I believe in the historical maxim that those who have less want more and those who have ‘the more’ want to protect their assets from those who have less. Those who have will always be suspicious of those who have less. The fear is ancient. The concept of redistributing wealth is as old as the accumulation of wealth. It is the mantra of dictators, rebels, and wannabe of every description; it is also the drum beat of the American politician of today and yesterday. The politician out of power or the politician desiring to retain power suggests to the voter that if elected he or she will render something of tangible value. Be it free educational benefits, free health care, less taxation, financial grants, earmark restitution from federal taxation, the passing of some favorable law, or the rescission of a particular law. The promise is given. The premise is that the voter is rewarded for the vote cast a tit for tat understanding between the voter and the elected.
Promises of wealth distribution by politicians strike fear into those who have; this primal of phobias are the first cause of maintaining an armed police force, of corrupting the election process, of seeking power via political office. The modern elected official (of either party) uses phrases such as fair tax, equitable responsibility, a caring for those who have less; but, regardless of the words, the effect is gong to be the same. A government of largeness, a growing bureaucracy, more federal, state, county, city, employees; all of which equal more taxes and fees. All of which surely can be voted on by those who have less in order to take within the rule of law from those who have more.
Interestingly enough, the liberal and the conservative with apparent equal venomous inclinations, distrust the intentions of government; each accuse the other of curtailing individual rights, increasing the power of government beyond the scope of constitutional design, erasing years of progressive benchmarks on race relations, and of course each are adamant that the other are directly responsible for the general disruptions of just about anything that could be disturbed. So as to remain in agreement as to the continuance of growing the size of government; government initiates its own enterprising ways, such investing the peoples money into parks, zoos, golf courses, ports, harbors, marinas, land management, business that are really creative.
There is an increasing tenancy (by the state) for a Sheriff of Nottingham approach toward taxation; wherein, the elected representative substitutes the government of the United States for the King of England and instead of Robin Hood robbing the rich in the forest by force of arms the robbery is by the statutory compliance of fees and taxation. Naturally, as with the Sheriff, the elected representative realizes that taxation is successful only when the government defines a bountiful resource or creates such a resource. The conundrum of legislative debate will be over whom has the money to tax? Once that question is answered; the ones who had the money will step, to the within tax code compliance, left or right so to avoid or minimize the pecuniary effect of the particular tax. This has been the historical experience of any taxing policy; for instance, an entire insurance and legal industry has been formed around tax policies.
What I find particularly tragic is the state government’s investment of the peoples virtue in the gambling business; at one time it was a crime; the business of gangsters, now it is a lucrative alternative tax on the citizens wherein the government effectually says, “play the slot machines, the lottery, get something tangible for nothing.” A state sponsored lie of the most deplorable design.
Motivated hell bent to enlarge government either by hook or crook legislators create an enterprise for taxing purpose or invent another tax on a transaction to take their skim off of the top; there is no end to their mad addiction.