I've written before on the different types of hearts my husband and I have. I tend to want to stick up for the underdog, while he's much more stoic and, sometimes practical.
Our "noisy conversation" tonight started with a news story regarding the elimination of the estate tax on estates of $1,000,000 or more. Kevin's stand is that this tax SHOULD be eliminated, as it is unfair to disproportionately tax the wealthy (Kevin, feel free to leave a correction, should I misquote you here). My argument is that money buys power and the extremely wealthy (those who own those $1,000,000 estates) abuse that power. Those who can afford $1,000,000 estates likely CAN afford the added tax. Since I rarely see that money go towards more than extreme self-indulgence, there SHOULD be an added tax to keep the extremely wealthy in check.
That story aside, I'm bothered by those who have so much money they don't know what to do with it. Those who will build several multi-million dollar estates, as tax shelters, and then not use them are, to me, cheating and abusing the system. Kevin's next question to me (because there's always another one to keep me on my toes) was if I then thought that money should be directed towards charities. The simple answer, I suppose, is yes. Not to every charity. Because the reality is there are legitimate charities and there are those that do a great job of APPEARING legitimate. And I don't think saying, "The wealthy should donate more to charity" is really a simple, no-strings-attached answer either. I do wish that those with money to spare WOULD be more generous with giving back to society. We (my husband and I) are firmly situated in middle class society. We both work 40+ work weeks in jobs we hope will have long-lasting effects, jobs that we pride ourselves on. Upon our marriage and the combining of our finances, we had to make a decision regarding to where and how much we would donate to church and charity. It's something that we've stuck by, even in months where things were a little tight.
Meanwhile, I look at various sport, television, and movie celebrities. The basketball stars who make more in a single game than I'll make in 10 years of work. The stars of the hit Friends , who made news when they managed to get $1,ooo,ooo per episode. I wonder, how much are they giving back? Not the type of donation where you get a media storm together and donate $500,000 to SPCA, thus ensuring that your face, cuddled up next to a cute puppy's, is splashed across every newspaper in the country. That's not donation. That's media publicity. I'm talking about a selfless, no strings attached donation.
If I felt that the money saved by the wealthy on a tax break would go for a good cause, I'd support it. But when too often the money is used to buy excuses or a way out of trouble, then I stand firm. There is a price to be paid for amassed fortunes.
Thursday, February 02, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
As you know, my opinion is that the government should be in the business of ensuring everyone enjoys freedom in equal opportunity. When some group gets a "boost" or another has to pay "extra" taxes, that's not equal opportunity for all.
We can't expect the wealthy will give more to charity, or certainly can't require them to. But keeping the money in the private sector is vastly superior to sending it to the fraud, waste, and abuse of the government. Market forces determine every salary, from entertainers to educators. If teacher salaries are too low, no one will teach. If entertainer salaries are too high, ticket prices are too high, and no one will go to the game. (This is slowly becoming the downfall of the NBA).
The argument, not necessarily made by you but still commonly made, is altruistic but flawed. It says that because society does not accept that some should be poor, it also does not accept that some can be rich. The argument follows that the rich have a moral obligation to the poor and as a normative question should be taxed heavily to provide for the poor. Thus you get things like progressive taxes. The government exists to provide for the common good, like defense and trade; NOT to redistribute wealth from the wealthy to the poor.
The bottom line: Government should not be in the business of regulating behavior. Progressive taxes and estate taxes punish the innovators and dreamers who happened to profit from their hard work. The relationship between hard work and reward forms a cornerstone of capitalism and free markets. Take away the incentive and your innovators walk away. Knowing you can profit from your hard work is part of what keeps America on the cutting edge. Take away that incentive through wrong taxes and we begin to lose our edge.
One million dollars is a middle class sized estate. Many people live in a house that appreciates them into millionaire-hood.
Family farms are often well over a million dollars.
Class envy is never classy.
Post a Comment