A classic liberal out of water

The reason it has been so long since I wrote anything here is mainly because I have been too angry (frustrated, maybe?) to write. It's not getting better but I cannot keep it inside any longer. It feels like the election of Barack Obama has emboldened the liberals* to grow increasingly more outrageous day by day.

Again, I am so frustrated I am not sure where to start. The first thing that pops into my head is what I heard on the radio** Tuesday afternoon. The host was hyping the typical "tax the rich" rhetoric which always makes my blood boil. However he actually made what I thought was a well-reasoned argument. He said that by raising personal income tax rate on the wealthy it would spur an increase in the money invested in businesses; both in capital improvements and human resources. Despite my resistance I thought there might be some logic to this. His argument was based on the idea that a business has a couple of options with what to do with profits. They can take the profits out as personal income or they can reinvest them in the business.*** By raising the personal income tax he postulates that business owners would be less likely to take the distributions out of the company. I admit he had me fooled for a minute until what came next: by reinvesting the money in the company they can avoid taxes altogether. That's right, when a company spends money (in most cases) it comes out of their pre-tax dollars. This is one of the reasons you hear all the time how the "wealthy avoid paying taxes" - because they instead spend the money legally on their businesses. So I was quickly awakened from this hazy dreamworld by the logical contradictions:

1. If the business owners really are encouraged to spend profits in this manner, then the additional taxes will raise NO ADDITIONAL tax revenue. The politicians say they do this to raise the money they need for all of their elaborate new social programs, but the fact is the money would never actually get taxed. In fact you could argue that tax revenue would really drop for this very reason. This is the effect the Laffer Curve illustrated. This is the argument of Reaganomics. This is what sane, intelligent people have been trying to make you understand for decades.
2. I would be shocked if there were gaggles of business owners out there who are really so dumb as to neglect the long range success of their companies by not making these capital investments when needed. After all it is hard to get where they are without proper long range strategies. Who are we to tell them when such expenditures are necessary. This radio host claimed he was once a business owner and this is how he did it. Well, so what? He should know that all businesses are different. You cannot adopt a one-size-fits-all strategy. Even if 99.9% of businesses needed that push, we have to respect the 0.1% that doesn't. Yes I made those numbers up.
   Going slightly off-topic: Democrats seem to be lacking the gene that allows for long-term planning. They always present programs that sound good in theory at first glance but don't hold up down the line. They can always point to the one life they will make better; they completely ignore the countless others who will be harmed. It sounds good for us all to have health care. You can go find a family without healthcare and demonstrate how their lives will improve. They don't show the countless others who would have to go without common treatments because the waiting lists are too long. They don't show the numerous drugs and treatments that won't be discovered because they've eliminated the profit motive for research. They don't show the countless other things that I don't even know about because following an immoral course of action always has unintended negative consequences. But the Dems seem to be unwilling or unable to consider the long term. And I guess they think that's what the American public wants. Or they think you are too stupid to see through it. After this past election I am afraid to answer which...
3. Actually more related to item #2. If the incentive is to spend the money on the company tax free instead of taking the taxed personal income, then the incentive exists regardless of the personal income rate. Whether the personal income rate is "high" or "low" it is still cheaper to pay zero.
4. Taxation, especially income tax, is 100% immoral. Taking property without permission is theft by any definition. No matter what else you say there is nothing that can change this fundamental fact. It does not matter if you think the victim deserves it. It doesn't matter if you give to billions of homeless starving African children with AIDS. Wrong is wrong. You cannot achieve moral ends through immoral means.
   

So I beg of you to keep a critical eye open. You don't have to be wealthy to denounce Robin Hood. Just as you don't have to be black to oppose slavery; you don't have to be gay to oppose "Prop 8"; you don't have to be Jewish to see the evil in the holocaust. It might help to be human to fight for human rights.

*By "liberals" I am referring of course to today's "Robin Hood" liberals like the President-elect and others in the Democratic Party. Their "ideals" are a far cry from the classic liberalism which founded this country and to which any rational, freedom-loving human should subscribe.

**92.7 FM for the curious

***There are probably other options, but having never owned a profitable business what do I know?

----------------
Now playing: White Zombie - More Human than Human
via FoxyTunes