Paul

Ibrahim

Read Paul's bio and previous columns

August 11, 2008

Rich Liberals are Welcome to Pay the Higher Taxes of Their Dreams

Somewhere in between the stories about Americans staying home due to high gas prices, shortening their grocery lists to avoid paying too much at the register, fighting serious illnesses or dealing with crumbling families, there is a real tragedy being wholly overlooked by society: Since the Bush tax cuts, rich liberals have been grieving and despairing over the fact that Uncle Sam isn’t taking more of their money.

One example of this is Chris Kirkpatrick, former ‘N Sync star and contestant on the CMT reality show Gone Country. Asked about his finances, Kirkpatrick assured us of his financial comfort, saying:

“I still have lots of money, I am good. Actually, the president made it easier for rock stars because anybody who was above that tax limit got a break, which isn't really fair, but that's just the way it goes.”

That evil, evil George W. Bush. How dare he cut our taxes? We want to pay more!

Poor Kirkpatrick and his Hollywood and Manhattan friends. They just want – nay, demand – that they be able to pay more of their own money to the government so they can feel better about themselves.

Well, why don’t you pay more, Chris? Who said the government would reject you if you insist on paying the rate in the tax bracket you belonged to prior to the Bush tax cuts? Why are you waiting for the president himself to ask you to pay higher taxes when you can do so on your own?

There is no answer from the rich liberals. There never is.

Celebrities, and rich liberals in general, love doing this. Their lives depend on taking advantage of the physical and economic security given to them by conservative policies, only to turn around and bash those same policies to the maximum extent possible.

And they do not even make up for the lower taxes by outspending conservatives on charitable contributions. According to Arthur Brooks, author of Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism, conservative households give 30 percent more to charities than liberal households, even though the income of the latter group averages 6 percent higher than the former. This is also not to mention the fact that conservatives donate both more time and blood than their liberal counterparts.

Perhaps even more striking, however, is Brooks’s finding that people who embrace the theory that “government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality” donate to charity four times less than what is donated by those who do not believe in such a role for the government. In other words, the people who want to increase income equality expect everyone else to sacrifice toward that goal, but not themselves.

Liberals argue that if government was not a primary avenue for helping the poor, then the sick and the homeless would all die because there would be no one forcing individuals to help them out. First of all, this is false reasoning, because people are clearly still donating even on top of the large share of income they are losing to the government – so imagine how much more they would donate if they were able to keep more of their money. But even if, for argument’s sake, such reasoning was credible, then the problem apparently lies with tight-fisted liberals, and not conservatives, as we are constantly made to believe.

Yet again, liberals do not put their money where their mouths are. Thankfully, Republicans are becoming more prepared to deal with the hypocrisy. In his last State of the Union Address, President Bush left us with this gem:

“Others have said they would personally be happy to pay higher taxes. I welcome their enthusiasm. I'm pleased to report that the IRS accepts both checks and money orders.”

Congressman John Campbell has invited liberals to do the same by introducing the “Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is Act,” which would formalize the process of giving more money to the government than your tax bracket requires.

What else are rich liberals like Kirkpatrick waiting for? They say it is “unfair” that they don’t have to pay more to the government considering their high incomes. Well, they don’t have to pay more, but they certainly still can. Will they not fight the injustice? We’re waiting.

Click here to talk to our writers and editors about this column and others in our discussion forum.

To e-mail feedback about this column, click here. If you enjoy this writer's work, please contact your local newspapers editors and ask them to carry it.