“There is no virtue in compulsory government charity, and there is no virtue in advocating it. A politician who portrays himself as ‘caring’ and ‘sensitive’ because he wants to expand the government’s charitable programs is merely saying that he’s willing to try to do good with other people’s money. Well, who isn’t? And a voter who takes pride in supporting such programs is telling us that he’ll do good with his own money — if a gun is held to his head.”
P.J. O’Rourke
A few days back, my colleague, Casey, took the Korea Times to task for an editorial which demanded that the wealth of Korea’s richest citizens be seized. The money quote:
Rich people in America and Europe have volunteered to pay more taxes, either out of noblesse oblige or ‘enlightened selfishness.’ None of their Korean counterparts have done so, which means someone else should force them.
While I share Casey’s distaste for the Times‘ politics, I would like to give the paper credit for accurately describing its own proposal. All taxes are, when we get right down to it, taken under the threat of force, and I commend the Times for pointing this out.
Still, the current discussion of the wealthy upper crust and the taxes they pay has entered a peculiar realm wherein a person is greedy for wanting to hold on to his own money (or to direct it to charity as he sees fit) but is noble and kindhearted for wanting to take someone else’s money. Thus is Warren Buffett feted for saying, in effect, “I’ll give the government a bit of my money as long as it snatches more of that guy’s money, too.” Meanwhile, wealthy folks who doubt the state’s ability to competently address the needs of society – and who therefore channel their money to charity as they see fit – are portrayed as miserly grumps.
It’s worth noting, as Casey did in his post and as the Daily Caller shows in the following video, that even those richest Americans who call for higher taxes on their own ilk aren’t exactly lining up to dump bags of money into the government coffers. They’re more interested in a round of moral grandstanding:
As the opening P.J. O’Rourke quote points out, as James Otteson says in the video just above it, virtue can only exist when an activity is freely chosen. Thus, for Warren Buffett to voluntarily give his own money to charity – or even to the U.S. government – would be an act of virtue. When Buffett, or the Korea Times, starts lobbying for the government to take other people’s money by force, however, they’ve clearly exited the Virtue city limits and ought not be patting themselves on the back for such proposals.
Tags: buffet, charity, government, korea times, PJ O'Rourke, tax, wealth tax
One Response to “The “Buffett Tax:” Now Leaving the City Limits of Virtue”