Calpundit is a fairly bright and articulate guy, whom I generally disagree with. I don't tend to disagree with him in the sense that I think he's a raving looney, as he's clearly not. But this is a complete load of crap.
First, shall we start getting into cutting up a person's net worth by who is most responsible for them achieving it? Why stop with the country? What about Bill Gates' parents who raised him and gave him the genetic part of his abilities? What about the teachers (public or otherwise) who taught him things? What about the authors whose books he read, and his business partners, and his investors and his customers? What about he himself? Even if we could get into determining what part of a person's inherent abilities, education/schooling, influence of friends and associates and so forth contributed to that person's wealth, why would we want to tax them according to that?
And then, let's apply Kevin's reasoning to the other end of the scale. I have a brother who is impoverished. He has no job and has never had one, except for short stints. He has no savings or other resources to draw upon, other than his family. Yet he has a car, a place to live, a TV, food, access to medical care at the emergency room, and is in many ways better off than an indigent person in Pakistan. Should he therefore be required to pay a large percentage of his income in taxes, presuming he ever gets one, because he has more than he would if he were born in Pakistan? If not, then why should Bill Gates have to do so? If so, then hasn't Kevin's point been totally negated, in that my brother is not wealthy in any way, shape or form? By the way, he gets neither unemployment nor any other form of money from the government. By Kevin's logic, should not Bill Gates be sending my brother a check?
I will grant Kevin's proposition in one way: Mr. Gates should not be paying taxes to Pakistan's government, as he earns his money in the US. Therefore, such taxes as he is required to pay should go to the American government.
Posted by Jeff at May 21, 2003 04:08 PM | Link CosmosThe whole premise of his point is bogus. First of all, Warren Buffet and his secretary may pay the same percentage of income, but Mr. Buffet (and Bill Gates) is paying much, MUCH more money in taxes than his secretary. They already carry a larger burden; taxing at ever increasing percentages creates an ever disproportionate burden on them. That is immoral on principle. I don't mind them paying a larger sum than those who are less successful, but they shouldn't be unduly punished with higher tax RATES simply because they are more succesful. We shouldn't punish success.
I don't want Mr. Gates to send me a check. Let him keep it, use it to create more jobs, putting more money into the economy, creating more jobs at other businesses, putting even more money into the economy, creating even more jobs, etc.
Posted by: Brian on May 22, 2003 02:22 AMLet him burn in the fiery depths of hell for the abominations he has created.
Especially Windows Me
Posted by: Turdboy on May 21, 2004 11:54 AM