The New Clarion

The New Clarion header image 2

Would You Please Take Control of My Life?

September 26th, 2011 by Myrhaf · 7 Comments · Uncategorized

I heard the clip on the radio. I can’t force myself to watch the video. A smarmy rich liberal asks Obama, “Would you please raise my taxes?”

So why don’t these rich leftists start a campaign to get the wealthy to volunteer to give more money to the federal government? They don’t need to wait for the state to confiscate it.

They don’t do it, I believe, because there is something more fundamental than money at stake here. They want state control of the individual. This is not about more or less money in the US treasury, it’s about liberty vs. power.

Should the individual be in control of his own life for his own selfish ends? Or should the state force the individual to sacrifice for the collective?

The smarmy rich liberal feels uncomfortable without chains tying him down. It’s too bad his opposition to freedom will have us all in fetters.

7 Comments so far ↓

  • Katrina

    I once asked a top-tax-bracket guy who believed taxes should be raised why he didn’t just give more taxes voluntarily himself. I told him I realize that he would still want involuntary taxes raised on the rich because not everyone would pay voluntarily, and he had some reason for thinking that wasn’t fair, but why wait for someone to force you, personally, if you think the right thing to do is give more of your money to the government?

    If I remember correctly, his answer seemed to have a couple of sides to it. One was that in some sense it “wouldn’t count” unless everyone was doing it. Maybe he felt the marginal amount he’d be paying wasn’t worth the effort to sum up and cut a check for, I don’t know. Another point was that he gave to charity with the excess money, but he’d rather give less to the charities he supported if it meant getting everyone to pay more in taxes. But primarily I got the impression that he really hadn’t thought about it.

    I think it’s a knee-jerk reaction to say taxes need to be raised, even if it’s your own taxes, but the thought stops there. Your question is a good one, but it will never occur to most of these people because they just aren’t thinking that much.

  • Steve D.

    Hmm… He would rather pay more taxes than give to charities. That says it all, as far as I’m concerned.

  • Inspector

    Katrina’s story made me think of this old gem:

    There were two men…Boris and Ivan. Both poor farmers, struggling to get by. The only difference between them was that Boris had a cow and Ivan did not. Boris would share the milk with Ivan every week. It was one of their few pleasures in life.

    One day while walking in the country, a genie appeared to Ivan and offered him just one wish.

    Ivan said, “I wish Boris’ cow would die.”

  • Michael

    ”The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich . . . . It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.”
    •”It must always be remembered, however, that it is the luxuries, and not the necessary expense of the inferior ranks of people, that ought ever to be taxed.“
    •Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations

    Second, this warren buffet quote

    •”I personally think that society is responsible for a very significant percentage of what I’ve earned. If you stick me down in the middle of Bangladesh or Peru or someplace, you’ll find out how much this talent is going to produce in the wrong kinds of soil.”

    Third, societies do not function well if there is massive inequality. Most researchers of democracy argue that inequality is incompatible with democracy. See Robert Jackman or Edward Muller

    this is what democratic decision making is all about making that determination. the IRS or govt. bureaucrat bogeyman is irrelevant because they should carry out what we decide.

    the more you benefit the more you should pay. that is not happening in America. an even though everyone gets roads, companies use the roads more than I do. wealthy people get better roads (their potholes are filled faster) better police protection etc this stuff isn’t even a debate as we know from studies of response times by police. also there are things like airports that are paid for with tax dollars and many people have never flown. the museum district is funded by taxes so the wealthy can have a place to socialize. there are many houstonians who have never been to the MFA

  • Andrew Dalton

    Michael –

    That is not an argument; it is a series of assertions.

  • Inspector

    Further, it doesn’t seem to address the original post in any real way. If rich liberals don’t feel they are paying enough, they can pay more – they don’t have to advocate mass confiscation. That they do says a lot. They desire state control of the individual.

    That seems to me to be the main point of the post. Did you have any commentary on that, Michael?

  • Michael

    Oh my apologies, I was supposed to paste this elsewhere. Wrong thread I guess