Wednesday, September 18, 2013

"Anyone Who Earns a Million Dollars Or More Should Be Exempt From All Income Taxes"

By Harry Binswanger

It’s time to gore another collectivist sacred cow. This time it’s the popular idea that the successful are obliged to “give back to the community.” That oft-heard claim assumes that the wealth of high-earners is taken away from “the community.” And beneath that lies the perverted Marxist notion that wealth is accumulated by “exploiting” people, not by creating value–as if Henry Ford was not necessary for Fords to roll off the (non-existent) assembly lines and Steve Jobs was not necessary for iPhones and iPads to spring into existence.

Let’s begin by stripping away the collectivism. “The community” never gave anyone anything. The “community,” the “society,” the “nation” is just a number of interacting individuals, not a mystical entity floating in a cloud above them. And when some individual person–a parent, a teacher, a customer–”gives” something to someone else, it is not an act of charity, but a trade for value received in return.

Read the rest here.


  1. I've said this for YEARS! If you create enough value to earn +$1M per year, then you should be exempt.

    Banksters excluded!


  2. While I find the author's proposal of exempting millionaires from the income tax highly appealing, I think he doesn't go far enough. Everyone should be exempt from the income tax. He is exactly right when he says, "the real issue is not financial, but moral." Stealing money by force is morally wrong. The collectivist/liberal approach to providing a safety net for the poor is wrought with inefficiencies and waste.
    My only other criticism of Harry is his choice of people he heaps praise upon. Warren Buffet and Lloyd Blankfein are poor choices to shower with adulation. These two are no better than the scorn he gives Solyndra.
    I see that he does get called to task in the comments on a few of these issues.

  3. Unfortunately, the author holds Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sacs up as a pillar of intellect and in need of reward. He needs to separate the crony capitalist from the true, laissez-faire, voluntaryist capitalist. This is why we make very little traction with the left. The left spots the ills that come from the cozy relationship between enterprise and the state and says "Gotcha! Capitalism is evil!" They rightly see a lauding of Lloyd Blanfein as asinine. They need to be reminded that pure, voluntary exchange harms no one and profits both. It is the evil of the state, in bed with crony capitalists, that creates problems. The author would do well to clarify this point.