The Bush tax cut bill is a step toward letting the productive keep what they earn rather than forcing them to support the non-productive.
Despite President Bush's personal appeal to Congress last night, his tax cut bill will face considerable opposition in Congress. Why? Because, according to many, the bill is unjust in that it favors the rich over the poor. Actually, the tax bill is a step in the direction of greater justice.
Consider some basic facts. The wealthiest 1% of the taxpayers pay 34% of all federal income taxes. The top 50% pay 96% of the total bill. This means that the least wealthy 50% pay almost nothing. In short, the income tax system soaks the rich--and the tax bill would remedy this to a small degree. In the name of justice the Congress should actually be demanding a tax cut that lowers the tax bill of the wealthy even more drastically.
But the opponents of the tax cut do not want justice. They want redistribution of wealth. They want to confiscate the income earned by the wealthy and give it to people who have not earned it. They want the rich--which includes the most productive people in society--to be the servants of the poor.
The moral principle used to justify income redistribution is altruism. Altruism does not mean generosity or benevolent concern for the less fortunate. Altruism means: other-ism. It is the doctrine that it is your moral duty to live for others and to sacrifice your life, property and well being for theirs. It is the code of self-sacrifice. Under altruism the productive are the ones who must give and the nonproductive are those who receive. The inability or unwillingness of the nonproductive to create wealth gives them a moral claim upon those who do.
The tax code enforces altruism through coercion. Earning money through voluntary trade is replaced by getting money by force in order to achieve the altruistic goal the government desires. But when the property of some people is seized and given to others, it is an injustice.
The doctrine of altruism induces (and is meant to induce) guilt. It makes the successful feel that they have no right to their achievements. The goal of altruism is to disarm the producers morally so that they will not defend their right to their lives and property. Thus the rich often support higher taxes for themselves.
Most Americans would be shocked to learn that altruism is the moral code that underlies Marxism (and thus Communism). Marx's credo was: "From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need." Man has no right to exist for himself in this view; he is a servant of the state or society, to be disposed of as they see fit.
No, we have not gone all the way down that road yet, though the progressive income tax has been a step in that direction.
Altruism is the opposite of Americanism. Americanism means you have the inalienable right "to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," which includes property rights. It means that your life and property belong to you, not to the state or to society. It means that the government's proper job is to protect, not to violate, rights. Acting in one's own self-interest (while respecting the rights of others) is fully moral--it is the fundamental requirement of a successful and happy life. It means that you are not an object of sacrifice but a sovereign being. It means that your property belongs to you. It means that every individual, whether rich or poor, has the same rights. Self-reliance, not self-sacrifice, is the American ideal.
The Bush tax cut bill is a small remedy for a grave injustice, penalizing the successful for being successful. By all means, pass the Bush tax cut bill. But this is only the beginning of the road to a truly just society where each man keeps what he earns and has no claim upon the life and property of others.
Edwin A. Locke, a professor of management at the University of Maryland at College Park, is a senior writer for the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, Calif. The Institute promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.