Like many people, I love to get something for nothing. It doesn’t make any difference what it is. If it’s free, I want it, even if it means waiting in line for something for which I have absolutely no use. I don’t know whether my desire to get something for nothing is a character flaw on my part or simply an example of human nature. I suspect it’s a little bit of both.
Have you ever been to a trade show or walked through an exhibit hall where vendors were giving away various trinkets or samples in order to promote their products? People line up with their little bags in front of the vendors’ booths in order to get something for nothing. In the past, I have left such trade shows with a bag full of ballpoint pens, key chains, magnets for my refrigerator, hats, plastic cups, coffee mugs, cardboard coasters, and other assorted items, none of which I wanted or needed. Of course, all of the items were advertisements for the vendors giving them away. On one occasion, I stood in a long line to get a free t-shirt. The t-shirts contained an advertisement on the front for a sausage company. When I got home, I decided I didn’t want to be a walking advertisement for the sausage company, so I put the t-shirt in a bag designated for the local Goodwill store.
Just this past week, I went to a fast food restaurant for lunch because the restaurant was giving away a particular type of sandwich with the purchase of a soft drink. The restaurant was trying to promote the sandwich, which was a new product on its menu. The sandwich didn’t sound particularly appealing to me, and I rarely consume soft drinks any more. But the sandwich was free with the purchase of a soft drink, and I couldn’t resist the offer so I purchased a soft drink and received a free sandwich.
Our politicians take great advantage of our desire to get something for nothing. Most of us are more than willing to take advantage of government benefits for which someone else is paying. President Obama and the Democrats in Congress continue to want to provide new programs and benefits to the American people while at the same time promising that only the wealthiest Americans will see an increase in their taxes. In other words, the new programs will be free for everyone but the wealthiest Americans. The rest of us will be able to get something for nothing.
President Obama wants to reform the nation’s health care system, which clearly needs to be reformed. His problem is figuring out how to pay to provide health insurance to people who presently don’t have it. I read this weekend that the Democrats in the House of Representatives want to pay for health-care reform by imposing a new tax on families making $350,000 or more. My immediate reaction was, “This sounds like a great idea. I like the idea because it won’t affect me. It won’t cost me anything. Let those filthy rich people pay for other people’s health care.”
My liberal instincts left me as soon as I started thinking rationally rather than emotionally. During my rational thought process, I remembered that the taxpayers who represent the wealthiest 1% of Americans are currently paying approximately 40% of the total federal income tax burden. Moreover, the top federal income rate is already scheduled to rise from 35% to 39.6% in 2011. In some states, many of the wealthiest Americans also pay as much as 10% in state income taxes on top of their federal income taxes. Like most of the rest of us, they also pay Social Security taxes, Medicare taxes, real estate taxes, personal property taxes, sales taxes, gasoline taxes, intangible taxes, school taxes, and vehicle registration taxes. But all of that is not enough for the Democrats in the House of Representatives, who are now proposing a 1% surtax on married couples making more than $350,000 per year, a 2% surtax for those making above $500,000, and a 3% surtax for those with incomes of $1 million or more. The proposed surtax would increase to 2%, 3%, and 5% for each of the three levels as soon as 2013.
Where does this end? When do we begin to realize that President Obama’s promise to “spread the wealth around” raises a significant moral issue? Dr. Walter E. Williams, a columnist and a professor of economics at George Mason University, thinks it is immoral for the government to continue to take money away from one group of people and give it to another group. In a recent column, he asked the questions, “Do you believe that it is moral and just for one person to be forcibly used to serve the purposes of another? And, if that person does not peaceably submit to being so used, do you believe that there should be the initiation of some kind of force against him?” Dr. Williams speculates that the average college professor, politician or minister would not be able to give a simple “yes or no” response to his questions. He writes, “A yes answer would put them firmly in the position of supporting some of mankind’s most horrible injustices such as slavery. After all, what is slavery but the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another? A no answer would put them on the spot as well because that would mean they would have to come out against taking the earnings of one American to give to another in the forms of farm and business handouts, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps and thousands of similar programs that account for more than two-thirds of the federal budget. There is neither moral justification nor constitutional authority for what amounts to legalized theft.”
Dr. Williams wrote, “In thinking about questions of morality, my initial premise is that I am my private property and you are your private property. That’s simple. What’s complex is what percentage of me belongs to someone else. If we accept the idea of self-ownership, then certain acts are readily revealed as moral or immoral. Acts such as rape and murder are immoral because they violate one’s private property rights. Theft of physical things that we own, such as cars, jewelry and money, also violates our ownership rights.”
In Dr. Williams’ view, “there is no way out of our immoral quagmire. The reason is that now that the U.S. Congress has established the principle that one American has a right to live at the expense of another American, it no longer pays to be moral. People who choose to be moral and refuse congressional handouts will find themselves losers. They’ll be paying higher and higher taxes to support increasing numbers of those paying lower and lower taxes. As it stands now, close to 50 percent of income earners have no federal income tax liability and as such, what do they care about rising income taxes? In other words, once legalized theft begins, it becomes too costly to remain moral and self-sufficient. You might as well join in the looting….”
It is too early to tell whether the proposed health-care surtax on the wealthiest Americans will become law. It really doesn’t make any difference. In the big picture, it is clear the final solution will involve some form of taking from one group in order to give to another group. The taking will include higher taxes for some as well as new laws requiring certain individuals and businesses to provide goods or services for less than the market value of those goods and services.
The problem with government programs is that the government cannot give anything to anyone without taking it away from someone else. The various proposals for health-care reform clearly demonstrate this problem. I recently read an article about health-care reform that made an excellent and obvious point: “a dollar spent on medical care is a dollar of income for someone.” Most of us, including me, would like to get our medical care at the expense of someone else. In this respect, we are all greedy because we want something for nothing.
There is a big difference between getting free promotional goods or services from a business and getting free goods or services from a government agency. In the first instance, the business is voluntarily giving something away in order to promote the business and hopefully attract new customers. In the case of a government benefit, it’s not free. Someone has to pay for it. Either you pay for it through your own tax dollars, or someone else pays for it through their tax dollars. There is no such thing as getting something for nothing when the government is involved.
Posts
