Tax Lawyer's Blog

E nominus patri, et feli, e spiritu sancti.

The New York Times reports that average Oregonians will be asked to vote on a measure that will increase taxes on a special class of Oregonians - those who have more than they do:

Facing $3 million in state cuts and no way to raise money, the school district here cut back to a four-day week last fall. Teachers cram in curriculum. Parents juggle child care. Students sleep in on Mondays.

 “The three-day weekends are nice,” said Joe DeFranco, who teaches at Mae Richardson Elementary School here, “but academically, we’re strapped.”

Still more cuts will come unless revenues rise. On Tuesday, voters here and across Oregon will have the chance to make that happen when they decide the fate of two ballot measures that would raise taxes on higher-income residents and on businesses to help pay for public education and other services. Known as Measures 66 and 67, the votes are referendums on $727 million in tax and fee increases that were approved last year by the Democratic-controlled Legislature.

As usual, the wholly unoriginal tax-the-rich measures are being sold to the public on the grounds that they will apply only to a small portion of the population (emphasis added):

“What’s the saying? ‘Don’t tax me. Don’t tax thee. Tax the man behind the tree?’ ” said Tim Hibbitts, a longtime independent pollster in Oregon. “The measures were designed and have been sold with the idea that somebody else is going to pay, people who are high-income earners and businesses.” Mr. Hibbitts added, “They were crafted pretty cleverly politically.”

Supporters, led by teachers and public employees’ unions, point out that the income tax increase affects less than 3 percent of the population: individuals who earn more than $125,000 a year. They say the state’s wealthier residents should pay more to help those with less. They also say that state businesses enjoy a relatively low tax burden and that most small businesses will pay only $140 more in fees.

The argument that the mob should support a particular law because it will adversely affect only a few people is repugnant. The same argument could be made for a measure that, say, allowed the state to use its prisoners as guinea pigs for medical experiments. It’s no argument at all and should be dismissed out of hand as an insult to the intelligence of the electorate.

But, I’m afraid, it won’t be dismissed. On the contrary, it’s narrowness will be propagandized as it’s best feature. To wit:

• You’re one of the good guys. These new taxes won’t affect you.
• Those guys over there - the rich ones – they are the reason you’re struggling.  
• By golly, let’s teach them a lesson.

Machiavellian dictators throughout history have used this precise reasoning to deprive narrow, pre-stigmatized classes of their rights. These slogans would have made Herr Goebbels proud.

The road to totalitarianism begins with that first confiscation; that first appeal to get “the other guy” because he’s got what you want.¹ Just ask the Cubans, Venezuelans, German Jews and members of the propertied classes of Bolshevik Russia.

Proposals like the Oregon tax that are peddled on the grounds that the bad they do will only be visited on a few citizens are dangerously divisive. I pray that Oregonians, before they go to the voting polls, recall George Santayana’s words:

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it?

Footnotes:

¹  Had the German Jews not been perceived as rich, Hitler would have not have been able to turn ordinary, otherwise decent, Germans against them in such overwhelming numbers. The tactic of demonizing a class of people who are more successful than the average person is older than the wheel and, unfortunately, just as effective.

Related Posts:

• Taxing the Rich Because You Can: The Beginning of Totalitarianism
• Why It’s Bad to Soak the Rich
• Surtax on Rich Meets My Principles, Rich President Says
• Who Pays Taxes? Top 1% Pay More than Bottom 95%

Bookmark & Share: