Should We Pity the Rich?
| Fri Mar. 6, 2009 11:44 AM PST
I found this little gem on National Review online via Oliver Willis. I think it says a lot about modern conservative thought. Stick with me all the way through; I think it's worth it.
The doctors, lawyers, engineers, executives, serious small-business owners, top salespeople, and other professionals and entrepreneurs who make this country run work considerably harder than pretty much anyone else (including most of the chattering class, and all politicians). They are not robber barons, or trust-fund babies, or plutocrats, or even celebrities….
No group of people contribute more to their community. And now the president, who followed a path sort of like that, and who claims that his wife's former six-figure income was a result of precisely such qualifications and efforts, is demonizing them. More problematically, he is penalizing their success and giving them very clear incentives to ratchet back on productivity.
So, what happens when the heart surgeons, dentists, litigators, and people who employ 10 or 20 other people in their mid-size businesses decide that they don't want to pay for the excessive, pointless spending that the president finds so compelling? Instapundit speculates on people "going John Galt." I think golf — a time-intensive sport that the hard-working have eschewed for the past decade or two because it took too long — will make a comeback.
Reactions:
Continues Below
Continued From Above
(1) By assuming that "heart surgeons, dentists, litigators" will work less when they are taxed more, the writer ascribes to all high-achievers absurd objectivist motivations. For her worldview to hold together, she has to presuppose that people achieve exclusively to reap material gain. But in reality that's not true. Heart surgeons, for example, presumably went through the hell of medical school and work long stress-filled hours in order to become wealthy, but also because they believe in serving society. And because they seek to give something back, they may be more amenable than most to shouldering a greater tax burden for the good of others.
(2) The underlying the-rich-are-more-virtuous thinking here, which could be directly out of a Jane Austen novel, is out of place in today's conservativism. Didn't the writer get the memo? Sarah Palin went to 1,000 colleges and her kids are kinda-but-not-really going to school. This is a good thing; it gives them an everyday horse sense and helps them avoid the trappings of elitism. You are not supposed to exalt learning, hard work, and achievement in today's GOP. Those things are to be associated with arugula-eating and and Europe-emulating, and dismissed.
(3) Does anyone really believe that a successful lawyer is going to say, "I was going to continue applying myself as I have for the past eight years under the laissez faire economic policies of the Bush Administration, but fuck it. Obama is going to tax me slightly more, so I think I'm going to blow off my afternoon meetings and play some golf"? I have a hard time believe those that "work considerably harder than pretty much anyone else" will submerge their work ethic that easily.
You know what this is, in truth? It's class warfare through Ayn Rand's looking glass. In a crisis when even the wealthy are facing precariousness, and the prospect of losing everything, a strong social safety net that protects everyone in their times of need is even more vital. History will judge our actions in this period not by how we treated those that have the riches to survive, but by how we treated those that almost didn't.
Comments
Your last point was the most
Submitted by David (not verified) on Fri Mar. 6, 2009 2:54 PM PST.
Your last point was the most important, I think, and least often mentioned for some reason. To think that a wealthy, successful person is going to be demotivated to become more successful just because the rewards aren't quite as good as they used to be is ridiculous.
So, that is sort of the
Submitted by Lefty Larueaux (not verified) on Fri Mar. 6, 2009 6:03 PM PST.
So, that is sort of the American version of noblesse oblige? Screw that. I'll call it class warfare and I have no problem at all with the term class warfare. The middle class has taken it up the ying-yang for the last two decades. If the wealthy and well connected don't like it, we'll take it from them anyway.
Not demonizing, not penalizing, just equalizing
Submitted by Rick (not verified) on Sat Mar. 7, 2009 1:32 AM PST.
I personally haven't heard anything from Obama that I would characterize as "demonizing" the upper-middle class; he saves that for the Madoff wannabes and fat cats. Nor do I believe he is "penalizing" this economic class, although it is arguable as to whether the top salesman or surgeon works harder than the most industrious coal miners, janitors, etc. Work ethic runs across class boundaries; some people are lazy and others bust their ass to perform.
The fact is, as Obama has stated many times, that these people can afford to give a little more without losing their shirt or their house, whereas the industrious janitor is in serious danger of becoming jobless and perhaps homeless. Are we really willing to let that happen just so we can keep our skybox at the baseball stadium instead of sitting in the bleachers?
My wife and I are just under the 250k mark and we feel very fortunate right now to have our health, our jobs and our house. Many other hard-working people right now are not so lucky and we know that by helping them, we are helping ourselves in the long run. It's just common sense, common decency and common compassion for our fellow Americans.
Lastly, F--k "productivity." Seriously. People need to stop working 80-hour weeks and start appreciating life outside the office. Maybe a little more golf is healthy for the heart, both physically and spiritually. Be happy that you can afford the golf clubs at all, because the janitor where you work probably can't.
Response to Rick
Submitted by Jonathan Stein on Sat Mar. 7, 2009 8:02 AM PST.
Rick, you are spot on in many ways.
"I personally haven't heard anything from Obama that I would characterize as "demonizing" the upper-middle class..."
Agreed.
"My wife and I are just under the 250k mark and we feel very fortunate right now to have our health, our jobs and our house. Many other hard-working people right now are not so lucky and we know that by helping them, we are helping ourselves in the long run. It's just common sense, common decency and common compassion for our fellow Americans."
Right on.
"People need to stop working 80-hour weeks and start appreciating life outside the office..."
Yup.
Appreciate you sharing your thoughts. I'm posting a couple more below.
---
Jonathan Stein
I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don't know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.
Sarah
http://www.craigslistdecoded.info
The importance of the marginal tax dollar
Submitted by Jonathan Stein on Sat Mar. 7, 2009 8:15 AM PST.
I think a lot of people who say, "I'm making an upper middle income living but I'm not going to push further because my taxes are going to go way up" just don't understand that we have a tax system that taxes the marginal dollar. (I'm assuming, because I've never actually met anyone like this. I take the Right's word that they exist.)
I probably don't have to explain this to the tax-paying citizens who read this blog (unless Tim Geithner is kicking around here) but here's the deal. Let's say Obama goes with three tax brackets: 15% tax rate for everyone under $150,000, 30% for everyone under $250,000, and a whopping socialist European-style 50% for everyone over $250,000. (Nevermind that in times of crisis, it's been way way way more: http://www.tompaine.com/articles/shared_sacrifice_shared_glory.php.)
Let's say our buddy Joe the Plumber gets that plumbing company he's always wanted, and he's pulling down $300,000 a year. Is his $300,000 going to get taxed at 50%? Is he going to pay $150,000 in federal taxes? No.
His first $150,000 is taxed at 15%. That's $22,500. His next $100,000 is taxed at 30%. That's $30,000. And his final $50,000 -- that's where the big 50% rate kicks in, for an additional $25,000. Joe's total taxes: $$77,500. That's roughly 26% of his total $300,000.
Now, look. I know that the 50% tax rate on Joe's last $50,000 is pretty high. (NB: Obama has not proposed a 50% top-end tax rate. This is just for illustration.) But Joe still kept $25,000 of the money that he made in the top tax bracket. Are we supposed to believe that Joe will decline to make any money at all in that tax bracket -- essentially turn down 25 grand -- because of higher taxes? That's what people like the National Review writer are arguing will happen.
As you can probably guess, I don't buy it.
---
Jonathan Stein
Thanks
Submitted by Paul Miller on Mon Mar. 9, 2009 4:47 AM PDT.
For that illustration of how the marginal taxing works - I've never had a clear picture until now. I think this was a good and timely article, Jonathan. It has always galled me to hear people protest that a tax to the rich that I might think is fair, is, to some, just a travesty. There is a basic amount of money that each person needs to survive in this country. That amount goes up in tiers from mere survival - renting a studio, rice and bean meals, bus to work - to comfortable living - small house, steaks on Friday, maybe a car if needed - and continues to rise in these tiers until you have the person with seven houses, two yachts, Chateaubriand and champagne breakfasts, etc. Now the economy is in the tank because, just as before the Great Depression, too much uneven distribution of wealth creates a crisis, and something has to be done. Maybe you can't afford the seventh house because of your increased taxes - are you sure the other six won't still make you feel pretty important? After all, I think the point of the new tax agenda is really just to level the playing field back out again. Under Bush, the vast majority of all economic expansion went to the top 5% while the rest of the nation's incomes stagnated or dropped. Isn't this just fairness at last playing out as it should have all along? Oh, and, hey, Ritchie Rich, maybe this is the universe trying to help you realize you've substituted extreme wealth for some internal sense of inadequacy and now you have a chance to get real. Just a thought - no charge.
Won't new healthcare options
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat Mar. 7, 2009 4:08 PM PST.
Won't new healthcare options, especially good, single-payer universal healthcare, take some of the financial burden off many of these "high achievers" and their mid-sized businesses, anyway? They might be paying more taxes, but they'd also be paying less (or nothing) for their employees healthcare.
Won't new healthcare options
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat Mar. 7, 2009 4:10 PM PST.
Won't new healthcare options, especially good, single-payer universal healthcare, take some of the financial burden off many of these "high achievers" and their mid-sized businesses, anyway? They might be paying more taxes, but they'd also be paying less (or nothing) for their employees healthcare.
Also, your CAPTCHA spam-catching device is very hard to read.
Word harder? Hardly.
Submitted by CrakeWasRight on Fri Mar. 27, 2009 10:25 AM PDT.
The notion that lawyers and engineers work harder than "most of the chattering class." Is absurd. I am both an engineer and a lawyer. I worked as a laborer in a coal mine while I was at university. My life is considerably easier now.
Those professionals who spend inordinate time at the office are either trying to escape from difficulties at home, or are under qualified for their positions.
Ratchet back on productivity in response to tax increases? I suppose the author means spending more time browsing the internet and less time actually working.
More thoughts on rich, competitiveness, etc.
Submitted by SocraticGadfly (not verified) on Fri Mar. 27, 2009 12:35 PM PDT.
Jonathan, Instawingnut misses several other points.
One, for the rich, often the money isn't about money itself. It's about money as a marker of status/power/success. As long as a rising top-end tax rate gives an equal haircut, you still have the same competitiveness.
Second, the competitiveness factor. I think of Harry Truman's comment about a four-ulcer man on an eight-ulcer job. These folks will still brag about 80-hr weeks, or stock daytrading while on vacation, etc.
Third, there's better ways to relax than play more golf. If I had that kind of scratch, I'd be buying more symphony tix.
Actual rich only so by Power and/or Guile, not actual work.
Submitted by FreeDem on Fri Mar. 27, 2009 7:52 PM PDT.
The doctors, lawyers, engineers, serious small-business owners, are rarely among the actual rich. They have special skills or knowledge that gives them power in negotiating a larger percentage of the goodies that the collective of all the people in the company produce. But real wealth in tens or hundreds of millions of dollars can only be achieved with tremendous power or tremendous guile. But in no case is actual work the measure of the income.
Any person in the business world can tell you of brilliant hard working folk who never move up because they lack the political skills to use that achievement for power, and any number of hotshots with far more political skill than knowledge of the job who happily step on the less political on their way to the top. Total honesty is not a trait that gets you to the top, certainly not in the Feralized world so exposed buy the current crash.
In a Socialized Society such narcissism is not tolerated, like the Socialized Child, one must always look to the quality of the result for everyone, and realize that such cooperation actually results in a higher quality of life for everyone, including each individual. The structure of the arrangement is immaterial, and the exact nature of how transparency and accountability is acquired is certainly a matter for much debate and few "always right" answers, but any society bent on Feral Social Darwinism will accomplish only making itself extinct.
Socialized Society
Submitted by CrakeWasRight on Mon Mar. 30, 2009 10:22 AM PDT.
FreeDem, the concept of a socialized society is admirable, but I think that most people would still choose to add another sheep to the pasture, regardless of the overall detriment. It is hard to look past the individual benefit, especially for the working class. I think that the concept of the welfare state is as close as the U.S. will get to that, but many are vehemently opposed to the taxes and social programs that we already have.
