Melfamy has written a post in which he uses a govt. report that purports to claim tax cuts have nothing to do with economic growth:

 

“…there is no evidence to support the conservative contention that lowering the top tax rates stimulates economic growth.”

 

Given that Melfamy is a self-professed Liberal/Progressive, and that he routinely defends the policies of the political Left, the clear implication of Melfamy’s post is that raising tax rates on the rich will have no effect on the economy and, therefore, we should raise taxes on the rich.

 

“Apparently, solid, well researched data no longer matters—at least not when it comes to the Congressional Republicans.”

 

OK, far be it for me, a philosopher, to bring logic into this discussion, but, please, allow me to bring a little logic into this discussion.

 

 

First, setting aside the serious flaws in the study Melfamy cites, let’s just accept the surface implication of Melfamy’s argument:

 

Assume that tax rates have nothing to do with the economy.  The two are not connected.  Now, let me ask you this question:

 

Why not raise taxes on “the rich” to 100% and on “the poor” to 50% of ALL income – including capital gains?

 

Seriously, if raising taxes will not harm the economy, then why would they affect your personal budget?  According to Melfamy’s “proof” that they are connected, then raising taxes on YOU to at least 50% will have no effect on your budget.  So you should be paying AT LEAST 50% of EVERYTHING you make.  After all, it’s only “fair.”

 

And there you have it: Melfamy promotes tax increases on the poor to 50% of All their income because it will not harm the economy!

 

 

Oh, I know Melfamy will tell you I am putting words into his mouth, but am I?  If he claims that raising taxes on the rich will not harm the economy, then why would raising taxes on the poor harm the economy?  It won’t; the govt. “proved it,” remember:

 

“…there is no evidence to support the conservative contention that lowering the top tax rates stimulates economic growth.”

 

Now, does it really make sense to you that we can raise taxes on you to 50% or more and it would have no effect on the economy?  Obviously, there IS a connection between tax increases and economic activity.  That means that Melfamy’s “proof” isn’t really proof that there is no connection between tax increases and the economy.  So, why did Melfamy present it as “proof” of something it does not prove?

 

Is it possible that Melfamy’s post is nothing more than an excuse to “punish” the rich?  If so, why would the rich need to be “punished?”  What did they do?  If they broke the law, then charge, try and jail them.  But, if they haven’t broken any laws, why do they need to be punished?  Where is the “fairness” in that?

 

Speaking of “fairness,” is it possible that Melfamy truly believes the rich should pay more because they make more?  OK, well, if we use the same govt. figures Melfamy relies on for his “proof,” we find that 1% of Americans pay 40% of ALL income taxes actually collected and the bottom 50% of taxpayers – that’s MORE than half of ALL Americans – pay less than 10% of all income taxes collected.  How is THAT “fair?”  Wouldn’t “fair” mean we all pay an equal percentage of the cost of running our govt.?  If Melfamy really is concerned about fairness, I’d suggest we need him to define what his idea of “fair” is before we listen to him any further.

 

But there is another possibility; it’s just that it doesn’t paint Melfamy in a positive light.  Is it possible that Melfamy is just envious and greedy, and he is looking for a justification for sending the govt. to take property– by force – from people who legally earned it and then “redistribute” it to those who did not earn it?  Is it possible that Melfamy is just trying to justify his envy and greed to assuage his own guilt?  And is it possible that his claim to be concerned for “the less fortunate” is just an appeal to your emotions to paint a false image of moral superiority in his greedy and envy?

 

Melfamy is correct about one thing: none of us – not even me – know what is in his heart.  All we know is what he says and what it means when we carry it to its logical extension.  In this case, if tax increases do not harm the economy, then why is it only “the rich” Melfamy wants to tax?  Does that honestly make sense to you?  Or is it possible that Melfamy has another motivation?  I’ll leave you to make your own decision.  All I know is that the study he presents as “proof” of his position doesn’t actually “prove” his position, and – for me – this is a strong indication of a hidden ulterior motive.