At what point does the production of wealth create a moral obligation to be happy about having some of that wealth plundered by the “enlightened progressives?” For years, classical liberals have crafted sensible arguments for the sanctity of private property on moral, economic and practical grounds. These are ignore, no matter how sound they are. One reason I suspect they are ignored is that we are really rich now. Two thoughts on that.
We’ll add to this discussion a great deal in the future, but this is perhaps best done in little bits.
>> “At what point does the production of wealth create a moral obligation to be happy about having some of that wealth plundered by the “enlightened progressives?” ”
You needn’t bother yourself with such questions. Just continue toiling, our betters will come and take what they deem appropriate, as appropriate.
What gives enligtened progressives any right to determine any number?
You nailed it when you talked about the point of a gun. It is no accident that in all totalitarian regimes, at least those I can think of, that there is ultimate gun control. Beyond force, what are the other arguments that let them decide?
But you asked about a number. Robert Bartley, and other economic writers on the Journal editorial page, have observed that there is a point, around 18 to 20 percent of GDP (assuming a few extra percent for state and local taxation, plus a few extra percent for other taxation) beyond which wealth does not grow. Part of the reasoning is that we cannot afford to give wise men too much to spend on their ideas without impoverishing us all.
But the question is not merely a utilitarian one, or about maximizing revenues; it is not simply about selecting the right point on the Laffer Curve, which is somewhat West of where we are now.
We classical liberals, at least some of us, would argue that we have natural rights to life, liberty, and property that cannot be usurped even by a democratic majority, or a king, or a commisar, or anyone with a gun. Some of that is axiomatic, some analytic, some empirical.
It is at this point that the enlightened progressives try to change the subject, not offering anything beyond their first axiom, which is a six-shooter, that gives them the right to decide the number.
If this were Ash Wednesday, we might hear a sermon about the likelihood about a rich man getting to heaven, and the likelihood of a camel fitting through the eye of a needle, but when I last checked that was our choice. If that’s the argument of secular progressives to move the federal tax rate to 39.75%, let’s have at it debating the size of the needle and the size of the camel, having defined the size of the rich man.