Imagine that average guy Joe Madrigo has been saving his money, because he is humble enough to know that he cannot perfectly predict the future. He gets married and his wife Margaret also works, so they begin to save a little more. Soon, they have children, and then Joe’s father begins experiencing cognitive decline. They are able to provide for and care for all of them. They even have a little left over for occasional splurges and their charity of choice, Main Street Missions.
That fall, the governor signs into law a 10% across-the-board tax on all income earners. The rationale for this is, is caring for the poor. This law, in effect, states that any giving that individuals or families are currently doing is insufficient. While it does not say so explicitly, the punishing aspect of this law cannot be removed; it is an individual judgement and an individual punishment. In the guise of equality, it tells Joe and Margaret that they are not doing enough, which is the very same thing it says to Johnny D’marco, who gives only lip. It does not recognize that some are already fulfilling the spirit of this law and some are not, yet it punishes both the just and the unjust with the same sentence. This is unfair.
Not only are the lawmakers inaccurate in their assessment of how charitable both the Madrigos and D’marco are, they are also ignorant of the circumstances of both. What they do not know, is that a 10% tax would prevent the Madrigos from giving at all, and that same 10% tax would cause Johnny’s boss at Ye Olde Fish n’ Chips, to decide he doesn’t need the wait staff he does, and to fire Johnny. As a result of this tax, actual charity is being prevented, and the income that the tax would raise is less than expected, because some of those now taxed, have no income at all! This is unfair.
At this juncture, some might complain that the tax is simply not targeted enough, but targeting the tax only changes the size of the box that contains disparate unanalyzed individuals. So if the tax applied to only those earning $100,000 or more, the same situation would apply — some people are already charitable, and some are not. Some are living just within their means due to existing debt or family situation. Slicing and dicing the penal aspect of a tax is an impossible goal — the power to tax is the power to punish. The best that can be done is applying taxes rarely and targeting behavior, not income. Crafting such laws requires wisdom and time, which are usually jettisoned in favor of simplistic laws sold as charity.
This so-called charity performed under government force is nowhere near as efficient as charity either from private individuals or from private organizations. The government simply does not have the accountability, transparency, spirit, work ethic, or nimbleness of the other two givers. Neither does it have the freedom to operate with discernment. Because the government must serve all equally, it often ends up giving to those who are the worst off without ever evaluating what has landed them there, and thus often subsidizes people who perpetually make poor life choices. That these people spend such funds poorly and continue in squalor then becomes a rallying cry for more government-administered support, in a never-ending quest that ends up perpetually rewarding those who choose poorly at the expense of those who make better choices, in a mockery of charity and mercy. This is unfair.
Worse yet, what are the worldviews of those who pass such simplistic laws, thinking that they will solve problems? Do they not care to examine those whom it affects closely enough, or are such laws enactments of deeper animus? Human beings have been involved in government for their entire existence; there are literally yards of books upon the subject. Men are without excuse for how laws generally affect others (which is why the ancient concept of doing as little harm as possible is important). If a lawmaker somehow happens to be ignorant of what he is doing, he is either a child, stupid, or mentally incapacitated, and so is unfit to govern. He remains without excuse. Those who pass laws cannot escape from knowing the consequences of those laws. That leaves animus as the most likely motivation.
Such taxes take from one and it give to another via the intermediary of government, that just so happens to soaks up much of the money collected en route. Those who impose taxes thus punish, and judge individual behavior, nearly always to the benefit of the government, not the individual. They say, “I will take your money and give it to other people, some who are deserving, most who are not. We want to pass more laws like this, because you aren’t worthy of the money you make. Only we know best how to spend it. Don’t be selfish.”
Despite the quasi-pious language, such laws exist fundamentally as wealth and power transfers from the citizen to the government, which always filter down to the supporter of government, the leftist. They rarely serve any other purpose. As poverty cures, they are miserable failures. Such laws never have end goals in mind or set any targets that can reliably be attained. The government rarely shrinks; its objective is to perpetually grow, always taking more. Most people are charitable and thus the whole reason for charity taxes is false on its face. Further, if the government were any good at this enforced charity, we would hear the successes lauded without end — instead, all we hear are uncomfortable silences followed by demands for more. It is animus that propels such programs, and success is not the object. It is all a cover story — a disguise designed to obscure the motivation of transferring wealth and power to leftists.
Fundamentally, leftism is unfair. It punishes people who do good, discourages those take care of their own and others. It exists only to reward dependency and irresponsibility so that some can be perpetual serfs and the proponents of government can be kings and queens.