Tag Archives: the rich

Why Taxing the Rich More is Economic Suicide

Unemployment

CNN just recently admitted that the top 10% of Americans pay 70% of the income taxes. This means that our tax system has nothing to do with being “fair”, and everything to do with voters thinking that the rich can be juiced, and then we can get prosperity by just taxing our way to wealth.

It doesn’t work. The reason is simple. The top 10% don’t consume 70% of the wealth. They don’t own 70% of houses. They don’t own 70% of new cars. Their consumption is only a small fraction of what they produce. So who consumes the rest? You and I do. That’s because capitalism requires that rich people produce far more than they consume — that way we can consume more.

Rich people are vital to prosperity. When an economy grows, it creates more rich people. This isn’t bad. This is a good thing. The goal isn’t some kind of weird “equal” system — the goal is prosperity. In the rest of this article, let’s look closely at how the “evil rich” help others in capitalism — even before giving to charity.

The idea that it’s fine to tax people who are billionaires because they don’t “need” it is dumb and misses the point. They’re right — a guy worth $50 billion bucks isn’t going to need 5,000,000 swimming pools. He doesn’t need 1,000,000 luxury private islands.

That’s why he DOESN’T SPEND the money buying all of those random luxuries. A couple of huge houses is a minuscule sliver of their money, and increasing taxes won’t stop that consumption. This is why those billionaires “spend” their capital in investments.

Very, very little of a billionaire’s wealth goes to his consumption. The rest stays in productive assets. This means a billionaire tax taxes production and not evil-rich-jerk-consumption like what the Democrats try to argue. This is one of many reasons the “class warfare” notion is absurd. You can’t attack the rich without hurting the poor first. Class warfare doesn’t exist in capitalism, because the two “groups” are not at odds — they both need each other and profit from each other.

So, want to tax a billionaire? Fine, but first understand that he won’t be the one who suffers — you will.

That’s why “capitalist” and “businessman” are typically considered the same — not “capitalist” and “playboy”. Billionaires are producers, wih a slight amount of relative consumption — not the other way around like so many others.

That most leftists miss this is a great example of how economically ignorant and intellectually bankrupt they are.

This is why a tax on the billionaires is the dumbest, worst place to tax, because it hurts us all worse over time while “sticking it to the rich jerk” doesn’t even happen. It’s just an utter failure.

Even if you’re an economic bigot who hates rich people, this is a really dumb way to act on that blind hatred.

Go look at the money management of any multi-billionaire, and you’ll see why they get richer every year — or most years. Their money is at work building the shopping malls, the factories, the stuff that everyone else thinks they’ll “need” once they get used to enjoying them.

Taxing billionaires doesn’t stop them from dining on duck. The only people impacted negatively in terms of “stuff” is everyone else who doesn’t see a mall that would have been built or a cheaper car that could have been financed. The billionaires still have their toys, but the poor have fewer jobs and opportunities.

The Universe, once again, enjoys a cruel joke on those poor socialists who believe they can rob their way to a more materialistic life. If you agree with this article, please share it on Facebook. Doing that will help us grow our message and reach more people.

What Should Libertarians Do About Mitt Romney?

romney the corporatist Mitt Romney is a corporatist. He supports the existence of the Federal Reserve. He supports drastically increasing our military spending. He once gave a speech about shutting down coal plants as governor outside of a coal plant. He is absolutely not a libertarian.

Barack Obama, however, is obviously no better. The valid arguments against Mitt Romney aren’t arguments that Obama can use, because they would be suicide. Barack Obama can’t exactly bring up Ben Bernanke or foreign policy, because they’re so similar in those areas.

Because of this, Obama is simply going to demonize Romney for being rich. He’s going to demonize his investments. This is the simplest reason any self-respecting libertarian should defend Romney from the wrong attacks by Obama, without becoming blind or partisan. This is true for anyone, even if the person being attacked for being “too rich” was George Soros or Michael Bloomberg.

Barack Obama is going to demonize his job as CEO — as an “evil rich man”. He’s going to fabricate some aspects of his attacks, but this should be clear:

Obama’s arguments against Mitt Romney will be for all of the wrong reasons.

And yes, the reasoning behind attacks matter. Reasoning always matters.

The Libertarian Response: Ignore or Defend?

The greatest temptation for the libertarian would be to just look the other way while the Democrats attack Romney. To ignore Obama’s attacks on Romney for being “too” rich. For the attacks on Romney for “outsourcing”.

It would feel good on some level, because few libertarians feel anything but contempt for Romney because he’s, well, absolutely not a libertarian.

I’ve noticed this to some degree on popular “liberty” pages on Facebook. For almost all of them, there is a deathly silence when Obama attacks Romney’s investments, his overseas banking, or his “low” tax rate. This is missing a huge opportunity.

I passionately believe that ignoring the attacks and not defending Romney is the worst thing possible for the liberty movement, because it essentially allows the demonization of the rich to be even more prevalent and without a coherent, principled answer — and the anti-rich rhetoric is the most dangerous rhetoric of all, because the downfall of the honest rich is the downfall of us all.

Why we believe is just as important as what we believe.

In other words, reasoning matters. If someone votes against Romney because he’s rich, that is absolutely not a victory for liberty — that’s economic bigotry and is why Obama is able to destroy so much of this country in the first place.

It’s not, of course, either/or. Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are both fundamentally wrong about an incredible amount of economics and political theory. To be against one does not mean we must be for the other.

Why We Should Defend The Rich

This isn’t just about Romney. This is about the rich overall. When people bash “the 1%”, including many libertarians and anarchists I’ve seen, they are being intellectually lazy. “The 1%” is not meant by them to refer to statists — those are more common than one out of a hundred. It’s not even about people getting government paychecks — that would be more like “the 50%”.

No, when people bash “the 1%”, it’s because they’re taking part in an absurd narrative that a huge portion of the American population — people making pretty good money — are all part of some conspiracy movement and get away with anything, don’t pay much in taxes, and rule over the rest of us.

This is absurd and sheer foolishness. It’s simply age-old anti-rich bigotry. It’s about hating the Romneys of the world because of success — it’s about as close to upside-down philosophy as we can get.

And it’s dangerous. And it won’t end with Romney. The rhetoric and the philosophy of anti-wealth and resentment will still be there when Romney is long gone. And it will impact policy, and taxes, and the economy — and everyone will pay for it.

Libertarians Should Fight All Bigotry

If someone says we should vote against Obama because he’s black, they should be ashamed of their ignorance, and hopefully libertarians and conservatives alike will put them in their place.

In the same way and for the same reason, if someone demonizes Romney because he is rich, then they should be ashamed, and libertarians should respond just as strongly as if there was an attack on Obama’s race.

The defense shouldn’t be because they like Romney — but because they know that blind resentment of prosperity is another form of bigotry that is just as divisive and destructive as any other form.

Never forget that politics isn’t just about making people win or lose. Politics is about philosophy. And essentially all of Obama’s philosophy is wrong.

The exact same thing goes for people who hate the rich. This is the ultimate battle for America, because it’s revealing. People who don’t care about the rich are revealing that it’s not equality under natural law that they care about, it’s not the rights of men, it’s not actually property, it’s not even “rights” in general that motivates them — it’s something else.

And libertarian or not, that wrongful motivation is incredibly dangerous and destructive. This is going to be awkward, I know. I’ve made such a big deal about this — because I’ve seen so few defenses of Romney in libertarian circles — that I’ll likely be criticized by those who would rather just ignore the attacks. But that’s wrong, and I will have no part in it.

Here’s to the war against bigotry, no matter who it’s against.

6 Reasons Why I’m a Capitalist

economics booksA couple of months ago, I was with a group of radical anti-capitalists. They thought that government was the answer to life, the universe and everything. They thought that businessmen secretly cheat on their wives and beat their children, whereas the poor starving individual was heroically beaten down by the brutal financial leaders. Capitalists are tyrants and the poor are victims. This was their childishly oversimplified view.

When I announced to them that I was a capitalist, they just gave me a blank stare. This is the ultimate “evil” thing to be, according to almost every Hollywood movie, plenty of churches, and millions of professors around the world. They were simply repeating the same angry arguments they’d heard from others — there was no rational analysis of the pros and cons of capitalism.

“How can you be a capitalist if it’s so evil?”, was the simple question they asked me. The following is a summary of my explanation.

First I defined capitalism as being a simple idea. It’s where the government leaves people alone, enforces contracts, and protects property. It’s when governments don’t try to do business work in a senate committee with people who have never done business. Capitalism is economic liberty.

There are six reasons I like capitalism. They are as follows:

6. I like big business

Restrictive economic policies target big business. No, this doesn’t mean it’s good for the workers. Think about it. Hurting big business hurts the whole business — workers are part of the business.

Capitalism Logo

Every restriction for big business ends up trickling down and hurting their workers, either through fewer pay upgrades or through laying people off to increase efficiency. Restricting big business is restricting the little guy.

Oh. And big business is actually good. Why? Because they became “big”. How did they become big? The market — or, for the socialists — society liked them. Big business only gets that way by offering the people nice stuff. If the people like it, then they aren’t evil.

It’s really not complicated. But we’ve been told by the restrictive forces of the world that big is bad, that little is good. I propose an alternative: both are good. Speaking of which, that brings us to reason number five.

5. I like small business

I own a small business. My parents own a small business. These small business are based on our family working incredibly hard, serving clients, and helping others enough that they’re willing to pay us for it. Both sides win. We’re not evil. We’re good. We help other business by helping them market their products and advertise to increase their profits. We help regular people learn how to manage their money, get out of debt, invest appropriately, and retire securely.

By working hard, we only succeed through helping others succeed. Capitalism allows us to do that unhampered. But restrictive policies severely restrict our ability to do business.* Restrictions that might not seem like much to us on paper can be devastating in real life. Real people go under every time we pass another law. Every restriction destroys lives.

4. I like rich people

Rich people aren’t evil. I don’t care what Hollywood wishes me to think about “The Capitalists”. I won’t buy the commie propaganda. I like rich people. I don’t like snobs. There’s a difference. Poor people can be snobs. Rich people can be snobs. Rich people can be jerks. Poor people can be jerks.

The rich that I’ve met in my life are the hardest working individuals I’ve ever known. There’s a reason they are rich. And I appreciate their work, and recognize that their hard labor paid off both for them and the countless people who gained from the micro-economic impacts of their labor.

The idea that most rich got there because of ripping others off is just stupid. It’s out of touch with reality. It’s just people making an excuse for hating those with more — envy, the most destructive of all emotions.

The idea that most rich got there because of an inheritances is equally wrong. Very few rich got rich through inheritance — and those that did didn’t get the money until way later in life, long enough to build their own wealth. The fantasy of rich people just inherent everything without working is essentially a classroom lie.

3. I like poor people

Liberals paint themselves as loving poor people. So they increase government programs, welfare, restrictions on the rich, etc. But their restrictions on business cause unemployment — liberalism causes poverty. Their welfare encourages dependence on federal aid, psychologically keeping the poor in their poverty. I am a capitalist because I hate poverty.

I am a capitalist because I hate poverty. I am not a liberal because I care about the poor enough not to buy into emotional arguments that realistically destroy the working class. Freedom brings prosperity. This is absolutely inevitable — anyone who disagrees simply needs to read economic history.

2. I like justice

Capitalism is where everyone is allowed to unleash their minds in order to produce and achieve. You don’t get rich being a moron, with the notable exceptions of almost everything on E News. You have to use your mind or muscle. Or, for most, a mixture of the two.

Capitalism rewards the hard-working and punishes the lazy. It’s the only economic system on earth that does this. This is why it works.

As Ayn Rand said:

“The moral justification for capitalism lies in the fact that it is the only system consonant with man’s rational nature, that it protects man’s survival qua man, and that its ruling principle is: justice.”

1. I like money

I know. I’m supposed to pretend like the only thing on earth important is people and puppy dogs. But guess what? I like nice stuff too. And so does the liberal. And Obama. And Edwards. Especially them. See, they like being commies in theory. But in reality, they like “capital”. They like money. They like private jets, private islands, nice food, nice clothes and $500 haircuts.

And you know what? That would have been fine, if only they didn’t pretend that it was evil. In their hearts, they know there’s nothing wrong with working hard and establishing a fantastic house, expensive car and great lifestyle for your kids. They know there’s no reason to think that we should restrict business owners, or try to go against wealth.

But in policy, they stop. They pretend that greed is wrong, because other people want your money (read that a few times, and see what’s amiss). But when it comes down to it, they know that capital is good. They live like rich cats.

Ironically, it’s for the same reason as me. There’s nothing wrong with material wealth. The whole goal of economics is understanding how to get our wealth to be maximized. Well, I have news for the news people and the politicians of the world:

Try Capitalism. Capitalism sets mankind free to work and achieve his values. It allows people barter freely and exercise choice rather than being manipulated by Washington elites. Capitalism works because it’s based on that age old principle that the human mind works best when it’s set free.

Capitalism works because freedom works.

So that’s why I’m a capitalist. I didn’t get much of a response after explaining these concepts, and I rarely do. The reasoning for this is pretty simple. Anti-capitalistic arguments are based on anger, emotion, and completely disregard the scientific principles of economics. Because a rational view of the evidence should lead us all to become capitalists.

*Our family business is an oldies radio station. The FCC’s policies are often random, restrictive and expensive. They hurt our customers and communities by forcing us to keep prices artificially higher than they would be if we didn’t have the nearly random restrictions.

Why Warren Buffett Wants Higher Taxes

Warren Buffett

Warren Buffett recently made another public claim that his secretary pays a higher tax rate than he does, and argued that capital gains and dividend taxes should be greatly increased. His main point was that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary, and because of that we need to increase taxes.

Warren Buffett doesn’t pay hardly any taxes from his personal portfolio for two reasons: he only owns only a handful of long-term value stocks, and almost never sells them. And one of those stocks doesn’t pay dividends at all. Those that do are long-term value investment buys.

His income tax is low because he’s not an income investor. He owns dividend stocks because they’re good long-term buys — he’s not a fan of dividends.

His capital gains tax is non-existent because he almost never sells.

Unfortunately, this is a huge source of fuel among economically illiterate moderates and liberals who think this means you can be pro-rich while also being pro-tax… it makes them feel clever and helps them rationalize their anti-wealth view away.

Buffett’s income from Coca-Cola, one of the stocks he owns that pays a dividend, has gone up a lot since 2003, when the current 15% cap on dividend taxes was put into effect. It’s like 50% higher.

Increasing dividend taxes to 30% will slow down the increase in dividend payment increases, meaning his actual tax PAYMENTS over time will be lower because of a higher tax rate.

At the same time, people have left long-term investing by the hoards and are focusing on dividend investing — this huge tax change will funnel them back into long term “hold forever” investing meaning they’ll be looking for a good long-term company that doesn’t pay taxes. If they keep their money in dividend-paying companies (he personally owns parts of like 10), it’s still all good because they’ll all probably pay smaller dividends than if the tax rate hadn’t been hiked.

One of those companies is a little firm called “Berkshire-Hathaway”. And one of the biggest owners of that little firm is Warren Buffett.

Of course, almost nobody understands this and fewer will explain it to others. It’s just one more reason never to automatically equate a higher tax rate with higher tax revenue.

Don’t forget, the goodwill Buffett gets from publicly acting like he, too, hates the rich or whatever is undeniable. He’s loved by capitalists for being rich and liberals for being pro-tax. That’s a good position to be in when it comes to business and investing.

Copyright Capitalism Institute, 2011-present.