What motivates the tax-and-spend crowd? Why do they want high tax rates and a big welfare state?
The most charitable answer is that they don’t want anyone to suffer from poverty and they mistakenly think big government can solve problems.
But there’s another answer that may be more accurate.
As Margaret Thatcher observed about three decades ago, it seems that many folks on the left are primarily motivated by jealousy and resentment against their successful neighbors.
I realize I’m making an ugly accusation. But in my defense, I’m simply reporting what they write. Or what they admit to pollsters.
And now we have another example. Christine Emba of the Washington Post opined earlier this year that politicians should somehow put a ceiling on how much wealth any American can create.
The most shocking thing about ProPublica’s extensive report on the leaked tax returns of the super-rich wasn’t what the report contained — it was the fact that we’re barely shocked anymore. …we, as a society, let them do it. …every billionaire is a policy failure. But more than that, every billionaire is a failure of our own moral imagination. …Should we tax capital gains at a higher rate? Raise the corporate tax rate? Create a wealth tax? (I’d vote yes to all three.) But these debates are small bore. …Instead of debating tweaks at the edges of our tax system, what we should be…focused less on what is “allowed”… Such a philosophy already exists. It’s called limitarianism. …Just as there is a poverty line under which we agree that no one should fall, limitarianism holds that one can construct a “wealth line” over which no one should rise, and that the world would be better off for it.
Ms. Emba doesn’t explain how her “limitarian” policy might be implemented.
But since she’s embraced a wealth tax, the simple way to achieve her goal would be adding a 100 percent rate to that levy for any taxpayers who create so much wealth for society that they wind up with assets of $1 billion.
In case you think I’m joking, here’s part of her conclusion.
…the prospect of having “only” $999 million dollars would not stop innovators in their tracks. And even if it did stop some, would the trade-off be so bad?
I’ll close this column by answering her rhetorical question.
The trade-off wouldn’t just be bad, it would be terrible. A wealth tax (or any other possible policy to achiever her “limitarian” utopia) necessarily would reduce saving and investment.
And that would mean less innovation, slower (or negative) productivity growth, and wage stagnation (or decline).
Which is a good excuse to recycle my Eighth Theorem of Government.
Simply stated, here’s little reason to think that the folks who hate their successful neighbors actually care about their poor neighbors.
P.S. The New York Times also has published a column embracing the resentment-fueled limitarian notion.
P.P.S. Plenty of folks on the left explicitly argue that government has first claim on income. And that you’re the beneficiary of a favor if you get to keep some of what you earn. Once again, I’m not joking.
