Once more, a couple of idiot, leftist professors are wringing their hands over the extension of the Bush tax cuts for the “wealthy.”
Consider the following article:
Upset the federal government recently extended tax cuts for the rich, three professors at Yale and Cornell universities have created a website that encourages wealthy Americans to give their tax savings to charities and send a political message in the process.
The professors started giveitbackforjobs.org to allow Americans “who have the means” to calculate what their tax cut would be and donate that amount to a charity.
“Extending the tax cuts for the very wealthiest Americans is frankly unconscionable,” Yale Law School professor Daniel Markovits said Wednesday. With the website’s help, “donors can pledge their money to support the kinds of programs that will help families, create jobs, and set the country moving toward a just prosperity,” the professors said in announcing the initiative.
Markovits, Yale political scientist Jacob Hacker, and Cornell law professor Robert Hockett started the campaign. Hacker is co-author of “Winner Take All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer — and Turned Its Back on the Middle Class.”
The three recommend giving to groups such as Habitat for Humanity, Children’s Aid Society and Salvation Army that they say promote fairness, economic growth and a strong middle class. They say the contributions could replicate good government policy and, in effect, draft the government as a funding partner when the donation is tax deductible.
Notice how the average wealth-envious leftist is obsessed with taking from the “undeserving” rich and giving to the “deserving” poor, and are always concerned with “fairness.” There is also a certain irony here: the name of the website. Titling something giveitbackforjobs.org so that you can give money away to organizations that rely heavily on voluntary, unpaid labor? How does that “create” any jobs? (The clear answer: it doesn’t.)
In essence, what these two loons are saying is that, “You don’t need all that wealth, and because government isn’t confiscating your property (wealth) like we think it should you should therefore give it away to all of these leftist ‘charities’ so as to assuage your guilt for having more than the rest of us.” Think I’m extrapolating too much? Well, consider the following article written by these two dim-witted “intellectuals” concerning “giving” by the wealthy:
Our broken political institutions are blocking an adequate public response. The tax deal has some good elements. The payroll tax holiday will boost employment (but it could also create risks for Social Security’s long-term standing). The extension of unemployment benefits, so vital for the jobless and for encouraging a fragile recovery, should never have been controversial. But the Republican Party has insisted, as the price for begrudgingly permitting a modest amount of spending on recovery, that the rich get more than their fair share.
This is bad policy. The outsized tax cuts for the richest Americans and their heirs subvert the principle that those who benefit the most from the American project should pay the most to carry it forward — “not for class warfare reasons,” President Clinton reminds us, but “for reasons of fairness and rebuilding the middle class in America.”
The crux of their argument can be highlighted by the following quote:
This is bad policy. The outsized tax cuts for the richest Americans and their heirs subvert the principle that those who benefit the most from the American project should pay the most to carry it forward…
The “American project?” This is the underlying principle of the “American project?” What frickin’ history book are these dimwits reading? The “Karl Marx Reimagining of the Constitution for Idiots”?
So, let me highlight a few quotes from the creators of the great “American project” to see what they say about taxation, property, and wealth.
Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it.
Each individual of the society has a right to be protected by it in the enjoyment of his life, liberty, and property, according to standing laws. He is obliged, consequently, to contribute his share to the expense of this protection; and to give his personal service, or an equivalent, when necessary. But no part of the property of any individual can, with justice, be taken from him, or applied to public uses, without his own consent, or that of the representative body of the people. In fine, the people of this commonwealth are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent.
… as all history informs us, there has been in every State & Kingdom a constant kind of warfare between the governing & governed: the one striving to obtain more for its support, and the other to pay less. And this has alone occasioned great convulsions, actual civil wars, ending either in dethroning of the Princes, or enslaving of the people. Generally indeed the ruling power carries its point, the revenues of princes constantly increasing, and we see that they are never satisfied, but always in want of more. The more the people are discontented with the oppression of taxes; the greater need the prince has of money to distribute among his partisans and pay the troops that are to suppress all resistance, and enable him to plunder at pleasure. There is scarce a king in a hundred who would not, if he could, follow the example of Pharaoh, get first all the people’s money, then all their lands, and then make them and their children servants for ever …
Energy in the executive is a leading character in the definition of good government. It is essential to the protection of the community against foreign attacks; it is not less essential to the steady administration of the laws; to the protection of property against those irregular and high-handed combinations which sometimes interrupt the ordinary course of justice; to the security of liberty against the enterprises and assaults of ambition, of faction, and of anarchy.
If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.
There is no part of the administration of government that requires extensive information and a thorough knowledge of the principles of political economy, so much as the business of taxation. The man who understands those principles best will be least likely to resort to oppressive expedients, or sacrifice any particular class of citizens to the procurement of revenue. It might be demonstrated that the most productive system of finance will always be the least burdensome.
If we run into such debts, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessities and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our calling and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses; and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes; have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account; but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow suffers. Our land-holders, too, like theirs, retaining indeed the title and stewardship of estates called theirs but held really in trust for the treasury, must wander, like theirs, in foreign countries, and be contented with penury, obscurity, exile, and the glory of the nation. This example reads to us the salutary lesson, that private fortunes are destroyed by public as well as by private extravagances. And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for the second; that second for a third; and so on, till the bulk of the society is reduced to mere automatons of misery, to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering. Then begins, indeed, the bellum omnium in omnia, which some philosophers observing to be so general in this world, have mistaken for the natural, instead of the abusive state of man. And the fore horse on this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression.
A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicity.
We are all doubtless bound to contribute a certain portion of our income to the support of charitable and other useful public institutions. But it is a part of our duty also to apply our contributions in the most effectual way we can to secure this object. The question then is whether this will not be better done by each of us appropriating our whole contribution to the institutions within our reach, under our own eye, and over which we can exercise some useful control? Or would it be better that each should divide the sum he can spare among all the institutions of his State or the United States? Reason and the interest of these institutions themselves, certainly decide in favor of the former practice.
To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, ‘to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare.’ For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union.
To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association — the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.
To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical.
For example. If the system be established on basis of Income, and his just proportion on that scale has been already drawn from every one, to step into the field of Consumption, and tax special articles in that, as broadcloth or homespun, wine or whiskey, a coach or a wagon, is doubly taxing the same article. For that portion of Income with which these articles are purchased, having already paid its tax as Income, to pay another tax on the thing it purchased, is paying twice for the same thing; it is an aggrievance on the citizens who use these articles in exoneration of those who do not, contrary to the most sacred of the duties of a government, to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens.
They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please…Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect.
I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.
A just security to property is not afforded by that government, under which unequal taxes oppress one species of property and reward another species.
As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.
Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government which impartially secures to every man whatever is his own.
It is sufficiently obvious, that persons and property are the two great subjects on which Governments are to act; and that the rights of persons, and the rights of property, are the objects, for the protection of which Government was instituted. These rights cannot well be separated.
The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice. Every shilling which they overburden the inferior number is a shilling saved to their own pockets.
The diversity in the faculties of men from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government.
Government ought to be as much open to improvement as anything which appertains to man, instead of which it has been monopolized from age to age, by the most ignorant and vicious of the human race. Need we any other proof of their wretched management, than the excess of debts and taxes with which every nation groans, and the quarrels into which they have precipitated the world?
If, from the more wretched parts of the old world, we look at those which are in an advanced stage of improvement, we still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised, to furnish new pretenses for revenues and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without tribute.
Just about every quote you dig up from the Founding Fathers, the guys who made the “American project,” say basically the same things:
1) Excessive taxation is bad,
2) Arbitrary taxation is bad,
3) Inequitable taxation is bad,
4) People should be allowed to enjoy the fruits of their labors,
5) Government, in all its forms, should be the FIRST entity to make sure that every one is allowed to enjoy the fruits of their labors.
So, when the top 50% of wage-earners in this country pay over 90% of the taxes, and the top 10% pay some 30%+ of the income taxes, does that sound excessive, arbitrary, inequitable to you? It certainaly does to me. It probably doesn’t to either Jacob S. Hacker, or Daniel Markovits but then again they are a couple of elitist university professors who have never held a real job in their entire lives, have never been productive (outside of writing a bunch of intellectual inanity that isn’t backed up by any sort of reality), and live like parasites off the largess of the public and of wealthy – and obviously really, really stupid – university supporters.
In fact, if Hacker or Markovits had any brains, or even a working Internet connection, they’d probably find the following quote from one of the makers of the “American project” as it relates to institutionalized and perpetual charity:
I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.
So, when you hear about the gulf between the rich and the poor these days, reflect on the writings of the aforementioned Founding Father, and count the number of public charity programs available through either the local, state, or Federal government. The following programs already come to mind: WIC, ADC, SSI, Medicaid.
What is clear is that Yale University is staffed by a bunch of ignorant lackwits. These ignorant, elitist stooges teach other elitist wannabes who eventually go into government and push more of this Marxist claptrap – which has a LONG track record of enslaving entire populations, propagating tyrannies, and in time destroying entire nations. But please, let’s not let a little history get in the way of a perfectly good – and utterly impractical – utopian agenda…
Were this a perfect world, people like Hacker and Markovits would be drummed out of this country, their property confiscated, and given to the “poor,” as a sort of Divine Justice. Unfortunately, our world is imperfect, and their betters on the same intellectual footing as them. So they will undoubtedly be promoted.
It does make one wonder just how much undeserved income Hacker and Markovits make per year. It is real obvious they don’t deserve what they make.