Tax Hikes
by Dr. Doug Cardell
Imagine a hypothetical short hike in a beautiful part of Hawaii. It's a nice wide flat trail surrounded by incredible sights. It's one mile out and one mile back and suitable for hikers of all fitness levels. There would be a break for lunch at the furthest point. This trip will include one hundred hikers; each allowed a ten-pound pack. When you arrive at the trailhead, you learn that the group had voted and, by a slight majority vote, had decided that all the hikers' packs would be redistributed so that the fittest hikers would carry the most weight. The hikers had completed a fitness test the week before that consisted of the total squats, pushups, and situps each could do in one hour. They looked at research tables and found that the fittest individuals could score almost 11000 on the test, and the least fit averaged zero. They found this fitness inequality concerning and decided to try and equalize it; after all, the fittest could carry more, so it's only fair that they should carry more, right? They averaged the scores into six categories and used a fitness formula they had designed to distribute the total weight of the packs among the hikers. The total weight of all the packs was 1000 pounds. Their formula would distribute the weight as follows: The fittest individual scored 10000 on the test and would carry 423 pounds. The next four scored 3200 and would have 51 pounds. The following five scored 1000 and would take 22 pounds. The next fifteen scored 200 points and would carry 10 pounds. The next twenty-five averaged 75 points and would carry 4 pounds. The remaining fifty hikers averaged 33 points and would take half a pound. Since you scored 3200 on the fitness test and would be required to carry 51 pounds, you protested, saying that between running and weightlifting, you worked out at least an hour a day and felt it was wrong to be penalized for your effort. The group spokesman responded that this was necessary to overcome fitness inequality and that it was fair for the majority to rule. You replied that this so-called fitness inequality resulted from personal choices and could be easily rectified by the majority taking steps to improve their fitness level. In fact, by carrying less weight, they were lowering their exercise level and increasing the fitness gap. You went on to point out that by taking their own packs, the majority would increase their fitness levels and begin to close the fitness gap. You went on to say that by overloading the fit groups, their carrying extra weight gives them much more exercise and would increase their fitness level, making the fitness gap even more significant. You further objected that it was unfair for the majority to rule in a manner that harmed innocent minorities. Would that mean the majority could vote to force the fitter hikers to carry not only most of the weight but carry the less fit hikers as well? Can the majority vote to discriminate against any group they choose? Since they decided to penalize healthy people, can they also decide to penalize tall people, or are tall people exempt because they were born that way and fitness is a choice? It is essential to answer these questions because this story is not entirely fiction. It is a direct analogy to the American tax structure. The six groups and the amounts they must carry are identical to the U.S. tax brackets. Higher incomes are much like fitness since both result from choices and actions. Like the fit hikers who devoted resources to achieving their fitness level, those with higher incomes spent time, money, and educational expenses acquiring skills and abilities that have increased their income level. Making the fit carry more weight is a form of majority-dictated slavery. It is forced labor disguised as fairness. Forcing anyone to work for someone else's benefit is the definition of slavery. The majority dictating it is not an excuse; it simply makes the majority slaveholders. It is beyond any moral justification. Income is the result of work; taking money earned by labor is no different than taking the labor itself. It is forcing someone to work for someone else's benefit. It is a disguised, indirect form of slavery. Are all taxes theft? No, only unequal taxes are theft, stolen from the minority by the majority with no logical or moral justification other than having more votes. Members of the majority that vote for persons who promote unequal taxes become enslavers. There are also inherent moral problems in the removal of personal responsibility. The oft-used phrase, "What goes around, comes around," is, in various languages, a central tenet in all the world's major religions. It has been a fundamental concept in law since Hammurabi's code in 1755 BC. Justice demands that all people get what they deserve. A vital part of that concept is that everyone is responsible for the results of their choices and actions, for better or worse. Everyone must carry their fair share of the burden in hiking or taxation. Fair share can only be determined by equally dividing the load rather than punishing those who have made the best choices and acted upon them and rewarding those who have made poor choices. Furthermore, allowing the majority to target minorities cannot be tolerated. Everyone deserves equal treatment under the law regardless of the 'will of the majority.
If you found this article stimulating, please share it with other folks who might enjoy it. And please share your thoughts below. Dr. Cardell would love to hear from you.
Responses
Nice analogy!