Pay Your Fair Share!

by Tom Wise

In the interests of future generations (I'm being optimistic), let's examine this crude yet common statement flopping out of the mouths of opinion journalists, student protesters, even Nobel Prize-winning economists and the President of the United States.

Certainly, people speak out of turn. There is nothing "fair" about the statement "pay your fair share." Simply, it is not fair for those who want things to define "fair" when those who pay for such things are being hosed. Beggars can't be choosers, as the saying goes. And, yes, it is begging for a man to say "alms for the poor!" Even a rich spokesman, such as Warren Buffett, is a beggar in this case. Anyone with their hand out without offering something of value is a beggar.

But if the hand reaching out is not asking but telling, in fact demanding, then "fair" means nothing. It is arbitrary, based on whatever the person demanding deems fair. That person is known in most circles as a lunch money bully, in fact a thief. It doesn't matter what form the coercion takes (whether dunning by guilt, enacting tax laws to "level the playing field," or setting fire to neighborhoods), it is intimidation. It is therefore robbery. Beggars ask, thieves yell.

If the argument is that the needy must be heard, that the squeaky wheel gets the grease, I say all power to the voice or voices. However, there are a few caveats. First, those who grouse, and pump their fist, and march in such formation have an obligation to be humble towards their situation. They ought to accept their failure in structured capitalist society. This used to be the mindset and there is no reason to expect or accept any less. But today we have a generation (or three) which believes that money is meant to be shared and that the government is there to redistribute. Is this fair? Ought people motivated to succeed look forward to only working harder in order to support those who won't or can't do for themselves? Perhaps. But should they be forced by taxation? The answer is obvious. If the future for the successful is confiscation of acquired wealth, fewer people will be motivated to succeed. It's simple math.

Second, should those who receive (beggars or thieves) be forced to spend on certain products, in the same manner that those who "give" are without freedom to choose their charity (supposing that the entire argument is government redistribution through taxation)? If the rich are supporting the poor through blind confiscation, isn't it fair that the poor be responsible in their consumerism? Does the street tramp not tell his target that he absolutely will not spend that dollar on hooch? Sure, he does as he likes later. Out of sight, out of mind. But there is still a part of the street tramp's psyche which pushes to say that responsibility is important. The street tramp offers "value" in his word. At least the donating party gets to feel good. With forced redistribution through government, there is no such feel-good moment. It's not charity.

Should the poor receive funds and be allowed to purchase alcohol, under-nourishing foods, gaudy clothing and jewelry? Obviously, it's not only impossible to monitor such things, it also goes against the concept of charity. But it's not charity! It's forced taxation, and forced redistribution going to those who offer no value for wealth and furthermore are corroded by such handouts. Under such a system, we can only expect this money to be wasted. Only those with some self-respect and pride will use the redistribution as a step-stool, but currently there is not a large percentage of recipients with that good attitude, and certainly no oversight given or even expected!

Third, if it's fairness we seek, why through the government? They take enormous administrative costs, essentially a finder's fee on the order of 60% just to pay for their office space and staff. They also can't be trusted with the money. They themselves are beggars and thieves. But they have power. Thus, the poor utilize the government as a weapon to beat the rich about the head and to steal their wallet. The government is not begging when it comes to taxes, they are taking. The value offered by the government amounts to little when it comes to these taxes. If we're talking about common defense, it's piss-poor. This applies to being involved in too many wars, not adequately securing our borders, and erosion of our civil liberties. Thus, the one thing the rich count upon, security, is not being addressed. The successful have a right to expect value for their dollar.

Fourth, this is moral. Those who covet what others have often conspire to take it. Do not covet your neighbor's wife because you might eventually commit adultery. Do not covet his car because you might steal it. However, you can certainly be jealous of that wife or car, so that you determine to work hard and get one just like her/it. Don't be put off by the wording. Fire in the belly is better than getting shot by an angry neighbor or being judged by God as an unrepentant sinner. Yet, today we live in times where coveting is encouraged. It is not uncommon for a group of nasty "advocates for the poor" to show up at a banker's home and frighten that household. Is this fair? Have we come to the Marxist fork in the road where the rich are parasites and the poor are without fault? "Who shall we blame today?" seems to be the klaxon call. Flash mob through Twitter and rape a candy store, or kick white people. Take over the Wisconsin state house. How far will this go, or be allowed to go? Those with poor morality, in this case an hypocrisy born from their financial poverty, should not be tolerated, never mind rewarded. Nevertheless, it's difficult to properly distinguish the deserving from the undeserving, especially when factions (such as Communists) continually shove to the front very sympathetic faces to spout nonsense like "pay your fair share!"

Let's boil it down. What's fair taxation? (1) It's not the progressive income tax. This allows the poor to pay nothing and the middle class and rich to pay everything. It punishes prosperity and rewards lack. The government has no accountability in real terms. Our country is broke and people still have their hands out. Case closed. (2) It could be a flat tax, if we eliminate every deduction and loophole. Don't worry about the mortgage interest credit - you won't need it (on a side note, this will force banks to restructure that entire system). Corporations might count on better startup and employment conditions (notwithstanding union pressures). Even the lower-middle-class would benefit since there would be no huge payroll deductions. Those who work pay, those who don't work don't pay. The fairness would derive from the fact that the size of government must, under such conditions, shrink and stay lean. The corollary is that government programs must also decrease. The poor therefore cannot retain that status under the magical thinking that the rich will bail them out. Flat is flat, and revenues depend on productivity not taxation. (3) The Fair Tax, which eliminates the income tax permanently by repealing the 16th Amendment and replacing it with a national sales tax. In this manner, everyone pays. Criminals, illegal aliens, the rich, the poor, foreigners - anyone who buys a product - pay taxes. This system is currently being proposed in Congress but needs tinkering. For instance, the Fair Tax now includes a provision to give up-front money to the poor, which is the type of welfare we want to avoid.

So, what is a fair share? Answer: It depends on the population of the poor as well as the rich, the size of government, the oversight of distribution, the demands of receipt, and the manner in which taxes are collected. "Fair share" is not the amount which the bully demands or the lazy requires. Rather, it is the cut into income (not wealth) necessary to keep an efficient, honest, and charitable government running. It is given happily in exchange for equal value or else a good feeling. As of this writing, the government provides neither and is not apologizing.