OCR Text |
Show THE VOICE OF BUSINESS The paycheck vs. vhe welfare efoecl By Richard L. Lesher, President Chamber of Commerce of the United States "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer," This shopworn punch line has enjoyed a journalistic renaissance of late, pearing in a spate of stories, studies and analyses designed to show that Reaj tax and budget policies have redirected the flow of national income from thep to the rich. Even the "Wall Street Journal" got into the act recently with a page-one a cle titled, "Studies Say Reagan Reverses Redistribution." The article cites a ( gi essional Budget Office analysis that the writer says "shows that income is tually flowing from the lowest to the highest income groups." The statist; evidence provided is a chart that shows the expected gain or loss in 1983 household income category in terms of tax and benefit cuts. Let me say at outset that this evidence and the way it is organized are suspect, but for il it's worth: Income Federal benefit loss Tax cut gain Net Up to $10,000 -360 120 -240 $10-$20,000 -220 440 220 $21-$40,000 -140 950 810 $41-80,000 -130 1,830 . 1,700 $80,000 and up -120 15,250 15,130 Now, if you believe that Uncle Sam owns our labor and the income that fli from that labor to spend the way he sees fit, then you might draw the conclus that administraiton economic policies are indeed taking from the poor and ing to the rich. But if you believe that your wages are yours and that you h a right to keep as much as possible, you might draw a different set of conclusic You might notice, for instance, that except for those households earning 1 than $10,000, every American will be better off in 1983 under the Reagan polk You might also recognize that the beneficial effects of a reduction in inflal are not taken into account. Also, you can see that every group suffers some ret tion in government benefits. In other words, the higher income levels are not "getting richer" beca federal program benefits are being taken from the poor and given to the r All gains are totally attributable to the tax cuts, the benefits of which grow lai as you move up the income scale because these upper categories pay more ta to begin with. This distinction between an income gain that flows from a benefit progr and one that comes from a tax cut is critical and gets to my essential poin this column. Isn't it time we recalled some basic economic concepts on wl our country was founded? That in our society, success if celebrated, not scorned and that one, but tainly not the only, barometer of success is material prosperity. Isn't it time remembered that there is an essential difference between a welfare check a paycheck? Allowing a worker to keep more of his paycheck, even if it me a cut in someone else's welfare check (and it has hardly been proved that I must be the case) is not "robbing" the poor and "giving" to the better off, beca you can't rob something that is already yours and you can't give away sometl that isn't yours to give. Shouldn't this same concept hold true even in the particular paycheck invi ed happens to be very big? In American today the mainstream debate has ended over whether govt ment should assist the destitute. A consensus emerged some time ago that better off should indeed give part of their income to attempt to pull the less) tunate out of poverty. This is a noble goal. But it doesn't mean we shoulder that line to the point where the wage earner's pay is considered the domaii the state to distribute the way it sees fit. It doesn't mean that a lower inco American has an inherent right to demand shares of that pay simply beca he has less of it than his neighbor. Unfortunately, there has been all too much blurring of this distinction betw ending the less fortunate a helping hand and giving our politicians a moral! legal claim over our labor. That's a dangerous leap, and it is found in the blurred vocabulary of "redistri tion" even in the "Wall Street Journal." |