Funny notion of fairness
By Staff
February 8,2004
So say, in varying degrees, this year's crop of Democratic Presidential candidates. Having one group of voters pay no taxes while requiring others to pay more is the illogical concept of fairness used when politicians know that those making less than one hundred thousand a year greatly outnumber those making more.
Tax policy
In the language of tax policy, "fair" is an interesting word. My wife and I would certainly benefit from the Democrat's tax plan, but that doesn't make it fair.
Wouldn't a fair system be one in which everyone were treated and taxed equally, regardless of their marital status, income, mortgage interest and number of children?
Few voters really want taxes to be fair. Human nature causes most of us to want the tax codes to be written in a manner that benefits us regardless of whether it is fair or not.
Politicians who use the word "fair" to describe any system other than a flat tax based upon a percentage of net income are stretching it.
So, why would multi-millionaire candidates like John Kerry and John Edwards propose raising the taxes on the rich? Do they feel guilty about having so much but cannot bring themselves to give it to charity and need the federal government to forcibly tax some away? Nothing prevents those who disagree with George Bush's tax cuts from making voluntary contributions to the U.S. Treasury over and above their legal tax burden, but I have yet to hear of a single member of Congress doing so.
Or do politicians, most of whom were born with golden spoons in their mouths, think that by promising to rob from the rich to give to the poor they will show that they "get it" and can relate to commoners like us?
I was amused to hear the chairman of the Democratic National Committee (dressed in a navy blue business suit and tie) during an interview this week describe himself as a "hip-hop" kind of guy. Yeah. And I'm Puff Daddy.
Creating dependents
For decades, Ivy League Robin Hoods like Ted Kennedy and John Kerry have built the Democratic base by creating more and more federal government dependents. They're not going to come right out and say, "Vote for me and I'll make sure you can stay home and collect a check paid for by those saps who get up early and go to work every day." But each expansion of the federal entitlement system does just that.
Take the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) for example. Tax accountants have told me that folks come into their offices in the Fall to find out when they need to stop working for that year so that they can collect an EITC check.
Our tax code effectively acts as a disincentive by encouraging folks at the poverty level to try to earn under a target amount in order to receive more money back via refund than they actually ever paid in taxes.
Let's call this what it is. A refund given to any citizen that is greater than the sum of his paid taxes is not a refund, but an outright gift paid for by his fellow citizens. Using the word "earned" to describe such a gift is as false as using the term "contribution" to describe the extraction of such gifts from our paychecks on penalty of imprisonment.
When we voluntarily obey our Lord's command to practice charity, it strengthens the bonds of brotherhood and community and reminds us that every good thing comes from above. But nothing good comes when politicians seize our wages to dispense charity for political purposes through the bureaucratic arm of the federal government.
Perhaps those who so vehemently insist on separating the church from the state should take a similar interest in removing the state from the charitable duties of the church.
Craig Ziemba is a pilot who lives in Meridian.
His book, "Boondoggle," is available at Meridian area Bible Bookstores.
