Let’s face it, politics is largely the art of deception, and political rhetoric is largely the art of misstating issues. A classic example is the current debate over whether to give money to the unemployed by extending the duration of unemployment benefits, or instead to give “tax cuts to the rich.”
First of all, nobody’s taxes — neither on the rich nor on the poor — are going to be cut in this lame-duck session of Congress. The only real question is if our current tax rates will go up in January, whether for everybody or nobody or somewhere in between.
Advertisement
The most we can hope for is that tax rates will not go up. So the next time you hear politicians or media talking heads say “tax cuts for the rich,” that will tell you whether they are serious about facts or just addicted to talking points.
Not only are the so-called “tax cuts” not really tax cuts, most of the people called “rich” are not really rich. Rich means having a lot of wealth. But income taxes don’t touch wealth. No wonder some billionaires are saying it’s okay to raise income taxes. They would still be billionaires if taxes took 100 percent of their current income.
What those who argue against “tax cuts for the rich” are really promoting is raising the tax rates on families making $250,000 a year and up. A husband and wife making $125,000 a year each are not rich. If they have a kid going to one of the many colleges charging $30,000 a year (in after-tax money) for tuition alone, they are not likely to feel anywhere close to being rich.
Many people earning an annual income of $125,000 a year do so only after years of earning a lot less, before eventually working their way up to that level. For politicians to step in at that point and confiscate what those people have invested years of working to achieve is a little much.
It also takes a lot of brass to talk about taxing “millionaires and billionaires” when most of the people whose taxes the liberals want to raise are neither. Why is so much deception necessary, if your case is strong?
Small-business owners usually reach their peak earnings many years after starting their business: They often operated with very low income, or even at a loss, when they first began.
Having politicians step in with an extra tax at that point, when later incomes compensate for earlier sacrifices, is sheer brass — especially when real millionaires and billionaires have their wealth safely stowed in tax shelters.
Another fashionable political and media deception is making a parallel between giving money to the unemployed versus giving money to “the rich.”
When you refrain from raising workers’ taxes, you are not “giving” them anything. Even if you were actually cutting their tax rates — which is out of the question today — you would still not be “giving” them anything, but only allowing them to keep more of what they have earned.
Is the government doing any of us a big favor by not taking even more of what we have worked for? Is it not an insult to our intelligence to say that the government is “giving” us something by not taxing it away?
With unemployment compensation, however, you are in fact giving someone something. “Extending unemployment benefits” always sounds good politically — especially if you do not ask the basic question: “For how long should they be extended?” A year? Two years? No limit?
Studies have shown what common sense should have told us without studies: The longer the unemployment benefits are available, the longer people stay unemployed.
If I were fired tomorrow, should I be able to live off the government until I find another job that is exactly the same, making the same or higher pay? What if I am offered another job that uses some of the same skills but doesn’t pay quite as much? Should I be allowed to keep on living off the government?
With the government making it more expensive for employers to hire workers, and at the same time subsidizing unemployed workers longer and longer, we will have as much unemployment as we are willing to pay for, for as long as we are willing to pay for it.
While many writers for NRO reflect my ideological values, Mr. Sowell always captures the logical bases for those values. His articles are free of rhetorical flourish and strike right at the heart of whatever he is analyzing.
Another deception that Mr. Sowell left out: the Left's consistent characterization of the choice to keep our current tax rates in effect after December 31 as a choice to add $700 billion to the deficit. That $700 billion figure is based on a ten year extension. How could you tell when a politician was lying during this debate? When his/her lips were moving and the words that came out were something about this $700 billion figure. As the President's two year deal demonstrates, it has never been a choice between zero years of extension and ten years. But the Statist nonetheless used their deceptive $700 billion formulation freely. It will be interesting to see if that formulation has evaporated, now that The One himself has exposed it.
This deceptive formulation also implies that Congress's choice to tax income at anything less than 100% is the source of *all* deficit spending. I'd like to see a Statist say this out loud, because it is in in fact one of the core beliefs of the Statists, that the wealth of the nation belongs to the collective, with the State as the proper arbiter to decide who gets to keep what.
1. Dr. Sowell is a real life E.F. Hutton. When his lips are moving, we all ought to stop, listen, and take notes.
2. I love the fact this site is the only one to my knowledge offering a math quiz to verify posters are not automated. It's more difficult and secure commenting on NRO than voting. While delighted by the little quiz, I find I am depressed when considering the vote comparison.
When politicians say they are giving money to the wealthy, they are not lying--they are merely displaying their actual attitude toward private property in the US--i. e. everything belongs to the government unless they allow you to have it. This is a direct result of the unrestricted permit of the Income Tax Amendment to the Constitution.
The Talmudic rule for private property says "If you want to take someone else's property, you must prove your case"--Congress says "If you want to keep your own property you must prove your case!"
Sowell: "Studies have shown what common sense should have told us without studies: The longer the unemployment benefits are available, the longer people stay unemployed."
Trying to follow the facts, I Googled this assertion. I found this Heritage site
with the following statement: "But economic studies consistently show that when workers collect longer UI benefits they also stay unemployed longer." It hyperlinks five studies. One by one:
1. "Simulations suggest that if the program had run long enough to affect UI claimants from the first day of their spell . . . the average recipient would have collected about one extra week or regular benefits" External Link
2. "The empirical results suggest that eligibility for UI compensation signifcantly raises the prob-
ability of a layoff. Conditional on eligibility, however, neither the length nor the dollar amount of
the UI compensation to which workers are entitled appear to affect the risks of layoff. No aspect of
UI affects the probability of a quit in any of the estimated specifcations."
3. "Policy is as ever a more difficult consideration. We would resist the interpretation that our findings support a reduction in the periodicity of benefits."
5. "The results indicate that a one week increase in potential benefit duration increases the average duration of the unemployment spells of UI recipients by 0,16 to 0.20 weeks."
One out of five in support (the last one), the first one directly contradicting it (unless you call a total one week variance significant), the second one about layoffs, not the matter at hand, the third one with a great big caveat, and the fourth one about Austria.
My common sense tells me that anyone who is responsible for anyone other than himself or herself will struggle like mad to find a job.
The one quibble I would make with Mr. Sowell's otherwise excellent arguments is that workers have paid unemployment taxes in the past and are receiving that benefit while unemployed. So the amount they are "given" at least in simple terms (no accounting of time value of money) should be the excess collected less the amount paid. [Any argument that it is the employer paying the unemployment insurance amount won't wash either as the wage earner has to earn that amount to justify his employment.]
World English Dictionary
rhetoric
— n
1. the study of the technique of using language effectively
2. the art of using speech to persuade, influence, or please; oratory
3. excessive use of ornamentation and contrivance in spoken or written discourse; bombast
4. speech or discourse that pretends to significance but lacks true meaning: all the politician says is mere rhetoric
I always find Mr. Sowell's diatribes interesting, not because they appeal to my sensibilities but because he manages to make nearly all of his assertions without one shred of evidence. His columns are the purest definition of rhetoric. When a man working at one of the most prestigious financial think tanks at one of the country's most expensive schools rails about (in a previous article) the arrogant elites, or gripes about how a family in the top 2% of income earners in the country is not rich when they spend $30,000 a year (a year at YALE, not a state school mind you) on a child's education and only have the paltry sum of $220,000 left over, alarm bells start to ring. It's articles like this, light on logic, heavy on rhetoric, that make me wonder who's really driving the bus, so to speak.
A FLAT TAX is needed. It will bring "under the table" income and criminal enterprise income into the realm of federal taxes.
As it is now, about 50% of wage earners pay NO federal income tax.
And worse, many recieve an annual WELFARE check called the EITC, (earned income tax credit.
Just imagine life with no 1040's, 1099's etc!
With Medicare set to go through the roof with the baby boomers retiring, how exactly are we supposed to balance the budget with no increase in taxes? It seems like fantasy math to me and a recipe for more irresponsible debt.
The baby boomers seem to not really care about debt at all, which will just serve to screw us in the other generations. Thanks for that. Much appreciated.
