Thomas Paine Would Have Loved This Tax Plan I swear it was the first time it’s happened: I was channel surfing when a program on C-Span caught my ear. Jack Fruchtman was speaking about a book he’d written on Thomas Paine, the author of Common Sense, which was penned 225 years ago. I became very interested in Fruchtman’s analysis of Paine’s definition of the term “common sense.” Paine defined “common sense” such that “reason” (or rational thought) is how we should judge the rightness or wrongness of events in everyday life. Obviously, this made a lot of sense (no pun intended). Alas, this lovely history lesson suddenly switched gears as Fruchtman stated how Paine would have been appalled at the “folly” of the election of George W. Bush to the presidency. One of the reasons that he stated had to do with Bush’s tax cut proposal. Fruchtman seemed to feel that giving a tax cut to the wealthy would not be consistent with Paine’s definition of common sense (I know you’ve heard the argument before – tax relief for “the wealthiest one percent”). I was confused. If I had heard the first part of Fruchtman’s lecture correctly, Paine advocated reason as the judge of what was right or wrong. What could be more reasonable than giving equal tax relief to the group that supplies thirty-four percent of all federal income taxes? To advocate otherwise would be to suggest that those who create wealth and economic vitality are not entitled to keep their wealth – they should “sacrifice” for the common good (i.e, social programs and other entitlements). Individual rights and achievement be damned. Perhaps Fruchtman would have responded, “But the wealthy can afford it. Why shouldn’t they give back to society?” What right does the government have to decide who can “afford” anything? Unreasonable confiscation of property (legitimate income) is theft no matter from whom it comes. The tired argument of “giving back to society” suggests that something was taken from society. I don’t mind paying a small portion of my income for legitimate uses of the government involving protection of my rights. What I mind is anyone being taxed solely because it is for the “public good.”