Why do statists support higher tax rates?
The most obvious answer is greed. In other words, leftists want more tax money since they personally benefit when there’s a larger burden of government spending. And the greed can take many forms.
They may want bigger government because they’re welfare recipients getting handouts.
They may want bigger government because they are overpaid bureaucrats administering ever-growing programs.
They may want bigger government because they’re lobbyists manipulating the system and it’s good to have more loot circulating.
They may want bigger government because they’re one of the many interest groups feeding at the federal trough.
Or they may want bigger government because they are politicians seeking to buy votes.
But greed isn’t the only answer.
Some statists want higher tax rates for reasons of spite and envy.
Consider this poll from the United Kingdom. It shows that an overwhelming majority of Labour voters want higher tax rates even if the government doesn’t collect any money.
These numbers are remarkable. It’s not just that the Labour Party is filled with people who want to punish success, I’m also dismayed to see that 16 percent of Tory voters and 35 percent of UKIP voters also want class-warfare tax hikes solely as an instrument of envy (though, given the mentality of some of their leaders, I’m pleasantly surprised that “only” 29 percent of Lib Dems are motivated by spite).
What about Americans? Do they have the same mentality?
We don’t have identical polling data, so it’s hard to say. But it would be very interesting to show leftists the IRS data from the 1980s, which unambiguously demonstrates that rich people paid more tax after Reagan dramatically lowered the top rate, and then see how they would answer the same question.
If they’re motivated by greed, they would favor Reagan’s tax cuts. But if they’re motivated by envy, like leftists in the United Kingdom, they’ll be against Reagan’s lower tax rates.
Unfortunately, there’s at least one prominent statist in America who has the same views as England’s Labour Party voters. Pay close attention at the 4:20 mark of this video.
Yes, you heard correctly. President Obama wants higher tax rates and class-warfare tax policy even if the government doesn’t collect any additional money.
Which means, of course, that he’s willing to undermine American competitiveness and reduce economic output solely to penalize entrepreneurs, investors, small business owners, and other “rich” taxpayers.
Remarkable.
P.S. By the way, the poll of UK voters wasn’t merely a theoretical question. The previous Labour Party government raised the top tax rate from 40 percent to 50 percent near the end of last decade and there’s very strong evidence that this tax hike failed to raise any revenue. In all likelihood, the then-Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, imposed the class-warfare policy in hopes of gaining votes in the upcoming election.
P.P.S. Notwithstanding their many flaws, at least the folks who work for left-leaning international bureaucracies acknowledge the Laffer Curve and generally argue against pushing tax rates above the revenue-maximizing level.
- Such as the warning from the European Commission that French tax rates were reaching a “fatal” level.
- Or this study from the OECD acknowledging that lower tax rates can lead to more taxable income.
- Or this study by the IMF, which not only acknowledges the Laffer Curve, but even suggests that the turbo-charged version exists.
- Or this European Central Bank study showing substantial Laffer-Curve effects.
- Or the United Nations admitting that the Laffer Curve limits the feasible amount of taxes that can be imposed.
Since it takes a lot to be to the left of the United Nations, that gives you an idea of where Obama (and UK Labour Party voters) are on the ideological spectrum. Which is why I made the tongue-in-cheek suggestion that Birthers accuse Obama of being born in Denmark rather than Kenya.
[…] facts don’t matter to some of our friends on the left. Too many of them seem to think government should have first claim on anything taxpayers earn, particularly if they […]
[…] facts don’t matter to some of our friends on the left. Too many of them seem to think government should have first claim on anything taxpayers earn, particularly if they […]
[…] facts don’t matter to some of our friends on the left. Too many of them seem to think government should have first claim on anything taxpayers earn, particularly if they […]
[…] Our third item compares a defining characteristic of capitalism (mutually beneficial voluntary exchange) and a defining feature of socialism (envy). […]
[…] In our first example, a woman learns that envy actually is a negative personality trait. […]
[…] In our first example, a woman learns that envy actually is a negative personality trait. […]
[…] making an ugly accusation. But in my defense, I’m simply reporting what they write. Or what they admit to […]
[…] In our first example, a woman learns that envy actually is a negative personality trait. […]
[…] In our first example, a woman learns that envy actually is a negative personality trait. […]
[…] In our first example, a woman learns that envy actually is a negative personality trait. […]
[…] In our first example, a woman learns that envy actually is a negative personality trait. […]
[…] there is polling data to back up Emily’s statistical analysis. Heck, some folks on the left openly assert that envy […]
[…] rates to be so high that revenues decline. But it seems many of them actually are motivated by a desire to punish success rather than a desire to maximize revenue for […]
[…] there is polling data to back up Emily’s statistical analysis. Heck, some folks on the left openly assert that envy […]
[…] It appears, though, that he wasn’t aware of a concept known as the Laffer Curve (or, like some folks on the left, maybe he simply didn’t care). […]
[…] It appears, though, that he wasn’t aware of a concept known as the Laffer Curve (or, like some folks on the left, maybe he simply didn’t care). […]
[…] Ms. Ocasio-Cortez wants to run that experiment in reverse. That won’t end well (assuming, of course, that her goal is collecting more revenue, which may not be the case). […]
[…] though I have shared polling data echoing these findings, I still have a hard time accepting that some people think like […]
[…] there’s an election, she’s decided to resurrect that awful policy, presumably because a sufficient number of Scottish voters are motivated by hate and […]
[…] friends, who sometimes openly admit that they want higher taxes on the rich even if the government doesn’t actually collect any extra revenue, should be especially happy because the tax has made life more difficult for people with more […]
[…] friends, who sometimes openly admit that they want higher taxes on the rich even if the government doesn’t actually collect any extra revenue, should be especially happy because the tax has made life more difficult for people with more […]
[…] there are leftists today who still have that attitude. Heck, there’s an entire political party with that […]
[…] And here’s something that’s downright depressing. Some leftists are so resentful of successful people that they want higher tax rates even if the result is less revenue. And you’ll notice at the 4:20 […]
[…] And here’s something that’s downright depressing. Some leftists are so resentful of successful people that they want higher tax rates even if the result is less revenue. And you’ll notice at the […]
[…] I’m not overly hopeful. Let’s not forget that some of these people aren’t particularly interested in generating more revenue for politicians. Their real motive is hate and […]
[…] sometimes accuse me of misrepresenting the left’s ideology, to which I respond by pointing to a poll of left-wing voters who strongly favored soak-the-rich tax hikes even if there was no extra tax […]
[…] I’m not holding my breath and expecting miracles. After all, some leftists openly state that they don’t care if the economic damage of high tax rates is so significant that government […]
[…] I’m not holding my breath and expecting miracles. After all, some leftists openly state that they don’t care if the economic damage of high tax rates is so significant that […]
[…] others are much more motivated by a desire to punish success. They want high tax rates on the “rich” even if the government collects less […]
[…] P.S. Though there are some who favor higher taxes solely for reasons of spite and envy. […]
[…] referencing our cousins on the other side of the Atlantic, you’ll be interested to know that Labor Party voters share Obama’s belief in jacking up tax rates even if the economic damage is so severe that the government doesn’t […]
[…] via Labour supporters admit it: taxes are to punish the rich, not to raise revenue – Telegraph Blogs and https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2014/02/04/what-motivates-the-left-envy-or-greed/ […]
[…] The modern left, however, seems completely fixated on class-warfare tax policy. Some of them want higher tax rates even if the government doesn’t collect more revenue! […]
[…] recently, for instance, I noted that crazy left wingers openly admitted they want higher tax rates even if the government doesn’t raise any revenue. That was a depressing result, but I was encouraged to see that a vast majority of Americans view […]
[…] as bad as putting rates even higher, as some envy-motivated leftists would prefer, but still an example of bad tax […]
[…] as bad as putting rates even higher, as some envy-motivated leftists would prefer, but still an example of bad tax […]
they are angry at the “vast right-wing conspiracy”….
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/the-angry-left/
This would be a very long topic, as the left has constructed a series of synergistic, plausible and instinctive, but faulty narratives.
But, by far, the greatest misconception is inability to understand that:
In the longer term, compounding growth is the factor that dwarfs everything else in determining prosperity for all members of a society, whether they are in the top, middle or bottom third. And that growth depends on as unadulterated as possible effort-reward curves and multi-prong simultaneous free experimentation with various ideas, i.e. the absence of dirigisme, i.e. voters who refrain from their desire to exert collective control over the economy.
But to the leftist, the immediacy of redistribution is irresistible, so long term compounding prosperity takes second seat, and other cultures and nations then overtake you.
These changes, rises and falls of nations, used to take a long time. So the consequences could be pushed into future generations. But in our ever faster moving twenty first century, those nations whose voter-lemmings choose immediate redistribution over long term prosperity will go down the toilet in short order.
There is a number of reasons for the UK figures that you have quoted.
Here in the UK, politics is largely regional. In the urban and ex-industrial areas, socialism has been part of the fabric of life since the late nineteenth century.
Socialists have a stranglehold on local governemnt and education in these areas. If you visit these places, you soon become aware of the victim mentality. No-one is in charge of their own destiny, they are all noble, hard-working people deprived of opportunity by “the rich”. You can even see it on regional TV news.
This view has been carefully cultivated and maintained by socialist politicians. It is, after all, their gateway to power.
If you look at a UK political map you may be surprised at how clearly defined these lines are:
http://www.libdemvoice.org/economist-political-map-of-uk-34188.html
Red = ex-industrial and urban – almost exclusvely Labour
Blue = Rural and suburban – almost exclusvely Conservative.
Oranges and Yellows are LibDem and Scottish Nationalists (which is another story).
I believe that aurorawatcherak nailed half of the problem (ignorance), but there’s a second half, which is the willingness to act regardless of ignorance. They believe that knowledge of reality should not be allowed to give someone an advantage in public discourse, that their ignorance should be considered equal to someone else’s knowledge.
The single word that best describes that world view is ‘disrespect’.
So the two halves together that motivate the left are ignorance and disrespect.
I agree with aurora. I don’t think the only two choices are envy and greed. There are a lot of people who, as Zorba would say, are just voter lemmings and will take what is fed to them. The media feeds them the line that the rich are getting richer at the expense of everyone else, so they see no problem with taking from the rich. The thinking is more or less “the rich have plenty; they can share with the needy”, and that’s where the thinking stops – well short of understanding the full consequences.
Based on conversations with British people (many but not all of them academics), I submit that what motivates this insanity is better described as moral vanity, rather than envy. At the very least, moral vanity is a major factor: how else could you explain people insisting that they feel privileged, and that they are motivated only by concern for those less privileged than themselves?
I think a lot of the motivation is ignorance. In the US, I think a majority of statists are motivated by good intentions. They honestly believe that there’s only so much wealth to go around and that if the rich have too much, the poor can’t get any. The media trumpets that tune loud and clear and the schools sing the refrain. We’re taught that Sam Walton (a poor man who became rich through hard work) is an exception and look what an awful thing he did with it — exploiting the poor by offering them affordable goods. Oh, my!
Yes, behind that majority of statists are a handful of administrators and image-makers pulling their strings, but I would note that they have been so good at their propaganda that even upper middle class professionals are convinced that every dollar Michael Dell makes is stolen from some kid in the ghetto and they feel guilty about it and want to use the tax structure to make it better.
No, I am not saying it’s a rational belief, only that it is motivated by good — if misplaced — intentions.
Reblogged this on Public Secrets and commented:
Both?
It could be as simple as Ideological “certainty” or a religiosity belief that they know what is best for you!