Justin Higginbotthom of the Tax Policy Blog notes that Derek Thompson of the Atlantic has taken exception to my argument that the pro-tax wealthy should voluntarily pay more taxes:
This story brings to mind the occasional conservative argument that if rich people want to pay higher taxes so badly, why don’t they just donate their money to the government?
It’s true that it is technically legal to write checks to the Treasury, but this is a weak argument.
The animating motivation behind paying taxes is not the unalloyed joy of writing checks to the government but rather the knowledge that you are part of a collective system that is funding a government and its policies.
One rich family’s check might cover two staffers. A higher marginal tax rate helps pay down an entire federal budget.
Now, I don’t know Mr. Thompson and have no reason to doubt that he is a very nice fellow, but his rejoinder to my call for pro-tax rich liberals to voluntarily pay more taxes is both silly and naive.
I am not suggesting, as Mr. Thompson says, that rich people who favor higher taxes enjoy paying more taxes, but rather, the precise opposite: They don’t want to pay taxes any more than the rest of us do, but because they are rich liberals who have benefited greatly from a capitalist system, they are morally conflicted.
And, obviously, the way they deal with the conflict is to shout in the public square – where everyone can hear them and acknowledge their magnanimity – that they are undertaxed.
Instead, I say these rich pro-taxers should donate some of their wealth to the federal government. They would gain more converts to their “cause” if they voluntary gave money to the federal government and then called on the rest of us to follow suit.
They never do that and they never will.
And that, Mr. Thompson, is why I believe their claims of being undertaxed are about as sincere as Tiger Woods’ marital vows.
Related Posts:
12 responses so far ↓
1 Chad Bordeaux // Apr 14, 2010 at 11:04 am
I find this point of his interesting: “The animating motivation behind paying taxes is not the unalloyed joy of writing checks to the government but rather the knowledge that you are part of a collective system that is funding a government and its policies.”
How is this a “collective” system when nearly have of the system pays no income tax? We are not part of a collective system but rather a system paid for by a select few that benefits all.
2 Chad Bordeaux // Apr 14, 2010 at 11:04 am
half…not have…typo
3 Rich Deutschelanders Volunteer to Pay More Tax // Jun 11, 2010 at 8:14 am
[...] Rich Liberals Don’t Really Want to Pay More Taxes [...]
4 George Soros Gives $100 Million to Human Rights Watch Instead of U.S. Government // Sep 7, 2010 at 1:18 pm
[...] Rich Liberals Don’t Really Want to Pay More Taxes [...]
5 If Government is so Great, Why don’t Rich Liberals Donate Money to it? // Oct 19, 2010 at 10:14 am
[...] Rich Liberals Don’t Really Want to Pay More Taxes [...]
6 Progressive Fat Cats Want to Pay More Taxes… Only if Others are Forced to // Nov 20, 2010 at 4:50 pm
[...] Rich Liberals Don’t Really Want to Pay More Taxes [...]
7 Rich Liberals Say Give the Tax Cuts Back to the Feds // Dec 22, 2010 at 1:02 am
[...] Rich Liberals Don’t Really Want to Pay More Taxes [...]
8 Gayle H // Sep 17, 2011 at 2:24 pm
1 Gayle H // Sep 17, 2011 at 1:12 pm
My guess is that much of your UBER income is in large part due to multinationals that do business just about everywhere on the planet. (If not, then let your local business pay what local businesses pay including those corp persons that stand apart from the owner and founder both of which should pay equally)
For me the issue is why we little people have to pay so much in military expense to protect (subsidize) all of your multinationals when you and the other uber investors sit back and get free, exhorbitantly expensive protectionism to operate overseas.
Let’s forget income taxes – YOU start paying YOUR fair share of the cost of your protection!
In my view that would be 95% of the military and foreign affairs expenses.
Face it, we little people derive NO benefit for your costly protectionism. After all, WE paid in the social security taxes with the local companies matching that congress used to fund their protectionist practices.
PLEASETHIS IS JUST ANOTHER REASON WHY THE WEALTHY SHOULD BE PAYING THEIR FAIR SHARE. IS IT EXAGGERATED? PERHAPS SOME, BUT little.
CHARGE THEM FOR THEIR PROTECTIONISM BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT OUR MILITARY TRULY IS OUT THERE FOR.
Tags: Politics of Taxes · Tax Policy
9 Peter // Sep 18, 2011 at 8:04 am
Gayle,
Those multinationals create a lot of jobs. I think they are wonderful. I love job creators.
How many jobs have you created in your life?
Oh, and remember, you don’t have to be one of the “little people.” Read, study, go back to school, work harder to improve yourself, start your own business.
This is America, land of doers not of whiners.
I am rooting for you.
But hating what you want to be (rich) is a tad hypocritical, don’t you think?
10 Xerographica // Sep 22, 2011 at 5:56 pm
“The joy of writing checks to the government”
People feel a warm glow when they donate to charities but feel a cold prickle when they pay taxes. What’s the difference? Both help support the common good.
The difference is choice.
If we allow tax payers to choose which government organizations receive their individual taxes then liberals, conservatives and libertarians will all joyfully write checks to the government.
Liberals will be joyful because they won’t have to pay for self-perpetuating wars, conservatives will be joyful because they don’t have to pay for ineffective welfare and libertarians will be joyful because they’ll only have to pay for defense and the courts.
The anarcho-capitalists will have it kind of tough though. Of course, their theory is that the private sector can do everything better than the public sector. If their theory is correct then allowing a division of labor to occur among tax payers will produce the following chain of events… the most redundant and inefficient government organizations will lose funding and go extinct…the scope of government would narrow…and the tax rate would decrease proportionally.
Socialists will have it tough as well but for the completely opposite reason. Their theory is that the public sector can do everything better than the private sector. If their theory is correct…then the most redundant and inefficient private organizations will lose revenue and go extinct…the scope of government would broaden…and the tax rate would increase proportionally.
In essence, allowing for a division of labor between tax payers will produce the perfect division of labor between the public and private sector.
11 Peter // Sep 22, 2011 at 6:00 pm
Xero,
Even pro-taxers like Buffett, Rick Steves and Bill Gates when given the choice prefer to give their money to private charities rather than to the federal government.
They, too, know that government is inefficient and highly likely to waste their money.
12 Xerographica // Sep 22, 2011 at 6:30 pm
Peter, of course you’re right…
http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/charitable-donations-government
http://economics.org.au/2011/06/if-you-could-choose-to-whom-you-paid-your-tax/
Those guys are philanthrocapitalists. They want the most bang for their buck. So what happens if you let them choose which government organizations receive the taxes that they already have to pay?
Force tax payers to consider the ROI of their individual tax dollars and the result will be nothing short of magical. Either tax payers will stop worrying about getting the most bang for their buck or government organizations will be forced to operate efficiently. Which case is more likely?
Leave a Comment