Travis Rowley: Taxing the Rich is Immoral
Saturday, March 24, 2012
Besides injuring the poor, and in addition to being a crucial component of the Marxist design, an inordinate tax imposed on “the wealthy” is – perhaps most importantly – an immoral proposition. Unfortunately, Rhode Island has instituted an unethical progressive income tax code for decades.
The redistribution of wealth should be recognized for what it truly is – an anti-individualist practice that runs entirely counter to basic American principles. And there’s no mistaking the fact that the current Democratic plan to tax “the rich,” which “has support from at least 37 House members,” has certainly been formulated to expand the practice of taking from some in order to give to others.
In regards to the Democrats’ latest tax proposal, the most stated purpose made by progressives and union-Democrats thus far is to socialize local property taxes. The disclosed aim is to tax high income earners in order to bring their money to Smith Hill in the form of “state aid,” where political elites can decide who “needs” it the most. Democratic Mayor of Pawtucket Don Grebien has argued, “We can’t keep strangling lower and middle-income Rhode Islanders with more and more property taxes while we continue to give tax breaks to those who need them the least.”
Also fighting in favor of the tax hike is Kate Brock, the executive director of Ocean State Action, who contends, “They've cut aid to cities and towns, and every time we do that, property taxes go up.” President of the RI Chapter of the AFL-CIO George Nee stated, “We have to start looking at taxing people who have income and are wealthy and stop this reliance on the property tax and fund the system the way that it should be funded.” Mr. Nee has added, “Perhaps we have to raise the income tax on the highest income people and we have to redistribute that income tax and that wealth to the cities and towns.”
Social Democracy vs. Natural Law
Everyone acknowledges that stealing is wrong. And one will rarely discover a progressive Democrat claiming that he possesses a personal right to take a rich man’s money in order to give it to someone he deems less fortunate. However, virtually every member of the Democratic Party tacitly embraces “social democracy” – a system whereby elected government officials may partake in this very type of theft. Why? Because a majority of active voters decided to elect individuals who are willing to use the power of the state to commit the robbery.
Social democracy is the rejection of what the Founding Fathers knew as Natural Law, from which they understood that rights and morality come from God – not from the “decrees of Peoples, the edicts of princes, or the decisions of judges,” as the ancient Roman philosopher, and ideological mentor of the Founders, Cicero once wrote. “We are born for Justice,” Cicero proclaimed, “and the right is based, not upon men’s opinions, but upon Nature.”
Stealing is wrong, no matter how many men sanction it.
Most likely inspired by this moral assumption, Samuel Adams would go on to explain, “The Utopian schemes of leveling and a community of goods are as visionary and impracticable as those which vest all property in the Crown…[These ideas] are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government, unconstitutional.” Adams went on to ask, “What property can the colonists be conceived to have, if their money may be granted away by others, without their consent?”
The Founders sought to bar all forms of collectivism not just because of its reckless inefficiency, but because of its unethical foundations.
The Democratic Error
Democrats not only dismiss the Founders’ expressions of the moral dimension behind individualism and rights of property, but also adamantly evade the related warning that is often attributed to French philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville: “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.”
But while Rhode Island is certainly dominated by the political party that augments its power by causing more and more government dependence, the problem hardly ends there. Rhode Island seems to be the place where progressive rhetoric makes the most sense to the most people. And Samuel Adams once encapsulated the firm moral certitude of those who championed liberty as he spoke to such individuals. Addressing not tyrants, but his neighbors who would empower them, Adams said, “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
In Rhode Island, able to be frequently observed are thousands of seemingly normal citizens who can suddenly transform themselves into middle-class mobs, turning out en masse to rallies that aim to trade individual liberty for the socialist desires of godless radicals. Seduced by the false morality of modern liberalism – “shared sacrifice,” “social justice,” “equality,” “compassion,” “fairness,” and “fair shares” – they authorize progressive politicians to force their fellow Rhode Islanders to unevenly finance not just a mere minimal social safety net, but also force them to pay for other people’s property tax bills, for other people’s mortgages, for other people’s hospital bills, and for other people’s unfunded government pensions.
Are the people who vote themselves provisions from the public treasury, as well as those who support the concept, any better than the lawmakers who establish and defend the system that enables them to do so? Perhaps Tocqueville should have included this addendum to his prophetic statement: “…and the public accepts.”
Or, as Cicero would have described Rhode Island’s condition, “The nation, in spite of being a ruinous regulation, has accepted it.”
As we watch Rhode Island crumble, perhaps it’s prudent to ask if the state – as a whole – has been rejecting the laws of God. If that’s the case, how long did we expect the fun to last? How long did we expect it would be before we suffered the fire and brimstone?
Travis Rowley (TravisRowley.com) is the chairman of the RI Young Republicans and a consultant for the Barry Hinckley Campaign for US Senate.
If you valued this article, please LIKE GoLocalProv.com on Facebook by clicking HERE.
Related Articles
- Travis Rowley: A Letter To An Undocumented Student
- Travis Rowley: Crowley’s Corruption, Not Flanders’ Folly
- Travis Rowley: Governor Chafee is the Embodiment of Modern Liberalism
- Travis Rowley: Heartless Conservatives? Or Deluded Liberals?
- Travis Rowley: Hitting the Wall
- Travis Rowley: Ivy League Shame
- Travis Rowley: Jack Reed’s Scam
- Travis Rowley: Living in a Universe of Lies
- Travis Rowley: Democrats Want to Return to Failed Policies of the Past
- Travis Rowley: Make Love, Don’t Throw Condoms on Little Girls
- Travis Rowley: Marx and Labor
- Travis Rowley: Month by Month Predictions for 2012
- Travis Rowley: Pension Reform? Or Pension Negotiations?
- Travis Rowley: Public Unions Are Getting What They Deserve
- Travis Rowley: Public Unions Got Talent
- Travis Rowley: RI Needs More Rich People
- Travis Rowley: RI’s Republican Revolution…Without the Republicans
- Travis Rowley: Race-Baiting Democrats
- Travis Rowley: Rhode Islanders, Pay Your Own Damn Taxes
- Travis Rowley: Rise of the Religious Left
- Travis Rowley: Taxing the Rich is Immoral
- Travis Rowley: The Real Michael Downey Just Stood Up
- Travis Rowley: “Hope and Change” for “Pension Reform”
Comments:
Peter Cassels
8:11am on Saturday, March 24, 2012
Travis, you are confusing "progressive" as in taxes with "progressive as in "liberal." Experts believe the income tax is progressive, as opposed to sales taxes, for example, which are regressive. That is, sales taxes -- ans property taxes -- are mostly paid by those who can least afford them. Everyone must pay their fair share, which is not socialistic. That's all I ask. The burden of property taxes is unbearable in RI, and it affects those who rent, too.
William Suffik
9:03am on Saturday, March 24, 2012
I'm not sure Travis is confusing the word "progressive" here. He has pointed out that those who are calling for a progressive income tax have actually stated its purpose, which is to redistribute wealth. And that is socialistic.
michael mccusker
10:54am on Saturday, March 24, 2012
You really live in the past......way back!!!!
ted wrobel
4:00pm on Saturday, March 24, 2012
As Voltaire said: "The comfort of the rich depends on an abundant supply of the poor." The current conservative agenda is to create the maximum number of poor at the lowest possible cost. The social contract that allows a few to achieve great wealth recognizes that the system must ensure the security of those who do not. Otherwise anarchy and revolt must ensue. Perhaps we have reached that point.
Mike Govern
6:13pm on Saturday, March 24, 2012
Ted--seriously? Do you really believe this garbage? Guess where the greatest wealth disparity exists in the U.S.? It's in areas that have been held by Democrats for years. Try a little research before you shoot from the hip. There is one party that wants to put the maximum people on food stamps/Gov't dole and keep them subservient--and it isn't the GOP. Wake up....
edith pilkingoton
1:23pm on Sunday, March 25, 2012
Baloney. Who gives you the platform you stand on? You don't want a progressive tax or a capitalist system that is regulated to prevent the hoarding of wealth simply because the massive funds available to subvert a truly democratic process wouldn't be available to you. Without media outlets dependent on advertising revenue from the interests whose positions you promote you would not have a leg to stand on. Go Local should be severely criticized for giving you and your friends the bully pulpit you occupy. My property taxes went up $700.00 this past year to subsidize tax breaks for your wealthy friends. You should be ashamed of yourself. The Tories all moved to Canada a couple of centuries ago. If you had lived back then you and your kind would have been forced to leave with them.
William Suffik
1:41pm on Sunday, March 25, 2012
Well that certainly is some very interesting history. But you still haven't answered Travis' claim.
Edith, how do you morally justify taking other people's money? Just saying "baloney" isn't a reasoned argument.
Rob Peters
2:15pm on Sunday, March 25, 2012
I don’t remember Travis or Ted standing up for Teachers/State employees when pensions and promises where broken(possibly illegally). I guess that that would fall under their definition of morality. But don’t tax the rich!!!!
Rob Peters
2:17pm on Sunday, March 25, 2012
I don’t remember Travis or William(sorry Ted) standing up for Teachers/State employees when pensions and promises where broken (and possibly illegal). I guess that that would fall under their definition of morality. But don’t tax the rich!!!!
Bryan Sullivan
3:01pm on Sunday, March 25, 2012
Nice try, Rob. First of all "legal" and "moral" are not synonymous. A person can break the law and have it be a moral action.
Second, here's the union/liberal/Democrat assumption that "standing up for teachers/state employees" can ONLY mean securing their promised pensions. But I think that what happened in Central Falls proves that the only people who have been sticking up for public employees FOR YEARS have been the conservatives Republicans. They were trying to SAVE public pensions, while the unions and Democrats pushed the situation to the edge of the financial cliff by lying to people like you, Rob....telling you that Republicans were simply "mean" "greedy" and "anti-teacher"....And it looks like you bought it -- hook, line, and sinker.
William Suffik
3:04pm on Sunday, March 25, 2012
Well said, Bryan. I would just mention that Rob, like Edith, failed to answer Travis' claim. I wonder if Rob can morally justify taxing the rich, keeping Rowley's "Natural Law" argument in mind.
Bryan Sullivan
3:08pm on Sunday, March 25, 2012
Notice Edith wants Rowley banned from GoLocal...(or have GoLocal "severely criticized")...The individual whose arguments Edith can't/won't answer is the individual who Edith believes shouldn't have his opinions published. Go figure. Liberals.
edith pilkingoton
3:19pm on Sunday, March 25, 2012
@ Mr. Suffik,
Maybe, I should pray salami, salami, baloney the way Popeye did as I kneel before the supreme mover of all things, "The Market". The question is, do I have the time to search for available facts and figures that one would have to search the internet for because they haven't been sifted, cherry picked and distorted the way public policy groups like the Tax Foundation are able to? No one in the world is as well funded as groups like these:
http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tax_Foundation
Board of Directors
On its website the Tax Foundation lists its board of directors, as of March 2009, as being:[3]
Dr. Wayne Gable (Chairman), Koch Charitable Foundations
James W. Lintott (Treasurer), Sterling Foundation Management LLC
The Honorable Bill Archer, PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP
Dr. R. Glenn Hubbard, Columbia Business School
David P. Lewis, Eli Lilly and Company
Scott A. Hodge (Secretary, Ex-Officio), Tax Foundation
It would have to be my full time job to go tit for tat with this kind of disinformation. Seriously, no astroturf organization is going to subsidize me to allow me the time necessary to contradict their assertions.
Sorry, I drive the roads around here. My kids went to Providence public schools and received a very good education. I pay taxes. I understand what Grover Norquist has created. The beast that has been starved was a reliable drayhorse. It is so undernourished it is on its last legs. Success? If you consider scapegoating and arm twisting so as to consolidate more wealth hoarding power into the hands of Robert Rubin's "Plutonomy" success. Congratulations!
Mike Govern
8:48am on Monday, March 26, 2012
Right....so don't do the research or critically think--just spew fact-free vitriol. Sad.
William Suffik
10:35am on Monday, March 26, 2012
I'm suddenly reminded of Murray Rothbard's famous quote: "It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance."
As you search for facts in your spare time, consider what Mike said above. With a little research, you'll find that it is true: "Guess where the greatest wealth disparity exists in the U.S.? It's in areas that have been held by Democrats for years."
Very true: Big government socialism is, in fact, the system that causes the "concentration of wealth" in the hands of a few. And you seem to deplore that outcome. So why attack Rowley, someone who criticizes that very system on a regular basis?
edith pilkingoton
2:39pm on Monday, March 26, 2012
I didn't say anything about having Travis Rowley banned. I am a very strong proponent of free speech. Having a platform where your voice heard above all the other voices doesn't come for free, however. The right wing think tanks are incredibly well funded. That's where the talking points come from. Those talking points are almost all we hear over and over in the mainstream advertiser supported media; talking points designed to protect the interests of those who fund the right wing think tanks, not the average American.
Where is the leadership and responsibility when we have people running things making comments like this, by Jack Welch former CEO of G E, " " Ideally you'd have every plant you own on a barge"?
Attitudes like that are what has gotten our whole country , especially the Northeast, to where it is today. There are the very complicated changes that have been made in the tax structure and regulatory policies that existed during the Eisenhower era when Lemuel Boulware was grooming Ronald Reagan to undermine all that, later.
Murray Rothbard? I've read some of Murray's work. Murray was a spirited radical. I liked that about him but his ideas are as fatuous as those of some of his followers. There are people at the Von Mises Institute who would like to institute a monarchy, which is where extreme free market policies would inevitably bring us close to, anyway.
Bryan Sullivan
4:31pm on Monday, March 26, 2012
Yea, the liberals have no well-financed think-tanks of their own. The liberals are so out-matched when it comes to the dissemination of information in this country. Give me a break. What a laugh.
Seriously, Edith, that is one strange objection. You can't come up with a superior argument, so you blame it on the financing of talking points? That really is a first for me.
Plus, according to you, it sounds like people must form arguments purely from original thoughts to have any credibility. Really? That's one tough standard!
Also, you don't need a think-tank to tell you what Tocqueville and Sam Adams said. Why do you assume that Rowley gets his arguments from the Heritage Foundation. Maybe he just reads books once in a while!
Plus, who cares if Rowley gets his "talking points" from a well-financed think-tank. That doesn't make the argument illegitimate. They are "think" tanks, after all. This sounds like another liberal attempt to DISCREDIT conservatives, rather than confront their arguments. Typical.
"Oh crap, I can't win the argument. Hey, everyone, did you know he gets all of his information from the HERITAGE FOUNDATION!"
Pathetic.
And, sorry, this is hardly the tone of a "strong proponent of free speech" ...YOU WROTE: "Go Local should be severely criticized for giving you and your friends the bully pulpit you occupy." The clear implication is that Rowley should be stripped of the GoLocal platform. Why else would anyone "severely criticize" GoLocal? Why not just recognize that GoLocal employes several progressive writers as well? Or, why not just write an op-ed of your own challenging anything you disagree with?
Oh, that's right. It's because you don't even know what you would write. All you know is that Rowley is wrong, because he probably got his talking points from the Heritage Foundation.
Listen, you've already admitted that you don't really know what you're talking about (made even more evident by claiming that free market policies would deliver us a monarchy). So why not take Rothbard's advice, and keep your mouth shut until you have a clue??
Jeremy Soninjer
5:07pm on Monday, March 26, 2012
Whoa! Take it easy, Bryan. Relax a bit.
On the other hand, I completely agree with everything you just wrote.
Russ C
1:32pm on Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Anyone believing this nonsense need only ready Thomas Paine to see how wrong Travis is. Or perhaps this from Franklin:
Anyone believing this nonsense need only ready Thomas Paine to see how wrong Travis is. Or perhaps this from Benjamin Franklin:
"he Remissness of our People in Paying Taxes is highly blameable; the Unwillingness to pay them is still more so. I see, in some Resolutions of Town Meetings, a Remonstrance against giving Congress a Power to take, as they call it, the People's Money out of their Pockets, tho' only to pay the Interest and Principal of Debts duly contracted. They seem to mistake the Point. Money, justly due from the People, is their Creditors' Money, and no longer the Money of the People, who, if they withold it, should be compell'd to pay by some Law.
All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."
Bryan Sullivan
3:47pm on Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Um, that's an argument for taxation in general, not for a progressive income tax that aims to redistribute the people's wealth --- which was explicitly denied in the original Constitution. Nice try, though.
Further, if any liberal wishes to have a contest to decide where most of the founders would stand today -- big gov't liberalism, or limited gov't conservatism / socialism vs capitalism -- then, by all means, ring the bell.