One of the first rules of debate is that you should endeavor to understand your opponent’s argument – both the strong and weak points – better than he does. The pro-tax left is, apparently, unaware of this rule.
Count left-leaning economist Robert H. Frank among those who simply do not understand why many conservative Americans, the rich and the not-so-rich, alike, oppose increased taxes on the rich (emphasis is mine):
Surveys indicate that most voters now favor higher taxes on the rich. But many wealthy people are determined to hang on to their tax cuts, and because recent changes in campaign finance law have greatly increased their political leverage, they may prevail. If so, however, it could prove a hollow victory.
Beyond some point, there seems to be little gain in satisfaction from bolstering your private spending. When mansions grow to 15,000 square feet from 10,000, for instance, the primary effect is merely to raise the bar that defines an adequate home among the superwealthy.
It would be one thing if lobbying against taxes and regulation brought wealthy Americans a world more to their liking. But if their goal is to buy a home with a more spectacular view, for example, they will be disappointed. There are only so many such homes to go around, and they’ll be bought by the very same people as before, since everyone will be bidding more.
So when the anti-tax wealthy make campaign contributions, they are buying only the deeper potholes and dirtier air that inevitably result when tax revenue is low.
Frank suffers from the same myopia that plagues other progressives. He thinks the worst about conservatives and assumes, consistent with stereotype, that the only reason anti-tax conservatives oppose tax increases is because they want to buy more yachts and mansions. This is not only offensive, but astonishingly close-minded.¹
I, and most conservatives I know, oppose tax increases for the following reasons:
- Government is wasteful and inefficient;
- The bigger the federal bureaucracy gets, the more control it has over our lives;
- The bigger the federal bureaucracy gets, the harder it is to shrink (temporary spending programs almost always become permanent entitlement programs);
- Government never gets smaller, only larger;
- Free markets, although imperfect, are better and fairer distributors of wealth than any possible cabal of government elites; and
- The tenth amendment says that those powers that are not specifically given to the federal government are reserved by the States.
Conservative opposition to high taxes has nothing whatsoever to do with yachts and mansions, greed and gluttony, no matter how well that defamatory propaganda plays in Peoria. It’s a sad state of affairs indeed when highly-esteemed economists like Mr. Frank and respected tax law professors like James Maule and Linda Beale have swallowed, hook, line and sinker, this simplistic and utterly inaccurate nonsense.²
Footnotes:
¹ I have no way of knowing whether this is true or not, but Frank’s utter cluelessness about what motivates small government conservatives makes me wonder whether he actually knows any. If he does know them, he can’t be truly listening to them.
² How do you have an intelligent conversation with people who think your sole motivation is to buy a bigger yacht? Simple answer: You don’t.
Related Posts:
- Trickle Down Economist Robert H. Frank Proposes Super-consumption Tax
- Oregon’s Orginal Revenue Raising Idea: Tax the Rich
11 responses so far ↓
1 allan // Jan 30, 2012 at 2:25 am
The only legitimate way to lower taxes is to lower government spending. It is imprudent and moronic to lower taxes and hope to lower spending. That is why I am not a Republican…
Your argument is putting the cart before the horse, so to speak. It is going to intermission before the first act has even begun. It is practicing law before passing the bar.
2 Peter // Jan 30, 2012 at 10:17 am
allan,
I agree the only legitimate way to lower taxes is to lower government spending. That is precisely what we should do and what I am for.
To use your analogy, the horse is reduced spending. The cart is lower income taxes.
3 allan // Jan 30, 2012 at 1:38 pm
Correct.
The Republican party’s problem is that they have convinced a great number of people that reducing taxes is good, but they have convinced many fewer that reducing government spending is good.
As a result, most people agree with Democrats on spending, many (but a much lower number, IMHO) agree with Republicans on reducing taxes. In other words, we have a country of people who want government to spend money it does not have and we have a government that is feeding the people what they want.
It is irresponsible. Either we have to raise taxes or cut spending. We cannot do both.
My thought is that the Democrats are, if not correct, are fiscally sound (you have to tax so you can pay for what you spend). The Republicans, less so, as they want to spend on things without having the money to do so. The prime example of this is Bush’s decision to go to war on credit…
4 Peter // Jan 30, 2012 at 9:57 pm
allan,
People who aren’t paying for big government, never mind big government. That’s why it’s a problem when nearly 50% of Americans pay no federal income tax.
Again, it’s easy to say raise taxes when you know its not your taxes that are going to be raised.
5 Allan // Jan 31, 2012 at 6:08 pm
Peter,
I am squarely within the 50% of people who pay federal income tax. I favor the government we have. And I think we need to raise taxes.
Our tax rate is too low. How do I know that? Because we have a federal deficit. Either we have to curtail government spending or we have to raise taxes. I am for the former. You the later.
But I think we can both agree that taxes are too low to pay for the government’s spending. The answer lies in spending, not taxing, policy.
6 Peter // Jan 31, 2012 at 9:15 pm
Allan,
We do agree about the size of government. It’s too big and has exceeded the scope granted to it in the tenth amendment. The only way we will shrink it down to its proper size is to stop allowing politicians to raise taxes. If they know they can get more money from the taxpayers, they will never cut spending.
7 Allan // Feb 1, 2012 at 10:16 am
Peter,
That is simply an irresponsible, untenable, and cowardly position. Irresponsible because it means raising the debt to unsustainable levels (i.e., passing the costs to the next generation). Untenable because, without details, it would mean leaving the most vulnerable in our society without a safety net. Cowardly because you are using one policy to get another policy result instead of addressing what you see to be the problem head on.
Machievelli would be proud.
We did not get to the government we have overnight. It was a slow creep and we need a slow crawling retreat if you want to regress to what we had before. Indeed, that is the definition of conservatism: small incremental changes. A swift change is advocated by Radicals (which is why conservatives opposed ending slavery and Jim Crow).
8 Allan // Feb 1, 2012 at 3:02 pm
A slight revision to the last sentence:
I wrote: “A swift change is advocated by Radicals (which is why conservatives opposed ending slavery and Jim Crow).”
The parenthetical should read: “which is why conservatives opposed an abrupt end to slavery and Jim Crow enforced by the federal government, as opposed to a gradual end to the institutions that conservatives (at least the non-racist ones) believed abominable.”
9 Peter // Feb 2, 2012 at 9:15 am
Allan,
First, what policy “position” of mine do you take exception to?
Second, the problem is class warfare and I have been meeting it head on on these blog pages for three plus years.
Third, Machiavelli was no coward.
Fourth, I believe in a slow scale back in government. Let’s begin by not raising taxes.
10 Allan // Feb 2, 2012 at 10:17 am
Peter,
We cannot shrink government by not raising taxes. We can only shrink government by lowering spending.
You seem to think that we will have a smaller government if we don’t raise taxes. That is not the case. What we will have is the same (or bigger) government with higher deficits.
I would like ask a question. If we cannot shrink government (for whatever reason) would you concede that we need to generate revenue to cover our current costs? If so, how would you go about it without raising taxes.
The position that I believe is irresponsible, untenable, and cowardly is the one that puts us into more and more debt without having the courage (or wherewithal) to decrease spending.
True, Machievelli was no coward. But do you really think it takes courage to spend our way into insolvency and ask our children to pay for it?
11 Peter // Feb 2, 2012 at 10:13 pm
Allan,
What I think is if we allow legislators to raise taxes they will never tackle the difficult and serious job of cutting spending.