Tax cut plans

Extracting additional revenue from high-income earners is the cornerstone of every progressive tax plan. Their established view on tax policy is that wealth creation is harmful to society; therefore, the legislative process must be reengineered to preempt the flow of income to those at the top. It matters not whether the income is earned or unearned, realized or unrealized. What matters is that wealth never be concentrated, especially at the very top.

That this type of social engineering seeps into every aspect of progressive tax policy is indicative of their desire to affect equal outcomes. Certainly no one can spend tens of millions of dollars in their lifetime, therefore it must be redirected through the legislative process to those on the opposite end of the income scale. This mindset is at odds with effective tax policy, which should never be used to affect outcomes. Tax policy should be used to generate tax receipts sufficient to fund the commitments of the state and not a penny more.

Andrew Farnitano, of Raise Up Massachusetts, makes it plainly clear that a flat, fair tax system in which tax rates on income and capital gains are fixed at a point that keeps Massachusetts competitive as well as fully funded is not his primary consideration. He wants a tax system more punitive than that. He’s willing to accept a tax system more likely to discourage job creation, entrepreneurism, and self-sufficiency if it eventually produces an outcome desired by his constituency.

Like it or not, wealth creation is a marker of success. Using the tax code to discourage success in an effort to create more equality in society goes against the principles of capitalism and freedom. Progressives will never go so far as to admit that, but they’re hoping to establish these policies without you noticing. — Sean F. Flaherty Boston