Damek.

In a fit of boredom, I made the mistake of stopping by Andrew Sullivan’s non-blog today, and in skimming over the last month or so of material noticed this adolescent gem:

…progressive taxation is immoral. The government should treat all its citizens as equally as it can. Punishing people for being successful is morally wrong and counter-productive. We should at least treat hard work neutrally, rather than punitively.

Oh. My. God. What, are you in high school, Andrew? No matter, The Decembrist straightens him out a bit:

Why is it “equality” to tax everyone at the same percentage? Why not tax them the same amount? Progressive taxation is based on ability to pay, which increases logarithmically. It’s patently obvious that the hardship of paying 15% for someone earning $20,000 is far greater than the burden of the same percentage for someone earning $200,000. Sure you can create a low-income exemption, but right there, you don’t have “equality” of percentage or a flat rate. I don’t mean to get into the weeds here, but once you accept that neither a fixed flat amount — a head tax — or a fixed flat rate is fair, then there is no obvious moral definition of what equality is, and a strong case for a mildly progressive scale.

I would add to that the following obvious-to-me thoughts:

1) Sullivan fails to even begin to dissect the term “hard work” and whether or not it correlates perfectly with “success” or whether there may be some diversion between people who work hard and people who are successful. Never mind conflating “success” with wealth.

2) Related to that, he fails to consider the source of wealth beyond acknowledging, almost as an afterthought, that some people inherit it. It’s important to note that wealth begets wealth; the more wealth you gather, the more able you are to hold onto what you have, and to work on gathering more.

3) And related to that, the government is a major source of wealth. The government is the source of the laws and courts that define and regulate property. It’s supposed to operate to keep the market fair and open to all. And then there are other basic services like police and other armed forces to defend wealth; education systems to maintain a well-educated, competitive work force; public health and emergency systems to insure against various crises and therefore keep capitalism from being too often interrupted and set back. All of this benefits the already wealthy and “successful” much more than the middle and lower classes. Therefore, the “successful” should be the ones largely paying for these services.

In fact, one could easily argue that it is immoral to force those who get the least from government and its laws to pay as much as those who derive the most benefit. But I wouldn’t do that. No, I would say, taxes of any kind are neither moral nor immoral; rather, they are necessary. Ignore questions of morality and be pragmatic. The real question is, which type of taxation is best for all citizens, keeping the services of government funded and keeping the economy moving and healthy? And this is where I happily admit I’m no tax expert, but what little I’ve read and experienced has so far convinced me that progressive systems of taxation are light years beyond regressive, practically medieval flat tax ideas. Progressive taxation is better for the economy, better for both business and government, and better for all citizens.

Besides all that, Sullivan is complaining that Bush shouldn’t have been pushing for Social Security reform, but flat taxes instead. Why would he do that, when he can get flat taxes in the back door by continuing to push for more and more tax cuts that just to go the wealthy? Obviously, the end point of such tax cuts is, at some point in the future, to arrive at a point where the wealthy are taxed hardly at all, and everyone else bears the brunt of the costs of government. Better than a flat tax, no?

As an aside, I know for sure my taxes didn’t go down this year. In fact, the usual big refund I’ve received in previous years was non-existant this year. Tax cuts, my ass. And for no good reason, too — the wealthy are not going to take their “extra” wealth from lower taxes and create jobs with it. On this lengthy page about flat tax that I’ve barely read at all, I came across this bit that I’ve seen put in various ways elsewhere, but this is all I’ve got to link to at the moment since I don’t have time at the moment for more in-depth research, and anyway, it’s not bad:

Jobs are not created as acts of charity for working people that the wealthy elites don’t even have personal acquaintance with. Jobs (and broad-based wealth) are created when those in a position to administer productive resources see a demand for goods to be produced. And if they see such a demand, they will generate the increased production — create new jobs — whether or not they have the money on hand — even if they have to raise money by borrowing the necessary capital for financing. If the general public, which is made up far ore by working people than by the wealthy elite, does not have discretionary income to spend on products, the broad-based demand needed to stimulate wealth creation (and job creation) is inhibited. It has more to do with creating a broad base of demand than by making sure rich people have enough money.

The best way to stimulate the economy is to give breaks to the poor and middle class, who will spend it and thus create greater demand for goods and jobs. It’s still not a perfectly healthy way to do things, since, as the quote mentioned, the businesses meeting the demand may have to borrow to finance their growth. But, at least, businesses are better positioned to manage debt than consumers.