Tuesday, August 21, 2007


During my travels around the world, I had often the opportunity to observe the petty friction of graft, mordida, baksheesh, that is so often prevalent especially in the Middle East. This sort of corruption is taken for granted by those that live there, but it is also corrosive for a society. Don't have enough money to get a bureaucrat to do his job? Too bad, someone else will always find a way to grease the right palm, even if it is at your expense.

The difference from that form of corruption and that of our country is one of degree only. In the USA, we use the FBI to chase down direct payment ala William Jefferson, D-LA. But there is still a group in this country that finds the confiscation of wealth is just fine They always seem to be saying that the rich need to pay their "fair share." If you were to take this as anything other than a slogan, you would appear to be saying that the rich need a tax cut. Analysis of the top tax rate sure doesn't seem to allow them to shirk their share. If you figure that in 2003 the top rate was 35%, which is before all of the other taxes, it seems to me that this is confiscatory at the minimum. Under what theory do we allow this to happen? Do those making $300k+ a year use more services than their population should expect?
Why do we take it for granted that this is right, moral or just? I can't find anything to support it except the continuing hyperbole of William Jennings Bryan and his "Cross of Gold."

Would someone please explain it to me?

No comments: