|
There are some who say that raising the tax rate on those making more than 250,000 dollars a year is equivalent to "punishing success." It's an interesting meme, really, considering that very few people ever make it to that level of success without the aid of others who are not so fortunate, people who most likely work just as hard for a lot less reward. Unless one happens to be one of the lucky few artists, authors, musicians, or artisans who actually make more than those who assist them in their endeavors, the chances are that one's success is as dependent on the efforts of others as it is on one's own efforts.
What do people who are "successful" owe the system that makes it possible for them to succeed? What do the developers owe to those who level the ground, set the foundation, erect the walls, install the electrical wiring and plumbing, put up drywall, install cabinets, and, eventually, find someone to buy their houses and commercial buildings? What do corporate CEOs owe the people who build their widgets, maintain their equipment, package their product, and ship it across the country to waiting consumers? What do any of these people owe the consumers who actually BUY their products? No matter how you slice it, not everyone can stand on top of the heap, reach the pinnacle of the pyramid. They NEED those at the bottom and in the middle layers AT LEAST as much as we need them.
They scream about "subsidizing failure" at the same time they themselves take as much as they can from the system while paying as little back in return. Their alleged great "success" all too often relies on the smaller successes that surround them. The working mother who tries to balance time with her family with her job, the requirements of daycare with making enough money to survive. The blue collar worker who has to decide which of his or her bills to pay this time around so he or she can put gas in the car and food in the fridge. People who don't have to worry that a sudden serious illness will bankrupt them and cost everything they worked so hard to achieve really haven't a leg to stand on in criticizing those who suffer these worries on a daily basis. So what if they have to pay a little extra, have to forgo that third trip to the French Alps next winter? So what if they have to give up their dream of owning just one more show car?
Now I have to say I'm not sure 250,000 dollars might be a little low in the grand scheme of things, but, all things considered, the rest of us have been paying such a high percentage of our annual income in income and sales taxes that we've had to make the tough choices again and again, I'm not sure we have a lot of sympathy to spare.
Unadulterated greed has put us in these economic straits. It's time that some people learn that "success" is not a get-away-with-just-about-anything card. Success comes at a price, often paid by those who do not enjoy many of the same comforts as they do. Comforts like a reliable auto, reasonable child care costs, enough healthy food to feed the family, affordable medical care, and a decent place to live.
As much as the RW tries to malign the celebrities who speak out about such things, it's interesting to note that most of them have no qualms about giving back to their communities, no qualms about paying that little extra to help someone else make it that much farther.
But here's the real puzzler. How could anyone making LESS than $250,000 a year question that those who can afford it the most should give back to the system that made their "success" possible? How anyone who struggles as we do can possibly think it's unfair that those who have gained the most can afford to pay it forward? WE make it possible for them to live like royalty in a land that has no royalty, and WE have as much right to security as anyone. We work just as hard as any of them, if not harder. Success is well and good, but greed isn't. Selfishness isn't a natural right and it's about time those defectives who think it is learned a bitter lesson. Everything has its price. Even "success."
|