Gordon is a political science student. Â
By Michael Gordon
I cannot count with one hand how many times I’ve heard
nasty things about the rich from people who know little or nothing
about them. Many of these rich-haters claim that the wealthy
are “selfish,” “self-interested” and even
““ get this ““ “responsible for the plight of the
poor.”
On campus, letters to the editor in the Daily Bruin speak about
how the “rich land owners” have obstructed every
positive social goal ““ night clubs, strip clubs, underground
rail stations and even a more active social life. Columnists
speak out against the Bush tax cut, which they say caused more
social harm because poor people won’t be able to eat thanks
to the rich who will be able to buy another luxury car. Even
objective sources, such as The Associated Press, talk about the
Bush tax cut as being “huge” and “costing”
the government $1.3 trillion. (How can a tax-cut cost the
government anything? If the money was never in the
government’s hands, it means it couldn’t cost them
anything. To cost something would indicate that one had the money
already.)
More radical individuals advocate some sort of socialist system
““ so that those “greedy” rich people will get
theirs through punitive taxation. Our system already supports
their goals ““ heck, we already have a 39.1 percent federal
tax rate on income (which was 70 percent in the ’70s and only
gets reduced to 35 percent in a few years). But there has
never been a focus on the positive elements of letting the rich do
whatever they want with their earnings.
For one, who hires us? Where are the high-paying jobs
coming from? Who pays those $45,000 a year salaries that graduates
expect come this May? And who pays for the health care these
soon-to-be employees receive, or the generous 401(k) benefits that
have generated large amounts of wealth in America? How about small
businesses? Many of these firms are started by a single person
and provide generous salaries, flexible work hours and a friendly
environment.
Don’t expect the average American to create these jobs. It
is the top 1 percent ““ the ones who are blasted by Democrats,
socialists, and communists et. all ““ who provide this boom.
Go ahead and raise their taxes. But try to justify it to those who
will be hurt by such results ““ including their employees, who
depend on these wealthy individuals’ returns to be high so
they can provide them with salaries and benefits. Raise taxes
on the rich and many of these small businesses will fall, and many
of these employees may not even realize it because these taxes were
promised to be for the “social good.”
No one ever mentions that the rich have to actually spend their
money. This money is not sitting around in banks (although it
may in some circumstances, but even in this case, the money is
leant out and used productively). This money is used to buy
products, the making of which employs individuals. If they buy a
yacht, so what? That money is used to hire people who produce a
product. Union auto workers in Michigan should be pleased that
the top 1 percent exists. Who else but the rich can afford to
buy a car every year ““ thus generating demand and producing
jobs for those less well off in society.
Contrary to what leftists have to say, I can’t see how the
rich hurt the poor, unless you see new jobs as a negative
thing. Ironically, the left may hate the idea of tax cuts
creating new jobs that would lessen the dependence of the poor on
the Democrats.
If all of us realized that no one in our society is our enemy
““ neither the rich nor poor ““ then we would be more
willing to support Republicans, who support raising
everyone’s standard of living instead of Democrats who want
to impose taxes on everything from soda to imposing an additional
tax on dead wealthy people. Let’s all wake up and stop
blaming one particular class in society as responsible for the
plight of another.