Spreading the Wealth

[sleigh]

Sarah Palin spoke in Cincinnati yesterday. She's dropped Ayers-the-terrorist from her stump attack against Obama, and has added in Joe-the-plumber with the 'horrifying' tag that Obama wants to "spread your wealth around" -- recited to a chorus of boos from the white-bread audience. This obviously plays well to the Republican base.

Which makes me wonder. The Republican base is largely conservative Christians, who are reputed to follow Jesus' example and teachings. Now, I don't have a dog in this theological fight; in fact, I don't think there's a dog at all. But...

Certainly Jesus wasn't against taxation ("Render unto Caesar" and all that). So given the two tax plans put forward by the candidates, I wonder which one Jesus would prefer: a tax plan that gives the largest tax decreases to the wealthiest people (McCain's plan); or the one that would give the largest tax decreases to the poorest people while asking the wealthy to shoulder more of the tax burden (Obama's plan)?

Comments

Re: Gasp!

[sleigh.livejournal.com]

Oh noes!

Re: Gasp!

[cfgwebgeek.livejournal.com]

Actually, oh yesses. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need": the classic Marxist redistributionist formula (though it may actually be Engels, rather than Marx. I disremember at the moment). (Not that the left has ever lived it; seems dachas for the dictators are always more important than the availability of goods at GUM.) When done voluntarily, it's charitable; when done by government, it's theft. (Oops, my libertarian streak's showing...!)

But hey, let's look at it another way. Instead of by income, let's tax in kind. Nice lotta words you're able to churn out there, Mr. Leigh; be a shame -- possibly a criminal one -- if you didn't spread that verbal wealth around. We can see some people from right here who aren't nearly as articulate, or verbose. We'll just compel you, under penalty of law, to write for them. (And when we say "write for them," we mean it: you must write what they want, the way they want it written. If the subject and/or POV bother you, well, just lie back and think of England Public Financing. It's the same principle, after all.) And oh, by the way, because you are so prolific (though not actually Silverbergian, it's true), we'll make you devote, say, 50% of your writing time to others, while requiring that not-so-fast guy over there who only writes shorts published in Analog to devote a mere 30%. But hey, that's fair, because you've got more than him.

Sounds like a wonderful plan to me. I can't imagine who wouldn't think it socially just. Say, I've Got This Great Idea For A Novel...(tm)

Re: Gasp!

[sleigh.livejournal.com]

Now, come on, Scott. Your analogy makes no sense at all. There's a huge difference between "paying in kind" and having to pay a higher percentage of your income in taxes if you make more money. Frankly, I'd love to be making $250,000 a year, and if that means paying a higher percentage of taxes, gee, ain't that a lovely burden to have. No one's saying the rich have to work harder or longer hours, or have to work to the requirements of some less fortunate person (as your analogy suggests). All that's being said is that those who make more need to pay a larger share of the burden -- because they can afford it.

That's not socialism. That's a different tax structure.

Write your own novel. Maybe you'll get a six figure advance and have to pay those higher taxes. Wouldn't that be awful?

Re: Gasp!

[carolf.livejournal.com]

All that's being said is that those who make more need to pay a larger share of the burden -- because they can afford it.

Not just because they can afford it. Also because an argument can be made that the richer you are, the more you have benefited from that for which we are all taxed. You are being charged a higher price for that larger slice of the pie.

No, I am not talking about ignoring one's own skills and sacrifices. I think "all created equal" holds under the law, not in general. I don't begrudge the rich for being rich of their own endeavor.

But no one, including the rich, get there on their own. They benefit, too. A company that makes its CEO rich through the work of a great talent pool has education (publicly provided) to thank. When the prize architect works for the gated community, the community benefits more than the ghetto.

More importantly, it is to everyone's benefit that we clean the ghetto -- including the rich guy. He has the most to lose if they riot; he has the most to lose if his talent pool dries up. He has the most to lose if no one can buy his product for lack of money, and his business sinks.

Unchecked capitalism is merely the economic version of "might makes right." The Constitution of this country specifically sets out to deny that premise.

Of course unchecked communism is insane. Capitalism works because it takes into account human greed and weakness. Communism fails because it assumes the perfect human being.

Personally, I see socialism as a mid-ground, although I like it to lean towards the capitalistic side.

If you won't help others out of charity, at least do it out of enlightened self-interest.