Letter from Lindell Cline
Economics – August 2000 – Colorado Central Magazine
Editors:
I generally agree with most of Martha Quillen’s editorials. A good deal more often than with Ed’s. As is the case with most people, I am probably too slow to let people know when I agree with them and too quick to let them know when I disagree. Nevertheless, I feel compelled to respond to Martha’s July opinion that: “The simplest solution to most of our current problems is to increase the income tax on corporations and the very wealthy”.
Although I’m confident her intentions are good, they are clearly based on five very common but false assumptions. That corporations rather than consumers actually pay corporate taxes, that forcing people to give is charity, that all those in need deserve charity, that charity always does more good than harm, and that Big Brother will do a better job of distributing charity than will corporations, private groups or individuals.
Have corporations, over the long term, reduced their profit margins in order to pay taxes? The answer of course is no, so who is actually paying those taxes? Everyone who buys their products or services. In other words, the public. Corporate taxes are just another sneaky, underhanded, dishonest way of hiding taxes from those who are actually paying them. While hiding taxes may make people somewhat more willing to pay them, it most certainly does not reduce them.
I certainly agree that people, especially wealthy people, should be charitable; but forcing them to give is not charity. That is socialism, and over the long term socialism will work no better in this country than it has anywhere else. If we weren’t paying the government and expecting the government to take care of them, we could and I believe we would, give those who really need and deserve our help as much or more than they receive now; and we could still keep most of what we pay the government to take care of them. We would know where our charity was going, we would know it all got there, those who received it would appreciate it, and we would feel good about it. Instead: We don’t know where much of our charity is going, we know it won’t all get there, those who receive it consider it a right, and we rightfully resent it. What kind of idiocy is that?
Because someone is in need does not mean that person deserves charity. Some have done absolutely nothing to deserve charity. Giving to them is simply an indication to them that we should be willing to give even more. Our charity becomes their dependency.
Far too many people with good intentions base their positions on how they would like things to be, with little or no consideration as to whether it is the least bit practical or even possible to make them that way or whether attempts to make them that way will do more harm than good. So all we need is for a couple of slick used car salesman like Hillary and Billary to come riding in on their white horses, pretending to be Snow White and Prince Charming — Saying: Our intentions are good: Our hearts are in the right place: We’re compassionate and sensitive: We feel your pain: We’re just here to help you because we care about you: Trust us — and they have those people swooning and following them around like a bunch of sheep. But a leader who really cares about people knows that, in the vast majority of cases, the best thing for people is to leave them alone and let them take care of themselves. But you can’t get elected telling people that, so it all comes down to who is the best liar — or the worst liar –
Although corporations, private groups and individuals have often lavished their charity on hopeless, negative, or even bizarre schemes; they still do far better than does the government. Raising taxes on corporations and the wealthy always has been and probably always will be highly popular with the masses, but it is hardly the solution to our problems.
Lindell Cline Buena Vista
