Down with Billionaires!
A Kamala Harris campaign commercial decries “tax cuts for billionaires.” It is yet another portrayal of “us” versus “them.” It is quite easy to drum up resentment toward persons and peoples, with whom one seemingly has nothing in common, who are afforded lifestyles barely imaginable, and in whose number nearly none of us will ever be counted.
Initially, I will note that it is exceedingly difficult to “cut” taxes for persons and parties, who do not pay (net) taxes. Roughly half of Americans are not “net taxpayers.” Those parties receive in direct entitlements (e.g. Social Security and Medicare) and through proportional benefits (e.g. education) more than they pay in “taxes.” This is especially true when one considers the euphemistically entitled “refundable tax credits,” through which parties can receive a “refund” of taxes, which they never paid in the first place.
Such slight-of-hand is a way to hide wealth redistribution. It is a way to hide Institutional Theft. It is a mechanism for buying votes (and compliance … and subjugation). We live in the wealthiest society in the history of mankind, but we are increasingly discontented. It is seemingly impossible for us to be sated or satisfied. Are we to believe that the next dollar will be the one that buys lasting happiness?
[Given a National Debt in excess of $35 Trillion and annual budget deficits exceeding $1Trillion projected indefinitely, tax cuts for anyone may be fiscally imprudent; however, the need for everyone to pay more — so as to adequately fund government’s largesse — is not a justification for forced wealth (re)distribution.]
In the application of Collectivism and its denominational offshoots of Marxism, Socialism, and Communism, there is an individual desire and institutional command for “equality” of outcomes. While this perverse sense of “equality” is couched in terms of “fairness” and “justice” — almost invariably from the supposed perspective of self-identifying “victims” in opposition to alleged “oppressors” — there is rarely any discussion of “equity.” That is because the true foundations of this failed philosophy and the motivations of its zealous adherents, include the baser traits of our bestial species: selfishness, greed, envy, jealousy, vengeance, retribution, and covetousness.
There is no way that Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, or even Mark Zuckerberg for that matter could have personally harmed all, who deem themselves entitled to some share of the billions belonging to those disfavored “others.” Persons are eager to point out the faults, foibles, and shortcomings of billionaires (as well as millionaires, propertied classes, and the relative “rich”), and there is likely ample evidence of the same. However, persons are less eager to offer recognition of the (perceived) benefits conferred by their innovations and productivity.
Ask yourself individually — not as a member of a supposed “victim class” or “disadvantaged” group:
What contribution have I personally made, for which some other individual or party unfairly took the value or benefit?
What demonstrable and measurable contribution have I made or affirmative benefit have I conferred upon someone else, for which I was not adequately compensated?
We can certainly debate whether the benefits afforded to consumers justify the rewards conferred upon the producers, but where the underlying transactions are voluntary, no outside or uninvolved party should be privileged to critique, take from, or impose themselves in private transactions. Cost-benefit determinations are necessarily personal and subjective.
So long as the transaction is entered into freely, there is no legitimate basis for restricting the consumer from “overpaying” or to divest the producer of profits, which uninvolved parties might deem “excessive.” To borrow from Dr. Thomas Sowell: What is your “fair share” of someone else’s property?
Most of us likely have difficulty saying sincerely that our benefits and rewards are truly disproportionate to our personal successes and individual contributions. Even if there are instances of “improper taking” or “disproportionate” benefit to another, the issue is with a specific party, who acted or benefitted unfairly. Society cannot be charged with providing remedy for every perceived slight or self-imposed harm. Should one become involved with a bad actor, that does not mean necessarily that the resulting bad acts are universal within the population, or that they are “systematic” or “systemic.”
If the objective of government action is something other than to provide contemporaneous remedy for identifiable harms between specific parties, then “fairness” is impossible to calculate or quantify and “justice” is impossible to define or apply. It is not possible to undertake a meaningful and effective cost-benefit analysis when the benefitted parties are unrelated to or far removed from other parties, who are to be burdened with the costs and sacrifices.
How might one provide remedy for “group” or “generational” harm? Assuming arguendo the existence of past harms, how might the current “damages” be measured, quantified, and monetized? What makes ancestors or parties, who are only ostensibly “related” to an injured party (now deceased), worthy of what might be a windfall? How do we account for vagaries of fate, market dynamics, and individual recklessness or imprudence? How do we factor in competing claims, offsetting contributions, etc.? What exactly does the son owe for the alleged sins of his father?
It has been said:
The status of ‘victim’ is a powerful one. The victim is always morally right, neither responsible nor accountable, and forever entitled to sympathy.
Promoting a culture of victimhood may represent a successful strategy for a political campaign, but it is a recipe for certain disaster. It guarantees personal failure and assures eventual societal collapse.
When society places a premium upon victimhood, then nearly everyone seeks to be seen as a “victim.” Once most persons self-identify as victims of one alleged oppressor or another, then incessant battles erupt among supposed victim classes to determine which is the bigger victim and thus most deserving of remedy and benefit. The ultimate result is the reduction of everyone and everything to the lowest common denominator. We may be more “equal,” but we are to be made more equal in loss, want, disappointment, and misery.
