Robert Meyer
December 14, 2012
Tax policy and the 'fiscal cliff'
By Robert Meyer

There has been controversy among those interested in economics as to which tax policies have been more beneficial to the economy: Those supported by past presidents such as Reagan and George W. Bush, or the type supported by Obama. Many today will claim that supply-side tax policies had little or no positive effects on the economy.

The truth is no tax policy can stem the growing national debt problem without focusing on a reduction in government spending, since taxes deal primarily with revenue production.

The President and House Republicans are currently in a negotiation stalemate that could trigger deep mandatory cuts — harmful to the country's growth prospects-if the issue remains unresolved by year's end.

Obama's call for a "balanced approach," is really a lopsided approach, calling for increased taxes on the wealthy, while making only trivial changes in domestic spending programs.

The demand that some must pay their "fair share" is an Orwellian mantra, that results in people who pay little or no federal income tax, feeling justified in their indignation toward those few who pay most of the freight already. As Paul Ryan pointed out in the Vice-Presidential debate, the extra tax revenues gained from increasing taxes on the wealthy would only operate the federal budget for a matter of days. This "fair share" demand is based in envy and sentimentality rather than anything fiscally significant or practical.

Polls have indicated conservative lawmakers will be blamed if the impasse continues, resulting in increased taxes for all after the New Year. This seems odd since it is Obama who wants to change the current tax brackets, rather than leaving tax rates as they have existed for over a decade. Yet, it is a good bet that the Republicans will fold and capitulate to Obama's increase tax demands, fearing the blame and electoral repercussions of the economically misinformed and misguided public.

What has been emphasized by the media is that Romney had an effective personal federal income tax rate of under 15%. What hasn't been pointed out, is that a substantial portion of Romney's taxable income was given to charity. The conclusion that Romney's effective income tax percentage was impacted by his charitable contributions is entirely ignored. Further, it is never observed that much of what Romney gave to charity accomplished many of the same things that paying extra taxes would have, except in a more efficient and self-directed way. One's federal tax liability, which is at least partly involuntary, is deemed more important to the welfare of society, than one's charitable contributions which are totally voluntary. In most cases, credible public charities are more effective and efficient with their resources than programs that are established and operated with federal tax money.

Let's further analyze the anecdotal story about Warren Buffet paying a lower rate than his private secretary. We are then informed about what an injustice such a situation is. Of course, further analysis reveals a different story. Most of the secretary's income likely comes from wages or salary, while most of Buffet's taxable income is derived from capital gains, not salary. Money invested in capital is generally at risk of loss, whereas salary and wages are simply payments for services rendered. When people risk their money they have to be compensated for the risk of loss. That incentive is generally a lower rate on how that income is taxed.

As an aside, one wonders what sort of tax advise did Buffet's secretary receive? My own effective federal tax rate was less than five percent, one third of what Romney pays, and I can't even itemize deductions. It's hard to believe the story without knowing more details. The irony is that I've always supported a type of flat tax, whether based on consumption or income, and it would be more equitable than the system we have now, even though my personal tax rate would likely go up.

Should the rich pay more in taxes? Sure. Should they pay a greater percentage on higher incomes though? It raises the question as to the mischief that is caused through the implementation of a progressive income tax system — one of the methods which Karl Marx proscribed as a means of destroying capitalism. I could go on to write an entire column on the evils of a progressive income tax system. Suffice it to say it helps to perpetuate the class warfare so prominent in this country, as well as accommodating the perpetual re-election of pandering politicians

What a great bait and switch ploy: Get people arguing about who is paying their "fair share" while the current administration spends us into oblivion. Apparently we elected the government we deserved.

© Robert Meyer

 

The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)

Click to enlarge

Robert Meyer

Robert Meyer is a hardy soul who hails from the Cheesehead country of the upper midwest... (more)

Subscribe

Receive future articles by Robert Meyer: Click here

Latest articles

 

Alan Keyes
Why de facto government (tyranny) is replacing the Constitution (Apr. 2015)

Stephen Stone
Will Obama be impeached now that Republicans control both houses of Congress? (Nov. 2014)

Cliff Kincaid
Obama/Trump back Russian invasion of Syria

Madeline Crabb
A result of rejecting God – socialism

Jerry Newcombe
The irony of banning God from the public square

Tim Dunkin
What do you do when the government loses its legitimacy?

Russ J. Alan
Can Ted Cruz win with 3rd place in New Hampshire?

Robert Meyer
"Making a Murderer" documentary shows the power of advocacy journalism

Bryan Fischer
Constitution prohibits NASA from banning Jesus

Curtis Dahlgren
Presidents' Month or Black History Month? Who says so?

Michael Bresciani
Top twelve reasons not to give the GOP nomination to Donald Trump

Judie Brown
Assisted suicide: an American state of mind

Donald Hank
Security conscious Americans entrust the most vital security task of all to amateurs

Ellis Washington
Trump, Jeb and eminent domain
  More columns

Cartoons


Michael Ramirez
More cartoons

RSS feeds

News:
Columns:

Columnists

Matt C. Abbott
Chris Adamo
Russ J. Alan
Bonnie Alba
Jamie Freeze Baird
Chuck Baldwin
Kevin J. Banet
J. Matt Barber
. . .
[See more]

Sister sites