other people’s money

Robert Reich writes:

Considering the magnitude of challenges ahead for America, it seems only reasonable that taxes should rise on the wealthy.

Can someone explain to me why this seems reasonable, or fair?

Let me explain what I mean. The other day I was talking to a friend, a very hardworking professional who makes a healthy amount of money, much, much more than her younger sister, who chose the uncomplicated life of an artist in a rural idyll, in which she has been supported for more than 25 years by their financially comfortable parents.

Now younger sister wants a Viking stove for her birthday. Says mom: No problem!

My friend, who could, without blinking, afford to renovate her entire (huge) kitchen and put in two Viking stoves, is annoyed. She hasn’t asked for a penny from her parents since graduating from college, after which she attended professional school, married another hardworking professional, and raised a larger-than-average family. Now that their kids are out of school (she and her husband paid full freight for their children’s education at top-ranked and top-priced universities), she is preoccupied with socking away enough money for retirement so as not to be a burden on those children.

I have known my friend for several decades. In all that time, it would never have occurred to her to buy something that was beyond her means–or indeed even to allow herself to wish for such things. Instead, she focused on her gratifying and socially responsible work and on her personal responsibilities. She earned her wealth, such as it is, through intense labor.

Robert Reich wants the rich to pay their “fair” share.

What’s fair? I’d say a 50 percent marginal tax rate on the very rich, meaning those earning over $500,000 per year. I’d also suggest an annual wealth tax of one-half of 1 percent on the net worth of people holding more than $5 million in total assets.

In Reich’s dream world, my friend and her husband, in addition to being treated inequitably by her parents, would also be treated unfairly by the government—all because they are hardworking people who also made a wise investment in real estate many years ago and are thus probably “worth” more than $5 million.

Now, my friend and her family are hard-core progressive Democrats. In fact, if Reich’s Rules were to come into play in a campaign, my friend would not pay without complaining. She’d be out there on the front lines volunteering for the candidate who proposed those rules. That’s just the kind of person she is.

However, I say it’s not fair to ask others in her position (which, by the way, I am not—so this isn’t a hidden plea for understanding) to do the same. Her cheerful willingness to go many extra miles to support those anonymous Americans who are not as financially comfortable as she is requires a selflessness that most people can’t—and should not be asked to—muster.

If my friend would only extrapolate from her own family situation—about which she is increasingly resentful, because her decades-long selflessness is being entirely disregarded and taken for granted—she might get a glimmer of understanding about why “liberal” or “progressive” ideas about soaking the “rich” are anathema to other Americans (including both those less well-off and those who are even better-off than she).

We don’t want to pay for little sister’s Viking stove. Furthermore, we are sick of little sister’s attitude.

Of course Reich only asks for the “rich” and “super-rich” to pay for reasonable-sounding items:

national defense and homeland security, good schools and a crumbling infrastructure, the upcoming costs of boomers’ Social Security … and, hopefully, affordable national health insurance.

But his attitude—they can afford it, so they should pay—sucks.