The other side of the myth that most rich people came by their wealth through honest hard work is that poverty is primarily the result of laziness or "addiction" to government welfare—the implication being that they mooch off the hardworking wealthy. To be sure, some out of hundreds of government programs have produced unintended social consequences and unhealthy dependency. But these failures hardly merit conservative hyperbole about the "myth of the working poor," or the proliferation of dismissive papers claiming that just because most low-income Americans have cars and microwaves, they're not really that poor. (They could always, you know, be Africa-poor.)
Whether intentionally or not, the conservative fantasy that the United States is a meritocracy where social mobility is enabled and championed inevitably ends up letting the rich off the hook. If someone is making half a million dollars per year, they almost certainly had an unearned economic advantage that was not equally available to the waitress in Nashville who makes $20,000. There is no "level playing field."
Thus it is not "inequitable," as Hagopian wants us to believe, that the six-figure earner pays a higher percentage of his dollar in taxes. He is not being "punished" for working hard; he is being taxed in proportion with his advantage.
There are myriad legitimate debates to be had about what level of taxation is sustainable, how much each bracket should be taxed, and which are effective ways for the government to distribute revenue. Government's critics can attack the failures of its delivery methods all they like. But whether they hold it as a pious myth or a cynical lie, they should spare us the notion that the progressive income tax represents structural robbery of the rich.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In