Let’s say a friendly billionaire, like Bill Gates, offered to give you $100,000. This would be paid in cash, tax free. He would pay any taxes you would incur so that your net amount received would indeed be $100,000.
There would be no requirement and you wouldn’t have to do or promise anything. He just wanted to give it to you because he was your friend, and because he was a nice guy.
Would you be excited?
Of course you would. For many of you, receiving that money, or even hearing about it the first time would be the best day of your life. You’d be ecstatic!
You happily agree to take the money and he shakes your hand, telling you that he’ll personally bring the briefcase full of cash over to your home tomorrow afternoon at 1pm. You tell him that you’ll definitely be there.
He nods, and as he leaves, he mentions in passing that he has to meet you at 1pm, since at 2pm, he’ll be stopping by at my house and giving me $1 million.
Instantly, your mood goes from ecstatic to neutral, or perhaps even negative.
“Wait a minute, what?” you exclaim, “I get $100,000, but Caleb gets $1 million? Why?”
“Because he makes more money than you,” Bill answers.
Obviously, you don’t like that answer at all. You get a little upset. You scream at Bill, telling him that since you make less money than me, you should be the one getting more money, not me. Bill just shrugs and says that fair or unfair, that’s just the way it is.
He goes on to say that you have two choices:
1. Take the $100,000, watch me get $1 million, and shut up and enjoy your money even though it’s clearly unfair that I’m getting more.
2. Refuse the $100,000 and get nothing. If you do, Bill will not give me the $1 million either. So you lose your $100,000, and I lose that $1 million.
Now tell me… which option would you choose? Think very carefully before you answer.
I submit to you that if you take option two, you’re insane. Seriously. I truly believe that no matter how angry you are, no matter how much you hate me, Bill Gates, rich people, capitalism, or whatever else you hate, if you refuse the $100,000 just to keep $1 million away from some other person who makes more money than you means that you have something seriously wrong with yourself.
I fully understand being very angry, hurt, and upset while receiving the $100,000. I would be a little peeved myself, but the $100,000 would more than make up for any negative feelings you’d have… if you were a normal, functioning human. But if you refuse the money because someone else is getting more, I think you’ve truly lost your mind. Again, I’m not being hyperbolic; I honestly think something is mentally wrong with you if you make that choice.
Remember this any time a left-winger screams that Trump shouldn’t pass any tax cut proposals that include cutting your taxes, because richer people might get a bigger tax cut than you. Yeah, they probably will. And yeah, this is often very unfair, particularly in a corporatist society where the super-rich get free cash from the taxpayer. As I’ve said many times, I’m 100% opposed to all corporate welfare, bank bailouts, or quantitative easing. I’m likely more against these things than you are, even if you’re a left-wing progressive. The super-rich are indeed directly responsible for much of the reasons why the West is collapsing. You’ll get no argument from me on any of that.
As you already know, I think no one should pay an income tax at all, and that income tax is a fundamentally immoral and authoritarian policy. If I was president and I had the power to do it, I’d reduce your income tax (at least your federal income tax) to zero, regardless of your income bracket.
But if Trump offers to cut your taxes, yes you, your taxes, by say $2000 a year, are you going to be against this because some rich person you don’t even know is going to save $100,000 with the same tax cut?
If that makes you upset, I completely understand.
But if you’re against getting $2,000 more in your pocket, you’re insane.
Want over 35 hours of how-to podcasts on how to improve your woman life and financial life? Want to be able to coach with me twice a month? Want access to hours of technique-based video and audio? The SMIC Program is a monthly podcast and coaching program where you get access to massive amounts of exclusive, members-only Alpha 2.0 content as soon as you sign up, and you can cancel whenever you want. Click here for the details.
Leave your comment below, but be sure to follow the Five Simple Rules.
Tony
Posted at 06:26 am, 13th February 2017That’s not the issue people have with tax cuts, the issue is that government programs get paid with tax dollars. If you cut taxes for the rich that means fewer government services, which mostly help the poor, and big tax cuts for the rich push the obligation to pay for these programs on the poor. Tax cuts aren’t free money.
Caleb Jones
Posted at 12:06 pm, 13th February 2017Yes it is. I see left-wingers scream about this very issue on literally a constant basis.
Some government programs are paid with tax dollars. A huge percentage are paid for by debt and money printing. 2016’s deficit was half a trillion dollars with only $3 trillion in revenue (and money printing isn’t factored into any of that).
Good. We have too many government services, and most of what we have either doesn’t work or makes things worse.
Poor people don’t pay a federal income tax, so of course it’s not free money if they cut taxes when you don’t pay them. This article is directed at those people who do pay a federal income tax (or state income tax). And yes, if your taxes go down, it’s free money to you.
Paul Murray
Posted at 05:47 pm, 13th February 2017Slightly different scenario:
Caleb and I live on an island. The stores on the island set their prices according to the average wealth of everyone on the island.
Thing is: that *is* the scenario we live in.
SamS
Posted at 08:57 pm, 13th February 2017The population is violently forced to pay a large portion of their income to the government so that it can pay for welfare. This is unlikely to change. The only thing that we can change is who pays. It makes sense to make the rich people pay because they are small in number and we live in a democracy. Moreover, as the state of California shows most rich people are far less tax sensitive than one might suspect. I think all people (rich people included) should keep their money, but if it is them or us obviously it should be us.
Caleb Jones
Posted at 10:20 pm, 13th February 2017Correct; society is fucked regardless.
But that isn’t the point of this article. The article isn’t pointed at rich people, but left-wing middle class people who don’t want a tax cut because a rich guy might get more.
Fernando
Posted at 10:40 am, 14th February 2017“The population is violently forced to pay a large portion of their income to the government so that it can pay for welfare. This is unlikely to change. The only thing that we can change is who pays. It makes sense to make the rich people pay because they are small in number and we live in a democracy. Moreover, as the state of California shows most rich people are far less tax sensitive than one might suspect. I think all people (rich people included) should keep their money, but if it is them or us obviously it should be us.”
Yeah, tax the rich, so they will take their large amount of money, investments and business to somewhere with less tax, making the country more poor, and creating unemployment. That will get more people in welfare, so tax the riches more, and so on! That’s democracy, isn’t it? Little heads up for you pal, rich people are not stupid. They are not going to run their business in a terrible economical environment and end up paying all their profit as taxes. They will go somewhere else and the whole society will pay the price. That’s what slowly happened everywhere with this kind of socialism and wealth redistribution.
d. beguiled
Posted at 12:22 pm, 14th February 2017Nice post and excellent point.
Unvarying glitches in human nature.
Jesus covered this:
“For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire workers for his vineyard. 2 He agreed to pay them a denarius[a] for the day and sent them into his vineyard.
3 “About nine in the morning he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. 4 He told them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.’ 5 So they went.
“He went out again about noon and about three in the afternoon and did the same thing. 6 About five in the afternoon he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, ‘Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?’
7 “‘Because no one has hired us,’ they answered.
“He said to them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard.’
8 “When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.’
9 “The workers who were hired about five in the afternoon came and each received a denarius. 10 So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. 11 When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. 12 ‘These who were hired last worked only one hour,’ they said, ‘and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.’
13 “But he answered one of them, ‘I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? 14 Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you. 15 Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’”
Tony
Posted at 02:06 pm, 14th February 2017There are probably some who just want to punish the rich, just like there are older guys who date younger women just to take advantage of them. But just like how people use that to attack you for dating younger women are being ridiculous, using these people to attack the whole concept of raising taxes is absurd.
That debt is backed with tax dollars, so yes taxpayers pay for those services even if the government borrows money. I only paid 5% of the cost of my house when I bought it and borrowed the rest, but I still paid for the house.
It may be free money to me, but that doesn’t mean it’s free money. Regardless of your personal opinion on the effectiveness of government services, tax cuts cause those services to be cut.
Caleb Jones
Posted at 02:35 pm, 14th February 2017I’m not. This article has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue of raising taxes. Did you even read it?
Incorrect. Your children or grandchildren or great-grandchildren might pay it, but you personally will never pay any Federal government debt created in 2017.
Incorrect again. You did not pay for the that loan. You paid a several mortgage payments and then sold the house and moved away (or if you haven’t yet, you will). You never paid for the full value of the home loan you took out.
Finally you admit it’s free money to you. Was it really that hard?
That’s what I’m talking about in the article. You as an individual making a decision based on your own personal finances, rather than making a decision based on anger, jealousy, or some political philosophy (even if I might agree with such philosophy!).
Wow, incorrect yet again. Usually tax cuts just mean the government borrows more money (or in some cases, prints more money) and the services continue.
How many services and how much government spending was “cut” under George W. Bush when he slashed taxes? None… both of those things went up. We just went into more debt.
You’re not doing very well with your arguments lately. You really need to calm the left-wing defensiveness so you can think rationally.
masterdev
Posted at 03:22 am, 15th February 2017Here is a libertarian perspective: tax cuts never cause something valuable to be cut. Government misspending consistently messing everything up. Hence why people voted for a businessman, Trump. Although, to be clear, I did not vote for him. But still, my point remains.
masterdev
Posted at 03:23 am, 15th February 2017messes*
Max
Posted at 08:47 pm, 15th February 2017For me it doesn’t matter at all how much more money you get. If its free I will be happy with whatever I get and I will be happy for you for whatever you get (as long as you don’t use it to finance terrorism or buy sex slaves). I would actually accept getting a little bit less if that means you get a lot more in exchange. My concern is what was the alternative use. If it was money Bill Gates was going to spend on cocaine and hookers then I’m happy we will get it instead. If it was money from Bill’s foundation to fight malaria then I would prefer if neither of us get anything or at least, if we get less. I’m not going to donate all my money to charity but I won’t use charity as a source of free money for me either if I don’t really need it.
CTV
Posted at 01:26 pm, 16th February 2017The Estate Tax commonly called the Death Tax or Inheritance Tax.
1. The Progressives argue they should be paying 65%-70% because they didn’t do anything to earn it. The problem with this argument is NEITHER DID THE GOVERNMENT and they plan on handing those people back NOTHING in return.
2. Oh it’s only like .02% of the population so Fuck em! Okay Native Americans are a small minority that are left in this country too. It doesn’t make it right to ride rough shot over them though? Does it?
3. It’s been taxed already or as property it was taxed the whole time and will continue to be.
4. Preventing an “Aristocracy”. However how this really works out is it kills farms and small businesses or at least greatly cripples them by comparison of how they operated before getting taxed like this. Now you’re just empowering those Large Corporations everyone complains about having too much power even more.