gallon of gasoline costs the same regardless of your income (food stamps aside for the moment) why not government services?
However, as less than 50% of eligible taxpayers carry the entire burden we’ll pull our tongue out of cheek and suggest a flat tax. Whatever you make you send the same percent to the government as I do. If anything this is unfair to the wealthy as they certainly use less government resources than the poor. But we’ll let that go.
The beauty of a flat tax is it puts everyone’s skin in the game. It’s easy to clamor for spending when it’s not your money.
But therein lies the rub. Welfare proponents consider your money to be their money and only your skin’s at play. Sweet deal if you can swing it.
The more the looters besiege the producers the less Galt’s Gulch will remain a fictional concept.
You’d do better to admit you need my help and ask nicely. I might say yes. Threatening to throw me off of “welfare” is probably not going to help.