Taxpayers and Tax Spenders

By Chuck Rogér

Let’s examine a stunning facet of human nature: When people get something free, they want more of that something even if it means hurting other people.

A recent study conducted by the Mercatus Center finds that “when the tax-price of federally provided benefits is zero, people demand more, even when funded with deficit money.” America’s progressive taxation scheme gives citizens on the low-/non-taxed end “an incentive either to get as much as they can or to avoid as much cost as possible.”

The Mercatus report quotes early nineteenth-century Vice President John C. Calhoun explaining that the federal government is enforcing heavily skewed taxation which

…divide[s] the community into two great classes; one consisting of those who, in reality, pay the taxes, and, of course, bear exclusively the burthen [sic] of supporting the government; and the other, of those who are the recipients of their proceeds, through disbursements, and who are, in fact, supported by the government; or, in fewer words, to divide it into taxpayers and tax consumers.

“Taxpayers and tax cunsumers” characterizes an income redistribution scheme that poses as fair taxation. Larger and larger segments of the American population have consumed more and more as taxpayers have paid in more and more over a twenty-eight-year period. As the top 10 percent of earners went from paying less than half of all individual income taxes in 1979 to paying almost three-quarters in 2007, the bottom 40 percent went from paying about 4 percent to paying not just nothing, but in fact receiving a net flow of wealth from taxpayers, a flow that equated to a negative income tax rate of about 3.5 percent during 2006-2007.

Even more disgusting is another finding in the Mercatus study. The shift of taxation from low to high earners is specifically associated with increases in government spending on the low earners. In other words, in America, money is being systematically moved from earners to non-earners—flat-out income redistribution. The study’s authors quantify:

As the bottom 40 percent has paid less and the top 10 percent has paid more, entitlement spending has increased from 43.2 percent of the budget in 1979 to 58.4 percent in 2007.

Let’s give perspective to this insanity. All the while, as massive income redistribution has been taking place, so have massive federal deficits been building up. Who are the worst presidential culprits? Who has been spending like there’s no tomorrow to make life “fair” for the “victims” of this mean society of ours? The graph below, taken from the Mercatus study and annotated by me, answers the question. No additional words are needed. Let’s let the graph tell the story.

Click graph for more readable version.

 

Originally at American Thinker

By Chuck Rogér

It has always seemed to me that the argument for American military intervention in other nations rests on shaky ground. Contending that the United States must “police” the world, “build” nations, “spread” democracy, and “fight” for other people’s freedom sounds convincing, even lofty. But sacrificing human and economic treasure to fight for people who’ve shown little willingness to fight for themselves smacks of contrived moral superiority and is logically indefensible.

I thought of the typical military spending talking points when a reader called my attention to a post on Andrew Breitbart’s Big Government website. The author presents one of the best arguments that I’ve seen for severely curtailing U.S. military involvement across the globe. Jason Ivey observes:

Britain and other European states became the rotting cultural cesspools they are today because of the American military. Thanks to our superiority, none of these other Western nations had to train men to fight, nor did they need worry much about the enemy next door. They were allowed to grow soft because the U.S. was still hard. Their governments could become bloated service-providers furthering the objective of creating a permanent dependent class because they were safe to do so and no longer had to spend money on defense. America kept the Western safe for cultural destruction. Freeloaders can be freeloaders, because not only do we encourage and promote freeloading, we militarily protect it.

We can create and support millions of Amy Winehouses because others have created the necessary wealth, the social engineers have replaced stigma with romanticism, and the military ensures this path can continue indefinitely. As Frank Miniter noted at National Review Online, back in Winston Churchill’s day, when Britons were fighting off Germans invading their shores, it’s hard to imagine any proud Anglo stripping off his clothes at the demands of some hooligan, as happened during last week’s riots. The Left’s degenerative morality successfully strengthened the parasite while weakening the host, and we all know at some point the host will die.

When Americans are dying to stop the spread of aggressive Islamism into a Europe that mounts only the weakest resistance, a Europe that has grown diseased under economic and cultural Marxism, isn’t it time to rethink our “morality?” And our economics? Or will our gallantry demand spending trillions more and sending American soldiers to die in Europe proper when it becomes impossible to ignore that the Europeans haven’t the intestinal fortitude to do what must be done?

On one hand, progressive high-mindedness has bred the American welfare state. Consequently, trillions must be cut from spending on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid — and Obamacare repealed — if we are to avert a final downslide into a European-style socialist democracy. Yet on the other hand, what about “defense spending”–a grand illusion of linguistic gymnastics? Where will the trillions come from to support the military spending necessitated by a continuation of neocon high-mindedness?

By Chuck Rogér

The mind is a terrible thing. And it must be stopped.

At a minimum, thoughts occurring in the minds of many Americans give clear thinkers reason for concern.

A new Rasmussen poll finds that 24 percent of American adults think that government should hire long-term jobless people. Twenty-three percent believe that government should pay for job skills retraining, while 25 percent want government to help people with house payments.

With this level of economic moronism and moral dullness in our society, it is no wonder that Obama got elected. The new poll data only compound the incomprehensibility of Barack Obama’s relatively steady approval rating. Incredible though it seems, Rasmussen’s ongoing tracking poll shows that over the last several months, even as the economy has eroded again under Obama’s unflinching, hard-left, prosperity-killing ideology and class warfarism, the percentage of Americans who either somewhat or strongly approve of the man’s job performance has decayed only very slightly from the high forties.

The new poll data suggest that it will be just a stroll down the path of moral decay for some Americans to devolve from their currently lousy personal accountability to behaving like Britons, having “good fun” by rioting in the streets in order to show government (the police) and “the rich” that “we can do what we want.” After all, it is “the government’s fault” that rioters feel the need to riot. It’s also the “rich people, the people who’ve got businesses,” that have caused the rioting.

Isn’t it curious that about a quarter of Americans want government to use taxpayer dollars to help homeowners make house payments and retrain or hire unemployed people, while a tad less than a quarter (21 percent) are self-described “liberals?”

A mind jellified by decades of socialism, destruction of self-reliance, and decay in moral fiber is indeed a terrible thing.