Don't Punish the Desire for Wealth?

There has been a lot of conversation lately about Obama's tax plan that has inspired the battle cry of "punishing the people who are successful". Now, it's been argued that a tax break for those who earn less than $250,000 per household, or $200,000 per unmarried individual per year is in some way telling people not to be successful, and not to earn a lot of money. By "punishing" those who do earn that much money per year or more, the de facto result is a push for mediocrity in the other income brackets.

This is a silly notion, for a few reasons.

First of all, very few US households bring in $250,000 per year or more, according to Factcheck those households account for about 2 - 3.1 percent of the population.

For simplicity, we'll just focus on the over-$250,000 group. Those reporting adjusted gross income of more than $250,000 to the IRS are projected to make up 2 percent of households next year, when the new president will take office.[...]Joint returns with more than $250,000 adjusted gross income and single returns with more than $125,000 adjusted gross income together are estimated to make up 3.1 percent of households next year.

In a capitalist economy such as the US, the economic hierarchy is set up in "classes" , or income brackets. In order for a capitalist economy to work properly, all of the economic brackets must be filled by the appropriate ratio of people.

If everyone earned what the top earners did, who would be left to man the factories, clean the schools, and sweep the streets? Not everyone can earn top dollar, and, if companies opted to pay out top dollar for even the most rudimentary jobs, than the prices of products, and cost of living expenses would rise accordingly, and those earning $250,000 per year would then remain in the same economic bracket as they had been in previously, because the top earners would be paid proportionately more than them.

Now, this doesn't mean that some people can't move up the economic ladder, but it does mean that very few can move up that ladder without toppling the entire economic structure. As soon as one class emerges into a new class, another group immediately takes their old position. So, it would stand to reason that the only thing that is actually standing in the way of people trying to be successful, is the economic structure of capitalism.

Reason number two, who says that bringing in under $250,000 per year isn't successful? A household with a $200,000 per year income is living a pretty gosh darn comfy life.

So too, are those bringing in $100,000 per year. or even less, if the family isn't struggling to get by, and have little desire to make more money.

Are people trying to insinuate that those who are living comfortably at their current incomes are lazy? Are they trying to say they aren't successful? Has it ever occurred to anyone that making boat loads of money isn't the be-all, end-all goal of many people?

If a family is comfortable at their current income, and considers their life to be a success, and have no need to make $250,000 per year or more, what negative influence will a tax break have on them? They are already uninspired by the glorious pursuit of enormous wealth. They don't need it, they don't want it, and not taxing those who do make that much more than them will not inspire them to go out and try it.

Let's face it, a very small percentage of Americans actually make that much money. A quarter of a million dollars a year is a lot of money, much more than most realize. It's much more than most of actually need - no matter what lottery winning fantasies we may have.

The argument that this tax plan will somehow reduce aspirations and goals is a fallacy. Those who want to make that much money will make it and more, no matter what tax plan is thrown their way. They aren't going to throw away the lavish lifestyle they have become accustomed to just to avoid taxes. And those who don't earn it aren't going to try and earn less, either. Nor will they be any more uninspired to earn more than they already are.

It's just the silliest idea I've seen in a while.

But what about the tax plan? Why does this Anarchist support it? Quite frankly, taxes run this country. It funds the government, the programs, the schools, roads, and military. So we do need taxes, however, the economy is lagging and so we need an infusion of purchase power.

Who purchases more products, the upper 3 percent, or the rest of the country? Well, it's those earning under $250,000 and more than the poverty threshold that purchase enough goods, over the span of about 200 million people, that make the economic gears grind. 200 million multiple purchases beats 10 million purchases every time. The upper class elites can only purchase so many goods, and often times are not making purchases in plain Jane retail stores and franchise chains. The upper echelon are not making daily stops to the local McDonald's and Walmart. They aren't shopping at Macy's, Target, and JC Penny. They may be helping the Audi and BMW sales go up, but they aren't buying used cars at the local car dealership.

It's those of use who need to purchase things regularly, at lower prices, from chain stores that actually help keep businesses afloat, not the wealthy. SO if they can't help keep the economy up by purchasing things, they can certainly help by paying a bit more into the tax system.

That way, we're all helping by playing to our strengths. The lower 95 percentile will help keep the economy up by purchasing things with the money they will have left over from the tax break, and the wealthy can add a bit to the pot by way of taxes, since they can't purchase enough to do it on their own. We can't simply give everyone a break, because that money needs to come from somewhere. And we can't raise everyone's taxes because taxes aren't the only part of the solution that needs to be addressed. And we can't keep it the same as it is because someone, somewhere, needs to have enough expendable income to make the purchases that will help out the economy.

This is the only logical solution. And the argument that it punishes people, or inspires other to be lazy is ludicrous.