Here’s a letter to the Los Angeles Times:
You advocate a “fat tax” on grounds that it’ll discourage people from acting in ways that make them unhealthy (“Should there be a ‘fat tax’?” April 11).
Overlook here such a tax’s merits or demerits. It’s curious that you accept without question the proposition that raising taxes on ‘unhealthy-lifestyle’ activities will significantly turn people away from unhealthy-lifestyle activities, while (judging from your editorials over the years) you reject without question the proposition that raising taxes on income-earning activities will significantly turn people away from income-earning activities.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
In the mid-1990s I was informed by a professor of philosophy – tenured at a major university – that anyone who believes that even a marginal income-tax rate as high as 94 percent has a significant negative effect on people’s willingness to work to earn taxable income is “brainwashed.”
Share
{ 78 comments }
I hope you comment more on the conversation with the philosophy professor. His argument would be entertaining brain fodder.
I have often wondered why using the tax code to modify behavior is only acceptable when the proposed outcome fits a certain world view. The post above highlights that absurdity even more because it shows that the logic will only work when it is inline with a world view. Too funny!
Philosophy professors==those whose philsophy only applies to the fictional people who inhabit their imaginary worlds.
Let’s be honest. A philosophy major is hardly a magnet for the best and brightest. And philosophy doctorate programs only have that pool to draw from.
But it is a mistake to attribute to the field of philosophy the characteristics of its current pathetic academic representation.
I have to depart company with you on this one. Philosophy majors routinely test high on postgraduate testing, and have some of the most rigourous course loads of all majors. The issue I find with many philosophy types, which is also pervasive in economists types, is that they seem to believe they know everything about everything.
I will have to defer to you for the stats. But having minored in philosophy, I ruined the curve for many a philosophy major. I can’t say the same for my own major.
Wouldn’t it be along the same lines to presume Americans in 2011 would eat healthier and exercise more due to the higher cost of healthcare as compared to ten years ago?
I’ve spent tens of thousands on healthcare over the past few years (for one of my children), yet I can’t claim that I’ve put any effort to improving my own health since then.
That is a very interesting question.
How could we explain the behavior of Americans eating more unhealthily than before? One explanation is that the value of unhealthy food has risen compared to that of healthy foods. How could that be in a climate of “rising healthcare costs?” Well, maybe the cost of a fixed basket of healthcare goods is not actually rising. Let’s say that instead the basket of healthcare goods and services is increasing in efficiency and therefore value and therefore price. Using the old basket of goods, a heart attack caused by eating unhealthy foods meant you would die. Now, if you get a heart attack, you pay $10,000 (random number I pulled out of a hat) instead of dying. Since paying $10,000 is cheaper than dying, the cost of eating unhealthy foods that give heart attacks has fallen. On the other hand, organic healthy vegetables do not make you any more healthy than they used to. In this situation, it could be rational for people to eat more and more unhealthy foods.
Another explanation is information overload. There is currently a huge firehose of “information” coming at consumers concerning what is and isn’t healthy. Parsing the credible studies from the crackpot theories is a very time-intensive/expensive process. Many consumers could simply be deciding that this information is too expensive for them to acquire and simply buy without regard to health or only looking at health along some very narrow dimensions.
Full disclosure: I am a Frenchman living in Berkeley, CA who prefers delicious fresh vegetables from my local farmer’s market.
Maybe it’s just me, and I’m sorry to pick on a foreigner — but “healthy” is something people are, not food. Food is nutritious, people are healthy. If we really want to talk about healthy food, it seems to me that any food anybody would want to eat is “healthy” — right up until it is slaughtered, butchered, harvested, processed, and consumed.
Mike,
Do you think genetics might influence the food choices we make? High energy, high calorie food may not have been unhealthy for the hunter-gatherers from which we descended. Through natural selection, humans probably evolved into animals which desire fats and proteins more than they desire high fiber foods. If that is true, then choosing the healthy foods today may require overcoming our genetic code. Not saying that’s impossible, but choosing the “healthy” diet might be much more difficult than we realize.
On the other hand, there is really no excuse I can think of for lack of exercise.
Dewey
P.S. Sorry to read about the health problems of your child.
Genetics are always something to consider, but your musing don’t seem to really explain obesity rates recently and markedly divergening from its historical mean. I tend towards conspiracy on this issue, and think FDA isn’t doing the job they purportedly are set up to do, and are letting all sorts of garbage to be produced and introduced to our food chain.
I think looking for a conspiracy is a bit much. The main issue seems to be that our caloric requirements are far, far outstripped by our ability to acquire them. How often do we worry about whether or not we are getting enough to eat compared to over eating, or getting too many calories at once? How many 3rd worlders would think it terribly strange how much time we spend trying to avoid the energy part of our nutrition needs?
Another way to look at it is to consider what was considered a staple food in various regions: rice, wheat and corn. Rice has very little in the way of nutrients per calorie, likewise wheat and corn, at least when compared to meat or vegetables. What those staples do have though is lots and lots of carbohydrates. That’s what you need when you work very hard hunting or farming manually, activities that burns thousands of calories a day. For comparison, the MREs used by the military for combat rations have 3-4000 calories PER MEAL. You need that when you are humping around the country side with 100 pounds of kit. You don’t need that when you do most jobs in the USA, however.
Trouble is, our brains still want those calories, especially in the form of fats and sugars (especially because meats and fruits are great sources of nutrients) and we get a nice shot of happy when we eat them as a result. So our bodies themselves are telling us to eat more than we need, because our bodies generally expect a much harsher way of life than we engage in now.
In a sense, it would be really strange if we were not getting slightly fatter as a species, given that our technological change that allows such bounty moves much faster than evolution of our species physically.
That is why I am in favor of replacing all taxes with a retail sales tax. A retail sales tax will cause a disencentive to poor people to remain poor, and will incentivize everyone to make more money.
The philosophy professor was not alone. Anyone who passed such legislation must have believed it as well. Behavioral Finance is clear on this issue. While the non-existent “rational” person might work because $.06 out of every dollar is better than no cents, the real life person will either purposely not work to penalize the taxing entity (at a cost to himself) and/or rationally choose another non-monetary activity that derives for him more pleasure than those $.06 per dollar.
The only people who believe otherwise are in a bracket below the 94% bracket.
It goes even farther than that. If a “rational” person might work at a 96% tax rate out of boredom, or professional pride, or stupidity or whatever, The businessman will most certainly NOT risk his wealth in any new ventures knowing that even if he does succeed he must pay 96 cents on the dollar of all of his profits.
What they will do is divert, or “capture” earnings in another enterprise that isn’t subject to the progressive burden. It depends how progressive taxes are, but even at US rates you can buy things for 50c on the dollar if you’re at the top tax rates. There is also the reality that many people in the stratosphere of earnings will simply game the system because it’s entertaining. I had a friend who purchased a restaurant property that was across the lake from his house — the restaurant was gorgeous, in a great location, but in a bad location for a restaurant — as several owners who had hoped for a commercial success could attest to. My friend bought it so he could control the menu and boat across the lake for dinner every night. It lost money steadily, but no more as a percentage than he would have forfeited to the government without the loss it supplied.
As my father once told me, many years ago — there comes a time in life where the objective is to live as well as you can and make no money.
I’m just beginning to understand the “no money” part — as there are simply too many people out there trying to figure out who has got what, and very few trying to figure out how they got it.
Diminishing. Marginal. Utility. Income.
Why is it everyone gets all excited about diminishing marginal utility except when it comes to income?
When I’ve asked progressives about this they say that high marginal taxes encourage people to work more, not less.
Yes. Frank Michaelman, a law professor at Harvard, is among those who are fond of this argument that higher taxes bring forth more work effort because higher taxes means that people have to work longer and harder to achieve some preferred level of income.
I’ve always want to ask a professor such as Michaelman if, when he is asked to give a speech, he is more likely to do so if the offered honorarium is high or low. I’m guessing high.
In one of my jobs, I get paid a commission + hourly. Two pay periods a year, we are not paid commissions. Guess when I will not be trying very hard to sell things?
High taxes for everyone else – particularly for those that make – so people like Michaelman can take – demand and grab and expropriate. THAT he understands, I am sure.
HE, WORKING FOR LOW HONORARIUM? HE? Ofcourse not. All these taxes and penalties and rules and regulations are for the riff raff – not for the Ruling Class that can take, demand anything.
Higher taxes on cigarettes reduces tobacco consumption.
Higher taxes on snacks reduces junk food consumption.
Higher fines on certain activities, like speeding, reduces dangerous driving.
But in the case of income and wealth producing activity, higher taxes somehow encourages the person to do more?
I’m going to take a SWAG here.
Maybe these the same folks who insist that government spending is not the problem, that the problem is with revenue.
It would make some sense. If spending is a constant then income is the variable. If personal income is reduced through taxation, and spending cannot be reduced, then of course the person will work more. They must.
Since many I know with that attitude have a difficult time distinguishing between want and need (everything is a need) that wouldn’t surprise me one bit.
Perhaps the root of the fallacy lies in an inability to distinguish between want and need.
Don, only an ivory tower academic could make such a stupid argument. When I was in my early twenties and working in a blue collar job in a steel yard. I heard repeatedly people refusing to work any overtime because at the tax rate they were at they would be just “working for Uncle Sam”. Funny how these high school educated working men understood something a Harvard Professor cannot.
Excellent. Let’s raise taxes for all to 99% and see what happens.
Just think about what this will do for my tithe.
I believe that there is a subset of the population that is forced to work harder in order to pay the way for those who live off of taxes, but I don’t believe that subset includes those who pay the highest marginal tax rates.
Why should there be any policy whatsoever on how much people labor? Did I miss the meeting where it was determined that humans are just a bunch of worker ants?
We should try it. If we all washed our brains once a week, maybe we could think more clearly.
BTW, is Cafe Hayek going to give credit to President Obama for (perhaps the first time in his life) wanting to let market forces do their thing?
“”I know some of these big guys, they’re all still driving their big SUVs. You know, they got their big monster trucks and everything. You’re one of them? Well, now, here’s my point. If you’re complaining about the price of gas and you’re only getting eight miles a gallon—(laughter)—you may have a big family, but it’s probably not that big. How many you have? Ten kids, you say? Ten kids? (Laughter.) Well, you definitely need a hybrid van then. (Laughter.) ”
Not saying we should endorse his overall policy, but this is certainly more libertarian than CAFE standards or cash-for-clunkers.
“Credit to Obama”? You must be kidding …
If anything, it indicates his total disconnect with reality … Even if the guy was driving a small car, his expenses go up when the gas prices go up – keeping the distances being driven the same. And the guy asking the question was not like Obama – who can extract money from people by demanding so – Most people have to work for their income and for Obama to think that the guy has money lying around so he can go trade his car is reprehensible – then again classic Obama – who has NO idea on how difficult it is for people to earn a living.
Plus – the guy asking the question was probably interested in protecting the environment – so he knew that a hybrid was worse – more fuel consumed when looking at the overall life of the vehicle – plus he may not want to drive a match box that could go 20 miles before needing a charge.
The day Obama starts walking, stops flying in his 747 (he can stay put in the public housing we provide him) or starts driving a matchbox – is the day when someone may listen to anything he may have to say.
No, I’m not kidding. You realize, of course, that the criticisms you are directing against Obama for this statement are very like the criticisms that are directed against libertarians when they propose that we use market forces to deal with health care costs, agricultural prices, or anything else: Cruel. Heartless. You’re leaving those with lower incomes behind. Etc. Etc.
No, you are too clever by half. In the first place the market has nothing to do with it because Hybrids are subsidized. Furthermore, we would not have such high energy prices if the Government (once again) didn’t interfere so much in oil and energy markets.
So, unsubsidize the hybrids. I’d be all in favor of that. Unsubsidize windmills and ethanol, too, while we’re at it. And quit subsidizing foreign wars that defend our oil supplies. Obama is still making an argument that we should let our response to gas prices be handled through pricing mechanisms. That is new ground for him. We should encourage such behavior instead of criticizing it.
“Obama is still making an argument that we should let our response to gas prices be handled through pricing mechanisms. That is new ground for him”
He is obviously doing nothing of the sort. Words matter little. Actions do.
E.G. I’m not saying Obama has converted to Libertarian. But we should take him up on it when he makes a market-based argument, sincere or not.
His “market based” argument is the equivalent of “let them eat cake”
Lots of market-based arguments can be (and have been) accused of being the equivalent of “let them eat cake.”
I’m not staking out a claim on the climate change issue here, but I would think that if the average poster at Cafe Hayek agreed with progressives on the cause and/or severity of climate change they would probably agree with cap and trade, a carbon tax, or some other market based solution to attempt to address the issue.
If someone doesn’t like homosexuality and wants to tax gay people or something and let the market sort it out, are libertarians supposed to applaud the use of market forces? Don’t confuse disagreement over the premise of the problem with disagreement about the kind of solution.
I would note though on major difference between a simple carbon tax and a cut social welfare spending; a carbon tax would take money away from poor people who buy gas, along with everyone else who does so, while a cut in social welfare spending merely refrains from taking money from rich people to give to poor people. The manner in which poor people are “left behind” is entirely different.
Further many leftists seem incapable of discussing economic issues sans emotions, particularly guilt, pity and envy. Those notions often tend to override questions about whether or not the wealthy are entitled to keep what they earn, or whether or not a more redistributive system decreases overall innovation and prosperity. Despite all the obvious evidence of economic freedom promoting general prosperity, sometimes the only point that gets through to leftists is how government program/regulation x is really just a tax on poor people. Sometimes one has to speak in the only language many leftists understand.
You don’t understand.
For libertarians, the issue is force, not social engineering. The measure of morality is individual, not collective. If a person offends, most libertarians would not advocate collective punitive measures.
Libertarians rarely advocate violent measures against the nonviolent. Furthermore, and as an entirely different matter, libertarians usually recognize the ability of voluntary measures to provide effective solutions to societal problems.
Tim,
I wouldn’t say cap ‘n trade and carbon tax in the same breath. The former is a device to grow the government and enable corruption. The latter would use market forces to deal with the problem. (I probably take the problem of AGW more seriously than do most of the global warming alarmists, such as Al Gore and the climategate people. If they were serious about the problem, they’d have a netzero carbon tax by now. But to them, the most important thing is growing the government. So I conclude that they really don’t think AGW is a serious threat.)
You also advise, “Don’t confuse disagreement over the premise of the problem with disagreement about the kind of solution.” Good advice. I think you’ve hit on the reason why some people have trouble giving Barak Obama credit for saying anything positive about using a market mechanism. They have trouble disentangling it from the rest of the issue.
You point out that leftists are incapable of discussing economic issues without emotions. I’ve often noticed the same thing. But I think we’ve found that on this issue of gas prices that it’s not only leftists who are that way.
If, indeed, for any of a variety of reasons, it was decided unanimously that weening ourselves off of fossil fuels was the right thing to do, then the correct way would be to just directly tax fossil fuels, then OFFSET that tax by cutting other taxes so that you do not wreck the economy.
It is telling that the left prefers some unwieldy cap and trade system with no tax offsets.
@Viking
I understand just fine that taxation is force, its just that many libertarians support the use of force to prevent others from doing harm. Homosexuality does not harm anyone, because there is no right to be free from offense, therefore it is not a legitimate concern of the state. I compare this to climate change because many libertarians also think that it is not a threat, or that the threat is exaggerated.
Preventing people from spewing toxic chemicals into the atmosphere is no different in nature than preventing people from committing theft, assault, or murder. It is different in degree such that the atmosphere can often tolerate some amount of this without inflicting harm on people, while theft, assault, and murder always hurt the victim. That’s why one might tax pollution yet prohibit other forms of harm; and what distinguishes government action to prevent harm from social engineering to shape society according to one group’s preferences.
I admit though that environmentalism has aspects of social engineering, as it seems that often many environmentalists are more concerned about plants and animals than they are humans; such that they are acting out of a desire to preserve something they like rather than prevent harm to people.
There aren’t any voluntary mechanisms that I know of that can prevent pollution that spreads across large areas created by large amounts of people; no one has an incentive to do so because no one bears the cost. Market failures are often exaggerated, but they do exist; and it is possible for them to be more serious than the accompanying public choice problems that arise from attempts at collective decision making.
“Well, you definitely need a hybrid van then”
Yes Obama is sharp as a rusty nail. Lets take the same SUV version vs its hybrid “van” (since there is no hybrid minivan in the US). A Ford Escape costs $21K and gets 28mpg highway. Its hybrid cousin costs $30k and gets 31mpg highway. The difference means that the hybrid version will recover its extra $9k in costs, with an average of 10k miles per year driving…in approximately 65 years at $4 gallon gas prices. This of course assuming the guy with 10 kids can afford to buy a new $30k vehicle whenever he feels like it.
But on the bright side, his great grandkids will also get to enjoy that car.
This is what passes for free markets? Now the funny part is that Obama mentions 8mpg. Thats what his armored limo gets. Shouldn’t he be upgrading to a Geo Metro? Those bastards got 40mpg easily back in the day…for the 1 side-view mirror variant (wind resistance, you see)
“Shouldn’t he be upgrading to a Geo Metro?”
Yes, he should.
Or even a car like my daughter’s Yaris. I filled it up twice in Ireland a couple of weeks ago, at a cost of about $8/gallon. (1.50 euros per liter.) Except he has a big stake in GM, so has an interest in Toyota’s demise.
But whatever he picks, he should lead by example. No question about it.
Yes but you didn’t address why Obama’s arguments are not “market based”. At $8/gallon, we’d be looking at 32 years before that hybrid pays for itself.
That is a “let them eat cake” argument. Not that a lot more should be expected from a person whose idea of the “future” is trains.
Could be. Show your math, please.
But it kind of depends on how many miles he puts on, doesn’t it? If it’s not that many miles, then you could very well be right.
Sorry I can’t reply upthread, but a cap and trade system can be constructed to work more or less like a carbon tax. One could just create a fixed number of carbon permits and auction them off. I agree though that the carbon tax is a better solution, as it is less vulnerable to political rent seeking.
I think you missed my point though, that if something isn’t a real problem in the first place or not the role of government; why should anyone care if the government proposes a “market based” solution to address it? It might be better than a non market solution but that still doesn’t make it a good idea, simply a less bad one.
Should we have carbon permits for excercising, since we are breathng more heavily and exhaling CO2 at a rate above normal. Tuesday at 4 o’clock is Tim’s day to add more CO2 than normal.
No market principles in hindering production of oil and gas, causing a rise in prices, then touting the need to make decisions based on market prices of gasoline.
Outstanding, you nailed it!
“Overlook here such a tax’s merits or demerits. It’s curious that you [Los Angeles Times] accept without question the proposition that raising taxes on ‘unhealthy-lifestyle’ activities will significantly turn people away from unhealthy-lifestyle activities, while (judging from your editorials over the years) you reject without question the proposition that raising taxes on income-earning activities will significantly turn people away from income-earning activities.” – Dr. Donald Boudreaux
The Almost Always Wrong Times, self appointed purveyor and caretaker of notional propositions big and small, exercise “dynamic taxation-damnation” theory. You see, taxation is merely for the damnation of a particular group. If group A is too fat, or group B is too pretty, or group C is too successful, or group D is too rich, etc. then the particular group conflicts with the greater collectivist vision of The Almost Always Wrong Times. Hence the group or groups must suffer damnation through taxation.
Through taxation-damnation the ultimate collectivist vision and hence outcome is achieved: skinny, ugly, shirking, poor people being directed by the central authority which knows what is best.
Orwellian or Malthusian? Ormalthusian?
Similar to your point, taking the notion of diminishing returns seriously, where additional units of labor eventually start to yield lower per-unit monetary returns and additional dollars eventually buy less and less happiness; it seems that progressive taxation is far more likely to reduce work effort than have no effect because “the wealthy won’t care”. It’s precisely because they don’t care much about an additional bit of money that they would be willing to consume more leisure time instead of produce more income. The only caveats would be if the wealthy’s labor isn’t that divisible, or if they are skilled at lobbying and tax avoidance and evasion.
I would say that it is pretty much uniform among wealth brackets. If poor people were faced with the same rate of taxation they would also opt out of work, preferring a shadow economy. It is always much easier for such people to escape into a barter or black market economy than it is for wealthy people.
As one of those in the lower tax brackets, I would love any info about how to barter my way with the electric, internet, water, and mortgage people. Have any insight? Right now those bills are the largest percentage of expenses, and as far as I can tell, you pay them with (what passes for) money.
well, here is what you do, you work strictly for cash, you have some kids and get put on public help. You engage in petty crime or other wise game the system. And you barter for the more expensive items.
Lots and lots of people live this way. Including some of my family members who never decided to grow up.
Well, darn. My jobs are both the sort with accounting departments, so all my income is reported. I have too many “resources” to be on public assistance, too.
I do know several people who live the way your describe. Some of them sell their food stamps, too. Guess they aren’t that hungry, or cigs and booze are more important than food!
Sorry to hear about your family members. That’s got to be a source of stress.
If handing out free money elevated people out of poverty, no one in this country would be poor. I tend to look at the chronically poor with suspicion, why are they poor for generations in this country of great opportunity?
As a philosophy professor in training myself, I’m glad to hear that my esteemed colleagues are well versed in the use of ad hominem. Other good ways to defend his position:
Petitio principii “high taxes don’t affect people’s willingness to work because people aren’t affected by higher taxes”;
Red herring “what are you one of those supply-side economists?”;
Post hoc ergo propter hoc “but Federal deficits went up during the Reagan years when he decreased the top tax rate”;
False dilemma “you either have to assume that people are unaffected by higher taxes or think that people just stop working and starve to death when taxes get to high, but we know that’s not true”;
Argument from authority “it can’t be true because Paul Krugman says it’s not true.”
Nice!
Let’s combine! “You are just the type of dumbshit supply-side economist neocon that Paul Krugman says believes that Reagan’s tax cuts weren’t followed by higher deficits which forced people to work less and starve to death!
This is fun!
Maybe the Tmes will stop accepting ads from beer companies. Not.
Overweight people already get their self-esteem crushed by this intolerant culture. And now people want to make their lives more miserable using the state? Rather than waging a “war on fat people,” why can’t folks learn to take care of their own health and let others so the same? Mind your own business America!
Optionally, if people are that concerned, they could I don’t know make and partake in some support groups, or at least harangue their local school into bringing the climbing rope back. Talk about incentive to not be a fattie.
As someone who is deliberately childless I also think they should include more than just fat people. Maternity and child birth also incurs big health expenditures. And the resulting offspring are a huge drain due to further education and health care spending. Parents take far more time off work than the childless. And children seem to be a huge vector for spreading disease. Those kind of activities should also be discouraged or are we going to be making up arbitrary rules about what is “good” worse health and what is “bad” worse health?
Relevant to that newspaper, the sun is far stronger in LA and pollution is worse than other areas of the country. People there should be taxed more due to deliberately increasing their chances of skin cancer and pollution exposure.
If I was fat, would I then get a discount for choosing to be childless and not living in LA?
Because fat people will supposedly drive up the costs of everyone else… If fat people die of cardiovascular diseases at 60 and don’t live to become 90 year old nursing home in-patients living off of pensions funded by transfer payments because their pensions’ savings were debased by perpetual inflation, I kinda doubt it, though… Any studies on the matter?
Millions of individuals have first hand knowledge of examples that prove your professor wrong.
I find folks like the philosophy professor can benefit from a better understanding of opportunity cost. As in, they view whatever is given up to earn each incremental dollar of income as having zero opportunity cost.
Similar to asking the professor about his likelihood of giving a speech, I like to ask folks with such views why they don’t use all their waking hours to work and make even more money. Why do they value those few waking hours each day when they’re not making money more than what they could earn by working?
Don, how dare you accuse these people of being brainwashed! You just don’t understand! Here let me explain it you:
“Using data from MRI scans, researchers at the University College London found that self-described liberals have a larger anterior cingulate cortex–a gray matter of the brain associated with understanding complexity.”
You sir, just don’t understand the complexities of the issue. Maybe you’re the brainwashed one.
It must be very frustrating for liberals to have to live among us dummies who are biologically incapable of understanding their wisdom.
Well maybe they’re not so wrong when they think that everyone who doesn’t agree with them is insane. I always thought there was something wrong with me. Now I know.
The fact that we are biologically incapable of understanding, explains why their brilliant schemes simply must be forced upon us.
“Fatal conceit cortex” sounds better.
The threshold is definitely at 94,5%.
Who actually paid those tax rates? I’d bet it’s only people who had sudden unexpected windfalls in a particular year rather than a class of people who earned that much consistently year to year. A “no estate planning” tax instead of a real “tax on the rich”.
I just want to also point out that taxes or regulations which effect the lifestyles of people in order to increase the “public good” are nearly always bogus.
We should be encouraging people to smoke, drink, and overeat because lots of people dropping dead before they can draw many years of Social Security and Medicare is the only thing we can hope for at this point to pay our bills.
How about a thug tax? You know, a tax against anyone who so much as advocates any kind of tax.
No, it is people who make money WITHOUT working who should be marginally taxed at 94%.
you mean retired people?
Brilliant!