I was reading one of my dental journals (yes, I do find the time to read those things once in a while) and noted in the "Editor's Note" some quotes that he presented as "food for thought" in the current economic climate.

The first of these is "You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and idependence. You cannot help people permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves." William J. H. Boetcker (1873-1962)

The second quote is as folllows: "You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give anything to anybody that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that, my dear friend, is how a nation ends. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it." Dr. Adrian Rogers, 1931

Interesting quotes on the face of it. Both voice a similar sentiment. Obviously there is truth in that sentiment, a truth that some people often grab onto and hold onto for dear life.

But I also think that it's a bit disingenuous to take the statements at face value. First, this is not a case of the "haves" and "have nots", simply. We often say about pro athletes and entertainers, "nobody's worth that much", yet, in the case of an entertainer at least, they wouldn't be making anything unless people are willing to pay for the product they and only they can put out.

On the other hand, why are we worrying about how much they pay in taxes?

The same goes for CEO's who manipulate through completely legal means the stock prices of their companies and therefore assure the increased values of their stock option portions of their already high compensation packages. I heard on the radio today that some of the big companies that took the government (taxpayer) bailout monies are complaining that the rules attached to executive compensation that came along with that money are making it hard, even impossible, for them to retain key people, since these guys can go elsewhere and do much better. Geez, it's come to that, where these guys want the taxpayers to pay their inflated bonuses! They are the "rich" and the "wealthy" people described in those quotes above. Yet they're also some of the people getting this taxpayer money - not to buy food, or pay their rent, or even subsidize their necessary health care - but to continue a lavish lifestyle.

Some might argue that these guys have a talent that is worth a ton of money to these companies, and if the companies are willing to pay for it, even "need" to pay for it to secure their talents for that company's use, they're sort of like that entertainer who's selling millions of CDs and selling out concerts all over the world. Maybe so...but then why did their companies need taxpayer bailouts in the first place?

How does this apply to a graduated tax, or to whether we as a nation can afford to pay for health care for all? Well, the way I see it, we're already all paying for the health care, usually on an expensive emergency basis, for those who don't have health insurance. They aren't the "poor" or jobless, per se; those folks get Medicaid, as imperfect as it might be. It's the working poor that mostly don't have health care coverage. They may not be getting the health care they need, but they are getting some health care, and they're not paying for it financially. We are. What's the difference if we pay for it in increased health care costs at the point of service, and in increased (whether necessary or not, the insurance companies are using it as an excuse) premiums when we buy our coverage, either subsidized by our employer and indirectly us in the form of lower wages, or we pay for it in the form of a targeted tax to cover these benefits, the way we now pay for Medicare?

Is it taking from the "rich" and giving to the "poor"? Or is it just a good sensible approach to making something that is currently a major problem less of a burden to the "rich"?

As far as graduated taxes, well, all income levels are not equal. The guy making 20K a year and trying to support a family on that should not be taxed the same as a guy making 60K a year. And neither of them should be taxed the same as the guy making 500K. A flat tax hits the low income guy way more than the high income guy. I understand that with a flat tax, there is a large untaxed chunk of income, an exemption as there is now. So maybe the first 20K of income is not taxed, making that first guy not liable for any income tax at all. The second guy pays tax on 40K, and the third guy pays tax on 480K. The third guy is obviously paying most of the tax. But let's look at, say, a 15% flat tax. The 60K guy pays 6 grand, leaving him with 54K. The 500K guy pays 72K, leaving him with 428K. The first guy has his whole 20K! (Whoopie! I'm sure he's just ecstatic about it!)

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and suggest that the 6 grand out of the 60K is going to be a lot harder to pay for that guy than the 72K is going to be for the 500K guy. Did he use 12 times the services? Should he be charged for the services he didn't use?

I sort of look at a graduated tax as an equal thing, that weighs a little heavier on the highly compensated. But everyone gets taxed the same on that first X amount of income, then the same on the next X amount. It isn't like the guy making 200K pays the highest rate on ALL of that money...just the part that's above the tier for the next highest rate. What's so grossly unfair about that? Right now, there are so many loopholes that many of those high earners can avoid the majority of taxes, shrinking their income through a series of accounting tricks. Make it simpler, by all means. Maybe make the tax rates closer together. Close some of the loopholes. Make it so we all pay taxes to cover all the good things government does for us, including that 50% of the budget that goes for national defense. The interstates are good for all of us. Education funding helps us all. So do so many other things.

You shouldn't milk the rich dry in order to give to the poor, but taking a higher percentage of the income above 200K isn't exactly killing them, or changing their style of living. Not one bit.