The president wants to raise taxes on the rich. He isn't asking for much, he assures us. He just wants them to pay "their fair share."
Problem #1: Taking money from individuals simply because it is there to take is not "fair" or even moral.
Problem #2: Assuming completely effective coercion and zero collateral damage, the amount of money this will provide to the government coffers is on the order of miniscule. They tell me it would run the country for a total of 10 days. That's without considering the possibilities of clever accountants and lawyers to hide money or the loss of jobs and other economic factors because of the tax losses.
But consider this:
The top 50% of wage earners filing income tax returns in 2009 made more than $32,000. The top 25% made more than $66,000. The top 5% made more than $154,000.
In 2009 the top 5% of wage earners in the U.S. paid 58% of the taxes paid. The top 25% paid 87% of the taxes paid. The top 50% paid nearly 98% of the taxes paid. The bottom 50% paid 2.25% of the taxes paid.
In terms of tax rates, the top 5% paid 20% of their AGI (Adjusted Gross Income) in taxes. The top 25% paid over 14% of their AGI in taxes. The top 50% paid 12.5% of their AGI in taxes. The bottom 50% of wage earners in the country paid 1.85% of their wages after adjustments in taxes.
In 2009 the top 5% wage earners in the U.S. earned nearly 17% of the total AGI. The top 25% earned over 65% of the AGI. The top 50% earned 86% of the total AGI earned in the country.
Going with the president's cut off of $250,000 as income, those who make that or over are in the roughly top 3% of the country. They pay roughly at a 22% tax rate and pay 52% of the total taxes.
Problem #3: If the top 25% are making 65% of the wages earned and paying more than 87% of the taxes paid, and if this is not "their fair share", at what point does "their fair share" occur? If the top 3% are making 26% of the wages and paying 52% of the total taxes, at what point does "their fair share" occur?
I suppose, though, what perturbs me the most about the constant presentation of the whole question at hand about this "fiscal cliff" is that the president and the Democrats are eager to do something, to fix it, to compromise, and those dirty, rotten Republicans are refusing to do anything and don't want to fix anything at all. The fact that they offered a $2.2 trillion solution without raising taxes on the rich is no indication that they are trying to accomplish anything. The fact that the only available compromise is "to go along or die" is irrelevant. Whatever happens in the next month or two, here's how it will come down. Either the Republicans refused to compromise and threw us off the cliff, or they caved in to the wisdom of the ruling junta and the president saved us. Even if it isn't salvation. Even if it isn't true. Now who's playing politics at the cost of the people?
49 comments:
As far as I can tell, we ran off the fiscal cliff like 4 or 5 years ago, but like a cartoon character, we've kept on running until we've finally decided to look down.
Right from the start, it's been Obama & Co. playing games. He likes to say that the GOP is holding the middle class hostage in order to "give" tax cuts to the wealthy. The wealthy already have the cuts. More truthfully, Obama is holding the middle class hostage in order to demand more from the wealthy under the guise of "paying their fair share".
David, I've read about creatures with large bodies but small brains who continue to "live" after they've been killed because it takes awhile for their bodies to realize they're dead. You know, like America?
Marshall, I've seen it for a long time, but I don't think it's just Obama & Co. The president has complained for years that "they're just playing politics" when what they're doing is standing on principle. But when a side (either side) skewers the other side as "just playing politics" simply because "they're not agreeing with us", that is playing politics. When that is used to harm the country, I'm not sure it's "playing" anymore.
What do you think is "fair" for the lowest 10% of earners to pay?
What do you think is fair for the lowest 25% of earners to pay? What percentage of their salary would you LIKE them to pay in taxes and what makes that percentage fair, in your mind?
Are you suggesting the fair thing would be for everyone to pay the same percentage, regardless of income level/ability to pay?
Just curious.
In order to offer a more balanced view of what people do and don't pay in taxes, you might cite a source like this one...
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3505
...the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. They note...
* Most of the people who pay neither federal income tax nor payroll taxes are low-income people who are elderly, unable to work due to a serious disability, or students, most of whom subsequently become taxpayers...
* low-income households as a group do, in fact, pay federal taxes. Congressional Budget Office data show that the poorest fifth of households paid an average of 4.0 percent of their incomes in federal taxes in 2007...
* even these figures greatly understatelow-income households’ totaltax burden because these households also pay substantial state and local taxes...
* The fact that most people who don’t owe federal income tax in a given year pay substantial amounts of other taxes — and also are net income taxpayers over time — belies the claim that households that do not owe income tax in a given year...
* although the federal tax system is progressive overall, state and local tax systems are regressive and undo a significant share of that progressivity...
Good stuff, well-rounded analysis of what people pay in taxes. Just to give all sides of the topic.
That's odd. I replied to your first comment and it didn't show up. Now I'm blocking my comments? Very odd.
On the first comment, the question that I've asked is not "Should we raise taxes on the poor?" No one wants to raise taxes on the poor. The Republicans are trying to raise taxes on no one and the president wants to raise taxes on the rich, but no one is asking, "Shouldn't the poor be paying more?" Neither am I.
The sources I chose to use were the standard government sources. It would be, apparently, your opinion that those sources are unreliable and your source is reliable. Feel free.
The question I'm asking of you is about "their fair share". The "rich" (a relative term) -- the top 25% -- are making 65% of the wages earned and paying more than 87% of the taxes paid. It is the contention of the president (and, I imagine, you) that this is not "their fair share". What is "their fair share" by your reckoning? Or is it not about "fair"? Is it about "the money is there so they should take it"? Please note that no one is currently suggesting that increasing taxes on the wealthy will solve the current deficit problem. To do that, are you willing to take more (France aims at 75%) from the wealthy, or do you suggest that everyone ought to be paying more taxes?
Stan...
What is "their fair share" by your reckoning? Or is it not about "fair"? Is it about "the money is there so they should take it"?
For my part, I do not believe their exists a single number/percentage about which we can authoritatively say, "This is FAIR!"
I'm speaking of principles.
In principle, I'm opposed to the poorest paying more they can afford in taxes (including local taxes).
In principle, I support a progressive tax scheme, and am opposed to a regressive tax scheme.
It sounds like you and I agree on the principle, it's just a matter of where we draw the line.
Myself, I don't think 30% is too much for someone making over $100,000/year to pay in tax dollars. Mitt Romney and Warren Buffett both were paying under 20% and that sounds low to me.
But it's not like I think "35% is THE RIGHT AMOUNT to tax those making more than $100,000 a year. 36% is TOO MUCH!! 34% is TOO LITTLE!" I just, in general, favor a progressive tax scheme, believing, in general, that this is the right way to handle our common needs and in defending/acquiring our common wealth.
The other principle I stand by is that we ought to tax ourselves enough to pay our bills. IF we have decided we collectively need to spend $1 trillion/year to pay for our roads, teachers, fire protection, defense, police, etc, then we ought to tax ourselves enough to pay that bill.
It sounds like we don't disagree on the principle of progressive taxation, just on where to draw the line, which is a rather randomly drawn line about which we can reasonably disagree. Am I right? Can we agree that there is no "right" percentage that is morally justified and 1 point above which, is immoral?
T. Jefferson on taxation...
"Taxes should be proportioned to what may be annually spared by the individual."
"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise."
"The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the whole taxes of the General Government are levied. ... Our revenues liberated by the discharge of the public debt, and its surplus applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings."
I think most of us agree with Jefferson that the poor shouldn't pay any or much in taxes - in fairness to their dire straits - while the rest of us should pay increasingly proportionately more, as our income increases.
I think most of us can agree that we ought to pay all our bills - if we, the people are spending $1 trillion, we ought to tax ourselves and otherwise be prepared to PAY $1 trillion.
I think most of us can agree that a group can be taxed too much - to try to tax "the rich" at 99% would be counterproductive and probably just wrong.
Hopefully, most of us can agree that there is no clear "right" percentage and it's a balancing act - we don't want to tax the person making $90,000 a year TOO much, but we (generally) all benefit (including the person making $90,000) from the programs we have agreed to support. We may not all agree on all those programs or WHICH percentage is the optimal one for someone at the $90,000 income level vs someone at teh $250,000 income level, but what else can we do but do the best we can and not demonize the Others because they want to tax at 28% while I think 33% is optimal.
It pays to remember that there is NO one right answer on this test, right?
Call me crazy but if whatever slice of the income spectrum earns X% of the total income, it would seem fair thay they pay X% of the income tax burden.
The problem with this kind of discussion is that in reality you need to compare apples to apples. So as lond as we keep to income tax vs. income tax it is possible to compare. The problem is that folks end up comparing income tax to total tax. Once that happens the comparisons become meaningless and invalid.
IMO it's this kind of misleading reasoning that makes it difficult to have productive discussions about reletive taxation.
As we watch the current negotiation we have P-BO who wants to raise taxes by a negligible amount, which will bring in a negligible amount of revenue. While this is certainly a popular position among some, it ignores the fact that he also wants control of the debt ceiling to be taken from the legislative branch and given to the executive branch, as well as to incur more "stimulous" spending. In reality the increase in revenue won't be enough to cover new expenditures. But he's got a bunch of people that "tax the rich" is the only answer. Balanced, my ass.
One other lightly covered story that is a result of the "fiscal cliff" is that of Menards.
Most of you probably aren't aware of Menards, but here goes. Menards is a privately held building materials company based in Wisconsin. Over the last several years as Home Depot and Lowes have been closing stores Menards has been both opening new stores, but also expanding its footprint outside of the upper midwest. In addition to it's retail outlets Menards also owns a significant part of it's supply chain. This is a company that employs thousands in retail, manufacturing and transportation as well as the thousands employed by the companies that supply them and the folks who build the stores. In addition, the pay scale is reasonably generous and EVERYONE is eligible for profit sharing from the date of hire.
After that bit of history there was an story carried by Fox 4 in Kansas City announcing that a store planned for Independence, MO has been put on hold pending the resolution of the current situation. So, nothing's happened and 200+ potential employees aren't going to be hired (at least for now), The city of Independence is losing tax revenue, some general contractor and his subs who were counting on work and revenue are on hold, and the people who would shop there are missing out on the opportunity to purchase American made products from and American company at low prices. Who loses here? How many other stories are out there, but not being reported?
I'm guessing were not going to see any P-BO rallies at Menards corperate HQ any time soon.
Craig, one estimate I read suggested that something like 200,000 jobs were put on hold pending this financial crisis. Things that don't happen (like new jobs coming to the market) cannot be quantified, so it cannot be very well addressed, but it is a factor. I know it because I currently have three job possibilities myself that are pending contracts with companies unwilling to commit until they see what will happen. Same concept.
Craig, if the store isn't proceeding because Congress and Obama haven't settled the "fiscal cliff" issue, how is that Obama's fault alone?
You seem to be making it a partisan issue - "If ONLY Obama would be reasonable and go along with what WE want, then this would be settled and the jobs would be coming in..."
That would be my point: There IS NO one "right" answer on what percentage is optimal for taxing a given income level. Reasonable people can and will disagree, it's not a simple issue and I recognize the complexities involved. I hope most people do, rather than just blindly lining up behind "their side."
Dan Trabue: "The other principle I stand by is that we ought to tax ourselves enough to pay our bills."
Wow, you're braver than I.
In 2012, according to the Treasure Department, the total outlay was $3.5 trillion. they say that 22% was paid toward Social Security, 19% toward National Defense, 15% toward "Income Security", 13% toward Medicare, 10% toward Health, 6% toward Interest, 3% toward education, training, employment, and social services, and the rest toward "other". (Income security pays for the disabled, the unemployed the low-income families, that sort of thing.) (Note, then, that fully 50% of government spending is spent on Social Security, Income Security, and Medicare -- caring for the needy.) In the same period the government took in about $2.5 trillion, leaving an obvious deficit of $1 trillion (with more accurate numbers, it's actually closer to $1.1 trillion). So going on your "other principle", we're going to have to figure out where to get another $1.1 trillion. Boosting the current tax rate (33-35%, by the way) for those over $250,000 will get us another $34 billion. So, now all we have to do is boost that rate to something that will make up the difference. That handy 40% isn't going to even touch it. If we boosted their tax rate to something around 60%, we would be getting close. So, combining the principle of "don't charge the lower incomes with more taxes" (keeping in mind that 47% of those with income do not pay any income tax) and "tax ourselves enough to pay our bills" without any regard for "fair", all we have to do is tax the rich sufficiently to make them no longer rich.
But "fair" isn't your real concern, is it? In principle, your idea is that those who have it should pay it. "Having it" is sufficient reason to take it for those who do not. Your Jefferson quote, for instance, suggests paying what can be "spared by the individual". Now, you are opposed to religious people saying what is moral or not. So who would you say gets to determine what can be "spared by the individual"? Because if that's all we're going to use, it's pretty easy. "You have a mansion; I have an apartment. You don't need a mansion (quite obviously), so we'll take enough so that you're left with an apartment. Problem solved!" Now, of course that's not what you're actually saying, but there is no way to avoid it as an actual direction based on the principles you've outlined.
Further, none of this takes into account the unintended consequences. When the UK boosted the tax rate on the rich to 50%, the rich left. The number of millionaires dropped by more than half. When it becomes pointless to earn a lot (which, by the way, feeds the economy), people will stop, either by no longer putting out the effort or by doing it somewhere else. Now, you and I don't much care if the rich stop getting richer, but those who are relying on their efforts (like running a business that employs people or spending their excessive money on goods) are also going to suffer. The ripple effect of making "rich" a nasty word in America will be to make "capitalism" a nasty word in America. However, the consequences of that neat trick will be not too pleasant at all. And while Communist and Socialist countries were figuring out that their system wasn't working, we're thinking that we might just give it a try.
I would still contend that taking from the rich to balance the budget without regard to "fair" simply because they have it and we don't is not moral; it's theft.
The way I see it Obama is in a no loose situation politically. If the economy experiences a real up cycle, (something I doubt will happen beyond the media narrative that will say there is one whether or not there is) Obama will get credit no matter what, and if there is a down cycle Republicans will carry the blame. Obama need not do the least little thing except to continue the longest presidential campaign in the history of the nation... 12 years. That is where is shines, trashing and blaming Republicans.
Dan,
Where P-BO bears a significant amount of blame in this is twofold. First, he flat out lied about wanting a "balanced" approach. Second, His desire to control the debt ceiling is not getting a lot of play here.
What it comes down to is that the house GOP has existentially said they'll roll over on the tax issue if P-BO will get serious about cutting spending. But no P-BO wants to increase spending. Some compromise.
the bottom line is that it's more important to P-BO to increase taxes on the few family members who own Menards, than it is to employ and collect taxes from the hundreds that will be affected negatively.
Stan...
You're braver than I.
? You DON'T believe we ought to pay our bills? That's what you said that in response to, so I'm confused. I can't believe you actually don't think we ought to pay what we spend, what's your point?
That you don't agree with everything that gets spent? Welcome to the club, no one agrees on everything we spend. Nonetheless, we have to pay our bills, right?
Stan...
"fair" isn't your real concern, is it?
I must say your responses don't seem to correspond with my comments. Um, YES, fair matters to me, that is why I said I support a progressive tax scheme. I thought you were agreeing with that.
Do you NOT think we ought to have a progressive tax system? You said you weren't advocating raising the level paid by lower income people and they pay less as a percentage in federal income tax, so I took that to mean you supported a progressive tax scheme, was I mistaken?
Stan...
I would still contend that taking from the rich to balance the budget without regard to "fair" simply because they have it and we don't is not moral; it's theft.
Well, I'm not advocating "taking" their money because they have it, I advocate (as I thought you were agreeing) a progressive tax system because it's a morally correct way to gather taxes. I'm not advocating theft - NO ONE IS - we're advocating what seems to be the most moral approach to taxing - everyone pays some (except the poorest - and even they pay a great deal in taxes, just not federal income tax) and the more we have, the greater percentage we tax at. That is, by definition, NOT theft, it's legal taxation.
Where exactly are you disagreeing, Stan? I thought originally we agreed on a progressive tax scheme and were just disagreeing on where to draw the line on what percentage is "too much." If so, what IS that percentage and what do you base that upon?
I believe Thomas Sowell has made the point on more than one occasion, but the concept of fairness is useful precisely because it is vague.
If we were to nail down what's fair in terms of tax rates, then we might actually reach a point where people are paying too much, and we can't have that.
I appreciate Dan Trabue's candor: "Myself, I don't think 30% is too much for someone making over $100,000/year to pay in tax dollars."
In most parts of the private sector untouched by featherbedding unions, one must be very productive indeed to make, say, $120,000 a year, and it's wrong to subject that person to a net income of $84,000 for all his hard work. He is certainly not getting his money's worth from government services, a safety net for those who truly cannot help themselves is NOT that expensive, and there is something to be said for enjoying the lion's share of the fruit of one's own labor -- for being able to dispose of that income as one sees fit.
More than a fourth of every dollar a person makes ought to go to the state, just because he's productive? A person should work to mid-April for Leviathan just because he can make do with what he earns the other 7 1/2 months?
We haven't had anything resembling a limited government for a very long time, but the ease with which some people urge for the yoke to be put on others is still a bit galling.
"You DON'T believe we ought to pay our bills?"
I don't believe we should be paying the bills we are paying. That being said, I don't think there is a chance under heaven that it will significantly change. For instance, that 50% being paid toward the less fortunate (which, in my opinion, is not the job of the government) is classified both semantically and in the hearts of most Americans as "entitlement". End of story. Can't touch it. Too bad for you and yours. Say goodnight, Gracie.
You argue that "progressive tax scheme" is "fair" (certainly without defining either the scheme or how it is fair). I have laid out the numbers that demonstrate that we already have a progressive tax scheme, but it's still not fair? When 47% of America pays no income tax, it doesn't get much more progressive. Or, to put it another way, "progressive tax scheme" means nothing without definition. The current definition -- "the top 25% pay 85% of the taxes" -- doesn't work for you and yours. So "fair" still remains outside of the realm of definition.
And, by the way, the idea of a "progressive tax scheme" is exactly to "take the money from those who have it" without regard for equity. I'm okay with it to a degree.
The other point not addressed. The president said again today that without an increase in taxes on the rich there can be no deal. Then (as Danny pointed out) we are told that the Republicans are still unwilling to compromise. To all readers, please note: "Do it my way or not at all" is not "compromise". But we're all pretty sure that the Republicans will be blamed (you know, like Danny already pointed out also). And we're back to another problem of "fair" ... or not.
Stan...
I have laid out the numbers that demonstrate that we already have a progressive tax scheme, but it's still not fair?
So, I ask again, what IS fair? At what point does it become unfair? Are you saying that the wealthy paying a larger percentage (progressive taxation) is fair and reasonable to you, but only if the poor are ALSO paying specifically federal income tax, and that it becomes "unfair" if the poor aren't paying enough?
I'm still not sure what it is you're complaining about.
Do we agree on progressive taxation?
What conditions are making it "unfair" in your mind and at what specific point does it become unfair?
Stan...
by the way, the idea of a "progressive tax scheme" is exactly to "take the money from those who have it" without regard for equity.
No, it isn't. Not for me or folk like me. First of all, we're not "taking money." We're agreeing to taxation, it's the price we pay for living in this great society. Framing agreed upon taxation arrangements is NOT accurately called "taking" or "theft," not in the English language.
And we HAVE agreed upon a progressive tax scheme to pay for our bills exactly for reasons of equity. At least, that's my reasoning.
Are you saying YOU are advocating progressive taxation as a way of "taking" money NOT for reasons of equity, but for some other reasons? That's certainly not my thinking, thank you very much.
Bubba...
More than a fourth of every dollar a person makes ought to go to the state, just because he's productive?
No, of course not. We aren't "taking" money from the productive because they're productive. We're agreeing to taxation to pay for our bills which we, as responsible adults, want to pay.
And we've agreed to taxation that is progressive in nature, not flat and certainly not regressive.
We HAVE to pay our bills, are we not in agreement on that point?
Since it has already been demonstrated that the increase of taxes on the "rich" will do nothing to alleviate our deficit, then how can it be "fair" to raise their taxes? What purpose would it serve except for another shot in the battle of class warfare?
And how is it "moral" to demand more taxes of people just because the are "wealthy"? Oh, because they can afford it? Interesting that some people define what is moral by how much one is taxed, and that it is "immoral" to not tax the top 2% as much as possible, while at the same time thinking homosexual behavior is "moral." There is some really odd thinking there.
Glenn, true.
Dan, we've obviously lost sight of the content of the post. I said, "This is the way it currently is. The left would like us to believe it's not fair. They say that 'fair' would be to take more. How is that fair?"
What we have is already a progressive tax. The right would like to leave it alone. The left would like to change it. So, "the right would like to leave it alone" would suggest that, at least to a sufficient degree, the current progressive tax is "fair". The left says it's not. You seem to agree. I say, "It's currently fair enough" and you say "It's not" and I can't figure out from you what would be more fair.
On "taxation" versus "theft", taxation is required, necessary, even biblical. But the suggestion (or, perhaps, just the implication) is that as long as we call it "taxation" we can take what we want from whomever we want because "taxation" is not "theft". I disagree. At some point taxation is fine. Beyond that point it does become theft. I would start with the notion that "taking from those who have simply because they have it" is not a good standard for "taxation", but for "theft". I would continue with the position that taking money as "taxes" to do things the government is not required to do or should not do would also fall into that category. Common defense, infrastructure, law enforcement, that sort of thing -- good. We're way beyond that now.
And the dodge " We aren't taking money from the productive because they're productive. We're agreeing to taxation to pay for our bills which we, as responsible adults, want to pay" really doesn't work. They say, "We need to spend all this money for all this stuff, so we'll take it from those who have to give to those who don't because we're spending money for all this stuff." The logic is twisted. In normal living, we decide how much we have and then determine what we can spend. In government normal we decide what we would like to spend and then figure out how to get it from our productive members of society.
Correction on my earlier comment: the productive individual is expected to live off 8 1/2 months of what he earns each year, not 7 1/2.
--
Dan, certainly we should pay our bills, and this common ground is why I'm surprised that you and other leftists aren't up in arms about Obama. Compared to our predecessor, he's more than doubled the rate of adding to the national debt, and he's now calling for MORE "stimulus" spending in addition to a tax increase that will, at best, only dent each year's deficit.
We're piling up too many bills.
"We HAVE to pay our bills, are we not in agreement on that point?"
We are, but we should spend only what we can afford from a reasonable tax base, and in a free society, 30 percent of anyone's income is unreasonable.
You're the one who brought up the 30 percent tax rate.
"Myself, I don't think 30% is too much for someone making over $100,000/year to pay in tax dollars."
You should argue for that odious rate, since you've claimed that it's reasonable, instead of falling back onto uncontroversial statements about how we should pay our bills.
"We HAVE to pay our bills, are we not in agreement on that point?"
Yes, and no one is saying otherwise. The problem comes when we have a government that in addition to spending more money than it takes in, continues to add spending and increase borrowing in order to pay for it.
At some point paying the bills requires that the borrowing and spending stop. Unfortunately we won't be seeing that for the next 4 years.
Bubba...
We are, but we should spend only what we can afford from a reasonable tax base, and in a free society, 30 percent of anyone's income is unreasonable.
So, what IS reasonable and where and how do you draw the line?
Stan appears to think that what we have now is reasonable and fair, but presumably if we raise it 1% point higher for rich people, it will be unfair...
Is that what you're saying, Stan?
If so, what is it about the current rate that is "fair" and reasonable, but one percentage point more will become "unfair" and unreasonable?
On what do you all base X% is fair, but X%+1% is unfair?
I have to ask a reasonable question: Bubba claims that a 30% tax rate on the very wealthy is "odious" - says who? On what basis is 30% "odious?"
If we were talking about a 30% tax rate on the poor - those who use ALL their income in simply paying for food and housing and healthcare (essentials) - then it is rational and easy to see that taking 30% of what they have is objectively odious/immoral/wrong. If ALL of one's income is needed just to survive, then taking 30% of it begins to remove their ability to survive and is, thus, a threat to their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
We can easily see exactly WHY people concerned with morality would think a 30% tax rate on the poorest would be wrong. But ON WHAT OBJECTIVE BASIS is a 30% tax rate on those (like me) who could afford it wrong in and of itself?
Look, if a group of ten people lived in a house and agreed to share expenses and they each paid a reasonable amount that they could afford to pay for the basics of upkeep (even the poorest 2 people, who had nothing left over to speak of, but still could afford living there barely), no problem. But, what if there is a sudden expense - a storm damages the roof - what do those ten people do? Well, the poorest two can't afford to work on it at that point in time, but the others can take some of their excess and pay for this needed expense and they do and it's okay.
Next time around, it might be another resident who can't afford extra money out, but the two poorer ones this time could cover it next time. All is good, all is equal, all is fair, all the bills are paid and life goes on.
Where am I mistaken?
Where are you basing your "odious" and "unfair" assessments of a given tax rate? It seems pretty whimsical, but maybe you have some formula or evidence I've yet to see. By all means, show it.
Dan, you keep pointing to this magical 1% increase. 2 things. 1) Noone anywhere is suggesting a mere 1% increase on the rich. 2) At what point does 1% stop? Plus 1% today isn't bad, but 1% over the next 4-8-12 years starts to pile up. Your erroneous argument of 1% is both misleading and useless. And your 10 tenants story doesn't relate to government either. Those 10 people would base their payments on the need, and like most households capable, could put some aside for a rainy day. But if the cost of living in that house exceeds what they all make combined, then all of them combining their share won't cut it. The government isn't collecting more than it needs to put away for a rainy day. It is spending WAY more than it can ever take in, unless you want to advocate some sort of income levy where income gets given to whom the government sees fit and keeps what they need to operate. Increasing the tax on the rich even more will just cause them to declare even less money than they do now. Oh, and this whole poor people not really getting taxed is meaningless to a poor person because they still get taxed over the course of the year, they just get it back in a large chunk, which gives no aid to week to week living. They still need to live within their means after taxes.
"Stan appears to think that what we have now is reasonable and fair, but presumably if we raise it 1% point higher for rich people, it will be unfair"
Missed the point ... again. We have this condition now. It is not, in your view ("your" meaning the president and the left and apparently you as well), fair. THE QUESTION is what is? My point is that the Republicans want to leave it this way and the president et. al. do not in the name of fairness. I'm still asking what is fair. 30% isn't. 35% (the current rate on the top 25%) isn't. What is?
On Bubba's "odious rate", his point was that you are seeking a higher rate on the wealthy, but don't offer an argument to support it. "You should argue for that ... rate, since you've claimed that it's reasonable, instead of falling back onto uncontroversial statements about how we should pay our bills." He thinks it's odious. You don't. Why? Why not? On what do you base your assessment? And when do you arrive at "fair"? It appears that your version of "fair" (that 30% or greater rate) is based solely on "They can afford to pay it, so they should."
Your "group of people living in a house" analogy fails miserably. Five of them don't pay rent. Ever. Three of them pay 85% of the rent. And when the roof blows off, the 7 who are paying the least demand that the 3 paying the most pay more. The 7 paying the least are not going to be paying ever. And they're all outraged when the 3 think that maybe they should move out and find somewhere else to live. Selfish jerks! It's only fair!
What is fair?
Of course Dan fails to acknowledge that no one is suggesting a 1% increase, as has been pointed out elsewhere it is closer to a 10% increase. I'm struggling with the lack of reality in this debate. Let's significantly misrepresent the amount of the increase being sought, while ignoring the inadequacy of the proposed increase to actually achieve the stated objectives. All the while we see P-BO seeking an unlimited debt ceiling and additional spending all to reduce the debt/deficit.
So, you're just refusing to answer the questions being raised?
This is why you all lose arguments and come across as more interested in arguing and demonizing than adult conversation.
Good luck with that.
I can't stand it. The most odious thing about any suggested increase on those making over 100K/yr is the guy making the suggestion. This is a guy who avoids wealth but has not trouble daring to suggest what the wealthy should be doing. There is hubris for you.
Another major pain in my ass is the idea that the less fortunate should be absolved from income tax. This is a completely dishonest and backwards position. It should be viewed in this manner: if one is incapable of securing a high paying job, or any job at all, for that matter, then it is incumbent upon one to deny one's self all those choices that lead to a life of poverty. I am not the least bit worried about the troubles of those who acted without thought and now cry poor.
Dan T will stand aghast at the notion because all the poor he's ever met were victims of others, apparently, and not their own choices. I've been poor. I've been middle class. I'm somewhere on the high side of in-between right now and my choices are based on my ability to pay for them.
As to paying for "our bills", there is one now passed (or about to be) that deals with Hurricane Sandy and it is loaded with pork. Where's the leadership from the Idiot in Chief who thinks he has a clue about how to deal with the nation's fiscal crisis? He should have publicly shredded this proposal and chastised all those in Congress who dared think of earmarks and pork when our economy is so damaged. Yeah, help out the East Coast. Nothing more.
As to income taxes? Fair is everyone paying the same percentage. NO EXCEPTIONS until that is instituted and a real, narrowly defined exception for truly poor can be worked on by those with much sense and little emotion. There is nothing moral about forcing the wealthy to pay more. Nothing. Especially when they already are. The immorality is in the spending, the consciously perpetrated bad lifestyle choices and the suggestion by slackers that those who put in the effort to achieve that the slackers won't should be taxed more.
So, you're just refusing to answer the questions being raised?
Dan, are paying attention to the discussion at all? The original question was " If the top 25% are making 65% of the wages earned and paying more than 87% of the taxes paid, and if this is not 'their fair share', at what point does 'their fair share' occur?" Dan's answer? No answer, except that it's not high enough yet. " I do not believe their exists a single number/percentage about which we can authoritatively say, 'This is FAIR!'" Your only answer to "fair" is "progressive tax scheme". Said scheme is already in place and you don't think it's fair so you've still not answered. I've asked repeatedly what you would consider fair (since what is currently in place is not) and you have repeatedly ignored the question. Bubba asked how you would defend a 30% tax on those making over $100,000 and you balked at his adjective, "odious", but didn't answer the question. You've argued some silly suggestion that +/-1% would make it fair/not fair and why would I say such a thing when I never did and haven't and no one (but you) has even hinted at it. The question was, is, has been throughout "What is fair?" and you have failed repeatedly to answer that question with any reasonable response. So who is refusing to answer the questions being raised? I've answered all I've seen. You haven't. Check the mirror, Dan. But don't go complaining about unanswered questions when I, at least, have answered every one here and you've offered no answer for the one in view.
Pointing at someone else and falsely accusing them of doing what you yourself are truly guilty of is not a useful tool for dialog.
What questions have been left unanswered? I realize Dan's been doing his usual dodging of issues that raise his level of discomfort, but beyond that I don't see it.
Dan, you ask me why I think a 30% tax on incomes of $100K or more is odious. A question about my position isn't exactly an argument for your own position.
In times of acute, severe, AND long-lived emergencies, high taxes may be required, but A) it sounded like we were talking about a normal state of affairs and B) such emergencies are like the sort of total, existential warfare that you oppose on principle.
In all other times, a 30% tax rate on income is odious because people do have a right to what they earn, even if they have the indecency to earn more than what they need.
You concede that taxes are immoral if they impair a person's ability to purchase the barest essentials to survive, but there's much more than that to "the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" which you invoke but do not apparently understand. Liberty entails being free to dispose of what one earns beyond that bare minimum, as does the pursuit of happiness; an earlier draft of the Declaration of Independence makes clear that this latter phrase is a reference to property rights.
Property rights aren't absolute, as we each have a duty to pay taxes to fund those activities that are necessary for the free society, but most of the time such activities DO NOT require general taxation at such a confiscatory level, and targeting the "very wealthy" at such a rate but not everyone else is an offense to the principle of equality under the law.
Leviticus 19:15 teaches such equality, warning against favoritism EITHER for the rich OR for the poor.
And the Bible sees it as a blessing to enjoy the fruits of one's own labor (Ps 128:2, Is 3:10) and sees it as a curse not to be able to enjoy it (Dt 28:33, Ps 78:46, 109:11, Prov 5:10, Eccl 2:18ff, Jer 3:24, Ezek 23:29).
And then there's Samuel's warning against having kings, in I Sam 8:10-22. The old line is that, if a tithe is good enough for God, it's good enough for the state, and Samuel's warnings was that a king would take "a tenth" of the people's grain and vineyards and flocks (8:15, 17) -- ONLY a tenth.
I don't think many of these passages have been prominent in your blogging about "The Bible and Economics."
--
Dan you might say that "we" have decided collectively to have such high tax rates on the wealthy few, but the majority does not have absolute power in a constitutional republic: the majority's power is checked by the minority's rights, and there is no smaller minority than the individual.
(It would be an outrage to target an ethnic minority, even an affluent one; it's hardly much better to villify and demonize the few-but-wealthy "1%" as we see the Jacobins in the "Occupy" movement do quite routinely.)
If a wealthy individual wants to give 30% of his income to the state, he's welcome to do so, but no mere majority of voters or legislators makes it moral to impose such a rate on anyone, even if they can afford it.
It's worth noting that even a perfectly flat income tax is "progressive" as the term is defined. Those who earn no income pay no income taxes at all.
Craig...
I realize Dan's been doing his usual dodging of issues that raise his level of discomfort, but beyond that I don't see it.
I've answered the question asked. I'm sorry it was not clear enough for you all to comprehend it.
At what rate is a tax unfair?
My answer: I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A PERCENTAGE POINT AT WHICH WE CAN SAY, "THAT IS UNFAIR."
Or, to frame it in Stan's exact words...
If the top 25% are making 65% of the wages earned and paying more than 87% of the taxes paid, and if this is not 'their fair share', at what point does 'their fair share' occur?"
I. Don't. Think. There. Is. A. Specific. Point. At. Which. It. Is. Unfair.
I'm not looking at the total given by a given group, I'm speaking of THE PRINCIPLE of how much should one person pay in taxes? You all seem to be suggesting that 35% (or 30%) is "too much" and therefore, "unfair." I am asking (and here, I'll slow it down, put it in bold so you can see the question...)
1. WHAT PERCENTAGE TAXATION IS TOO MUCH?
2. If 35% taxation on those making more than $100,000 is "unfair," then do you have a percentage that you think IS fair? (x%???)
3. ON WHAT BASIS IS X% "FAIR" AND X% + 1% "UNFAIR..."
I can't really know what you all think is "fair" and reasonable if you're not willing to state decisively what that number is. Maybe I'll agree with you all, I don't know because you haven't said.
Beyond that, ON WHAT BASIS are you saying "This much is fair but anymore is not fair..."? It seems to be ENTIRELY WHIMSICAL.
Look at my specific example on why some taxation might be unfair and unreasonable: I noted, if you tax poor people who use ALL their income just to survive, if you tax them ANYTHING, then that is an unjust tax and unfair because it is cutting into their ability to SURVIVE.
Is that an unreasonable criteria? Is it hard to understand?
I don't think so. It is quite clear and entirely reasonable.
On the other hand, you all think that... SOME percentage (presumably less than they're currently being taxed and less than they were taxed during Reagan's years) on folk making more than $100,000/year is "too much" because... well, just because you say it is.
That is both vague and irrational and whimsical.
Do you have ANYTHING more substantive than "cuz I think so..."? Anything at all?
You're not willing to decide what that number is, but you think the current rates are unfair. And you still think you're answering the questions. "At what point does their fair share occur?" "I don't think there is a specific point." "At what point?" "No point" Not an answer. Because you do believe that "this current point" is not.
But you keep complaining that we're not giving you a number and you keep forgetting that the question is "Where we are is not enough; what is?" Indeed, I've made no claim about what is or isn't fair. I've only indicated that "this" is where we are, you believe that's unfair, and you won't indicate at what point fair occurs. Since you've confirmed that you won't, you've confirmed that you won't give an answer to the question and we're done. You can certainly drop the "You guys won't answer the questions" drivel.
I'm pretty sure the point was made earlier that it's your side that wants to change the tax rates, we're satisfied with keeping them the same. So, yes, you've gotten your answer.
Further, you seem to be saying that you believe that folks over $100K should be paying 30-35% of their income in taxes. Could you clarify if you are suggesting that the current tax be structurally changed to a flat 30-35% or are you content with the current marginal system?
Stan...
Indeed, I've made no claim about what is or isn't fair.
? Indeed, neither have I. What I HAVE done is say, "you seem to have a problem with the current tax rate. You appear to think that it is unfair..."
And then I asked the still-unanswered questions:
WHAT WOULD BE FAIR?
WHAT TAX RATE PERCENTAGE IS TOO MUCH AND, THUS, UNFAIR?
ON WHAT DO YOU BASE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT IS AND ISN'T FAIR?
I have suggested that I think a progressive scheme is fair and reasonable. You APPEAR to agree.
(Because you said...
"What we have is already a progressive tax. The right would like to leave it alone."
I presume that you are okay with "leaving it alone" at 35% or whatever it is... is that right?).
But at the same time, you APPEAR to think going beyond what we have will result in "unfairness..."
ISN'T THAT THE POINT OF THIS POST?
If so, what rate is "fair" and at what rate does it become "unfair" and what makes it unfair?
I've just asked reasonable questions based on your comments.
Answer or no, this just seems ridiculous. I wasn't looking for an argument, I was looking for a clarification. You all appear to just demand arguments rather than adult conversations.
Craig...
I'm pretty sure the point was made earlier that it's your side that wants to change the tax rates, we're satisfied with keeping them the same. So, yes, you've gotten your answer.
So, if the current rate is 35% for the wealthiest, YOU THINK THAT IS FAIR.
Is that what you're saying, because that is what it sounds like you're saying.
Are you also suggesting that if they/we raised the upper rate to 36%, you would NOT think it's fair any longer?
IF SO, why? Why is 35% fair and 36% NOT fair?
This is one of the questions being asked that is a reasonable adult question to ask IF you are making the claim that it SOUNDS like you're making.
Craig...
you seem to be saying that you believe that folks over $100K should be paying 30-35% of their income in taxes.
I have not stated that. I've stated that I don't necessarily have a problem with it. I think if we have bills to pay, that seems to me to be a legitimate way of going about paying for them (as opposed to increasing the rate for the poorest folk, which does NOT seem reasonable or just).
But believing that it is a reasonable option means that I believe that they SHOULD be paying that. Just that, it's an option that I'm okay with. I don't see anything immoral or unjust or unfair in a 30-35% tax rate for wealthier people. AND, judging by your own words, you don't have a problem with it, either. So, what's your beef?
Craig...
Could you clarify if you are suggesting that the current tax be structurally changed to a flat 30-35% or are you content with the current marginal system?
? I am NOT suggesting we should have a flat tax. Rather, as I have said, it should be a progressive tax (and contrary to the rather ridiculous claim that a flat tax IS progressive, it ain't).
IF the current marginal system is not enough to pay our bills, I think we need to increase what we're bringing in to pay those bills. IF we want to lessen those bills, I am fine with that (in areas where it makes sense), but IF we're going to spend X amount, THEN we must tax ourselves sufficient to raise that amount.
I'm open to various ideas on how to do that with the caveat that our taxation should be progressive and that it shouldn't cause people to not be able to survive.
Where specifically in any of that am I mistaken, do you think? Or do we agree?
I'm curious how it is "fair" for the poor to enjoy the luxuries and necessities taxes pay for, without out paying anything into it.
Being poor myself, I think it is ridiculous that I get most of my money back, and I find it even more ridiculous when I hear about people that make less than me get 100 times more back than me, and that isn't a figurative term, I mean literally 100 times or more.
Dan, you know how you complain because people don't seem to represent you fairly? Well, when you say, "you seem to have a problem with the current tax rate. You appear to think that it is unfair...", you make it abundantly clear that you have not understood anything I've said on the subject. I have stated (repeatedly) (and stated repeatedly that I've stated it repeatedly) that "this is the way it is" and asked "since you don't think that's fair, what is?"
You know how you don't think you're treated fairly on my blog (or other blogs)? Well, "I won't put a number on what fair is but I demand that you do and will complain incessantly land loudly in bold caps that you're not answering my question." You (your side) has indicated that what is is not fair, so I've asked what is. For some reason you seem to think that I'm trying to offer something else. So, in answer to your question, NO, that is not the point of the post. The point (again) is that YOU don't think the current situation is fair and I want to know what is. Your answer? "I won't say."
Or, to put it the old fashioned way, pot, meet kettle.
Stan...
The point (again) is that YOU don't think the current situation is fair and I want to know what is. Your answer? "I won't say."
And WHERE did I say I don't think the current system is fair? Where are my specific words that say that?
Because I'm looking and not seeing it anywhere. I don't think the current system is unfair as it relates to federal income tax, so WHY would I say that?
Those are YOUR words, not mine. YOU are the one complaining of unfairness, or at least that seems to be what you are saying, certainly that is what Bubba has said (I'm presuming by "odious" he means it is "unfair" - am I mistaken? Where specifically?)
Do you see why you all are losing this argument nationally? You are just itching to fight me on some point that I HAVE NOT MADE and yet, you won't answer a few reasonable questions as to your position.
Look, let's make this exceedingly easy.
1. You have written this post entitled "Their Fair Share."
2. You SEEM to me to be suggesting that either the current system is already unfair to the rich OR that, if we increase it any further, it will be unfair.
3. Since I'm not sure of your position, I asked a few reasonable questions that remain unanswered.
Here they are again:
A. DO you think the current rate is unfair?
B. What tax rate for the wealthy do you consider to be "fair"?
C. On what do you base that? Why is one rate (say 29%) "fair" in your opinion and another rate a bit beyond that (let's say 36%) "unfair..."?
These are reasonable questions to ask if someone is complaining about an unfair (to the wealthy) tax rate.
For my part:
1. I DO NOT THINK THE CURRENT SYSTEM IS UNFAIR.
2. NOR DO I THINK THAT RAISING THE TAXES FOR THE WEALTHIEST TO BE, IN ITSELF, UNFAIR.
3. AS A PRAGMATIC POINT, I THINK THAT WE NEED TO PAY OUR BILLS AND IF WE'RE SPENDING $X AMOUNT OF DOLLARS, WE MUST TAX OURSELVES THAT AMOUNT.
4. THUS, TAXING SOMEONE AT 10% IS NOT "UNFAIR" IN AND OF ITSELF, NOR IS TAXING SOMEONE AT 40% UNFAIR, IN AND OF ITSELF, IT'S ALL DEPENDENT UPON THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
What specific part of that are you failing to understand?
Throughout this discussion when I've referenced "you don't think it's fair" I've tried to repeatedly indicate "those on the left" as opposed to "Dan Trabue". This is because the repeated statement from the president et. al. is that the rich need to pay "their fair share". Now, if you think the current rate is perfectly fair (you know, as fair as it gets), then the whole discussion is moot and you're in agreement with the right rather than the left. But, you see, your view is that "you are all losing this argument nationally" because you just disagree but won't admit it.
Why are we "losing this argument nationally"? Not because you're rational and we're not. It's because a growing number of Americans have decided that it is the job of the government to take care of them. When nearly 50% don't pay taxes and over 50% of the budget is spent taking care of people, it should be pretty clear. Thus, the problem is not "fair taxes" or "paying our bills" but an American society that believes that "our bills" must include giving more and more money to more and more people by taking more and more from those who have it. Fair has nothing to do with it. Nor does taxation. And when we "lose this argument nationally", the nation is done because no nation can continue when the electorate is keen on voting itself more and more money.
And thanks for playing. The primary question was "If the top 25% are making 65% of the wages earned and paying more than 87% of the taxes paid, and if this is not 'their fair share', at what point does 'their fair share' occur?" Your answer (now) is "I don't think the current system is unfair." So you disagree with the president and you don't have a disagreement with my question, and yet you chose to argue about it. Nice.
Note also that asking me "What point do you think is fair?" when my question is "What point is fair?" makes no sense at all.
"So, if the current rate is 35% for the wealthiest, YOU THINK THAT IS FAIR."
I've made no comments about fair or not, I've suggested that your side thinks it should be changed. I see no value in changing it as P-BO is suggesting. The change advocated will not materially affect the current debt/deficit situation. Given that any change is for political reasons, not economic reasons.
"IF we want to lessen those bills, I am fine with that (in areas where it makes sense),..."
Shouldn't lessening our "bills" be the first option? Shouldn't determining what makes sense to be spending on come before blindly raising taxes? Should we keep adding more "bill" when we can't pay the ones we have already? Does any sane person continue to spend beyond their means by borrowing with no limit in sight?
"... but IF we're going to spend X amount, THEN we must tax ourselves sufficient to raise that amount."
The problem is that P-BO and the folks on your side don't want to tax "ourselves" (themselves), they want to tax someone else. If they were honest about it, as was Howard Dean a couple of weeks ago, they/you would admit that we can't pay our bill plus borrow and spend more by raising the marginal tax rate from 35% to 39% or whatever the exact numbers P-BO is insisting on.
As to your questions, I've answered them before, but since you don't seem to recall that I'll do so again. I personally consider the income tax unfair. I believe that a sales tax is a much more fair way to tax. As I've stated before certain items would be exempted or taxed at lower rates in order to provide a sort of progressiveness. Given this It's pointless to answer your other questions.
I do agree with Stan, that it seems strange that you won't answer the questions that you ask others. The repeated all caps and bold font, just makes it more amusing that you won't answer these very questions.
Stan...
Your answer (now) is "I don't think the current system is unfair." So you disagree with the president and you don't have a disagreement with my question, and yet you chose to argue about it. Nice.
You will note, if you look at my actual words, that when I came here, I was not arguing. Rather, I asked a simple set of questions?
What do YOU think is fair for the poorest to be taxed?
Are you suggesting that the fair thing would be for everyone to be taxed at the same percentage, regardless of ability to pay?
You will note that there was NO disagreement in my questions, that I was respectful and simply curious (as I directly said). Because it sounded like you were suggesting that the poorest were not paying enough (as you KEEP pointing out that "50% aren't paying nuthin'! Darn no-good loafers!!"), I did offer a bit of balance by offering some more information about how much the poor actually DO pay in taxes, but that still wasn't disagreement, just balance.
From my initial questions - when they went dodged - I asked the question another way:
What DO YOU think is a "fair" tax rate?
At what point does the tax rate become unfair? Why?
In none of this is there disagreement, rather, these are just rational questions to be addressed on the topic if one is dealing with the topic.
That is, IF one thinks there is a tax rate that is too high to be fair, what IS that number and how does one come to that conclusion.
Now you keep trying to dodge that and instead, offer the other losing argument...
Not because you're rational and we're not. It's because a growing number of Americans have decided that it is the job of the government to take care of them.
So, 50% of the people of the US are NOT rational, rather, they are worthless loafers who only want to be taken care of.
How well do you think you can win any argument like that?
Yes, you are losing this argument because you are being irrational. You are dodging reasonable and polite questions and instead, attacking fully half the nation as worthless irrational bums.
Never mind reality. Never mind that poor people DO pay taxes. Never mind that rich people dodge taxes, too. Never mind the facts, you have the one approved answer and therefore, you are above having to ask pesky "questions" to try to rationally deal with the problem. It's easier to just demonize those who disagree with you than actually, you know, defend your position like an adult.
Come on, Stan, you are better than this.
Dan, on the first question you asked about taxing the poor, I said, "'Should we raise taxes on the poor?' No one wants to raise taxes on the poor." Is that not an answer? If you'd like to take up the question "What do you think fair tax rates for the poor would be?" on your blog, you may. I haven't.
Your suggestion that I'm calling the 47% who don't pay taxes loafers is unfounded and unnecessary. Thanks for nothing. I didn't say it. I didn't think it. I didn't suggest it. I said that there are already a large portion not paying taxes at all. If you will notice, in fact, David is one of them. I haven't labeled them loafers (and, by the way, for years I myself was among their number and I know I wasn't loafing) and you are rude to lay that at my feet when you complain so heartily about being misrepresented yourself.
I have not said that the current tax conditions are unfair. Whether or not I think they are unfair is not the point. Hasn't been. The question I've been asking is what is fair, not suggesting that the rates should be lowered. Indeed, I've simply expressed the viewpoints of "the right and the left", "the Republicans and the Democrats" -- not my own. I expressed my own when I suggested that raising taxes is not the answer; cutting spending (radically) is. And I expressed my opinion when I said that it won't happen because too many Americans have come to believe that it's the government's job to take care of people "and I want mine!"
But, don't worry, Dan, I do not think you can do better than this.
Stan,
I would disagree with you slightly. When you say that no one wants to raise taxes on the poor, I think you're right. But I think that everyone no matter what their income should pay at least some minimal amount of income tax. First, I think everyone should have some skin in the game. Second, I have a problem with people who have a negative tax rate. If we want to provide financial help to folks that's fine, I just don't think the tax system is the place to do that.
To be clear, before it gets blown out of proportion, I am talking about a minimum level of tax, potentially lower than 1%, but enough that everyone with a stake in the country is paying in.
Maybe not a popular position, but, I think it makes some sense.
Craig,
I'd like to see a bill sent to every house once a month to pay the tax. I think that, because it is taken out automatically, we don't feel the "pinch". I think if every tax payer received a bill to pay and saw the impact that way, it might lead to a tax (and, necessarily, a spending) revolt.
And I do not believe that the role of government should be or even has been until fairly recently the caretaker of the needy. I personally think that is a much bigger problem than taxing the wealthy (or the poor).
Stan,
I've got no problem with the monthly bill idea, I think the current withholding system masks how much we pay in taxes.
I think that there could be a role for some level of govt in helping the poor and needy. I certainly think the current system is significantly flawed and needs serious reform. I don't think that the tax system is the way to do that. What we currently have is the feds taking $X from the poor/needy every pay period, then "giving" it back as a tax refund. Seems to me that it would be better for them to keep that every pay period rather than get one big "gift" from the feds.
I know that some place great value on real world experience, and my real world experience is that people appreciate things when they work or sacrifice for them more that when they just get a hand out. In the same way if folks are paying into the federal tax system even at a minimal level it seems like it would change their attitude about the "free gifts" they get from the feds.
In our society, with all the damage we've done to the concepts of marriage and family especially, I don't know that there are many alternatives to government caring for the needy. We've built the monster and now we have to feed it. We're so far into it that suggesting that families take care of families would be frowned on as foolish. The nuclear family is dead; long live the exploded family. We will literally be paying for this for a long time.
Post a Comment