firmly in place has been confirmed through an abundance of historical evidence.
Buffett Tax and Grand National Party 
* * *
Recent actions by lawmakers raise doubts about whether the National Assembly exists to promote the national interest or to be a human chess match. Most opposition party members are strongly opposed to the ratification of the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement—yes, the same deal that they supported a few years ago. The ruling Saenuri Party, which also recently changed its name from GNP, proposed to create another layer at the top of the income bracket, the so-called "Buffett tax," after losing the Seoul mayoral election to an independent civic activist in October.
To take off the image of a party for the rich?
The purpose is not clear. The ruling party says it is to change its image as being the party of the rich. The image has been created due to the party's constant blundering, inconsistency and incompetence, not by a certain policy introduced only for wealthy people. They gave up a tax cut plan as opposition parties blamed it as a blatant move benefitting only the rich.
If the government cuts taxes to boost consumption and economic growth, it is unreasonable to exclude the rich from the list as they are the ones who pay most of the taxes. With about half of taxpayers entirely exempted from income taxes, the opposition parties are misleading us when they charge "tax cut for the rich." The ruling party failed to persuade the public of the need for a tax cut and now proposes a Buffett tax to change its image.
CFE Research Fellow Aaron McKenzie recently noted that American journalist H.L. Mencken once wrote: If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would promise them missionaries for dinner. In the case of the ruling party, it will put the rich on the menu for hungry voters.
The wealth tax is losing ground around the world. Germany, Japan, the Netherlands and Denmark scrapped the system as they found it ineffective. Finland and Sweden, both well-known as being welfare states, abolished the wealth tax in 2005 and 2007, respectively. That's not to argue we must follow them blindly. If we have a need, we should introduce a new tax. But the proponents of a wealth tax for Korea argue that it will improve tax equity and help resolve inequality and the wealth gap.
How much more should the rich pay for tax equity?
Their cases cannot be justified. High-income earners pay most of the taxes and more than half of taxpayers are not subject to income tax. It is hard to find a fair yardstick to say how much rich people should pay to achieve tax equity. The best solution to problems of inequality and the wealth gap is to boost economic growth. Equality through the transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor is the worst choice. Unless we believe the rich are fools, we should expect them to move their money abroad and to cut investment here to avoid heavy taxes. Wealth will be compromised for equity.
It is more of a socialist idea to impose heavy taxes on high-income earners in order to address inequality. The nation is heading toward it on many issues. Half-priced college tuition and the free school lunch program are prime examples. They are a real challenge for Korea. The ruling party should be wary of socialist and populist ideas and set the course for the entire country. But it is now dropping its traditional conservatism and is now even proposing expanding welfare and imposing a welfare tax.
Sound policy is the best way to take the power
A major problem with leftist policies is that they often end up with contradictory outcomes. Such policies deny or ignore property rights and weaken the ability of individuals to live their lives independently.
It is understandable that politicians are obsessed with counting votes. The real issue is how to win votes—proposing contradictory policies means keeping promises will necessarily lead to contradictions. Both the ruling and opposition parties should realize that the best way to win political office is create a sound policy based on common sense for the sake of the national interest.
By Kim Young-yong, professor of economics at Chonnam National University
Thank you very much for your time and please, if I have misunderstood your argument or if you find my arguments erroneous, weak or even irrelevant, send me an Email.
Further more, you have mentioned that Germany, Sweden, Finland and other European states as examples of welfare states that abandoned the wealth tax system. True, but under different circumstances. In Germany 2009, for example, a group of millionaires and billionaires gathered and agreed to donate their wealth to the state.