Jones-Mascaro II
House Bill 197 seeks to shift a greater tax burden to families with more than 2 children. A reader e-mailed me an amazing analysis that he asked me to stick in here anonymously. It reads:
Fairness. Equity. One's "burden to society." These seem to be the driving points behind Jones-Mascaro. And, from a dollars and cents perspective, with focus on this one issue – education funding – they may be good points.
The problem with the proposal, however, is that a well-run society is not fair, nor is it equitable. In a strong, stable, and viable (in the long term) society, unfair burdens are placed on its members and these burdens cannot be viewed in the context of one issue.
The rich help the poor. The strong help the weak. The young help the aged (and vice versa). The knowledgeable help the ignorant. We recognize these concepts in a number of ways in the United States. Some of these concepts are codified in law. They are, perhaps, some reasons why the United States is the longest-lasting republic in the world's history. Most of us have been on the giving end as well as the taking end.
Representative Mascaro states, "Asking our neighbors with fewer or no children to pick up our education costs through State Income Tax is not the principal my heritage taught me. It is a family value to teach responsibility, accountability and self-reliance. It is contrary to me to ask someone else to pay for my children's educational experience." (source: http://www.utahpolicy.com/pages/2004/10/is-this-finally-year-for-real.htm)
It sounds good. It even sounds noble. Assuming that Mr. Mascaro and his children all went or will go to private schools (K-12 and beyond), it is also possibly true. It is probable, however, that Mr. Mascaro's heritage also taught him about helping others, providing when he had surplus, and perhaps taking when he did not. This is a common teaching in most cultures, secular and religious, past and present, in many, perhaps most, areas of the world. Mr. Mascaro probably did not escape this teaching.
A public school system is founded on the premise that everyone cannot pay their education bill. If everyone could, and did, pay for their education, the education system would be called private education. In the United States, the public has, for many years, made it a priority to fund a public education system. It has not based funding requirements on the number of children one has in the public education system. This, in fact, would be an American heritage of at least the 20th century. A century that history calls " The American Century."
Do the math on Jones-Mascaro. Get out your tax form from last year:
Remove the 50% credit for federal taxes.
Take the 75% deduction for yourself, your spouse, and your first dependent (same as before) .
Take half a deduction for your third dependent.
Remove deductions for all other dependents.
Calculate your taxable income with the changes above.
Base your tax on $689 + 7% of your income above $16,400 (if your household makes more than 16K/year).
That will give you a decent idea of what Jones-Mascaro means to you personally. It means something to almost everyone. Almost all taxpayers, not just the families with children, will pay more taxes. Figure out if you agree with what it is doing to you, and write to your representative.
Aspects of Jones-Mascaro are worth considering. We need to look at the tax structure. Currently, almost every tax-paying adult is taxed at the same rate – which actually creates a regressive tax for lower-income earners. However, we also need to ask if it really is appropriate (in the ninth-highest taxed state in the nation and a state known, and often lauded, for its families and its educated population) to target additional taxes for families with more than two children? Is it appropriate for a state with a surplus this year to consider this legislation without further and better refining?
I believe we need to be cautious when we talk about equity in society. These larger families (and "more than two kids" according to Jones-Mascaro is where the tax breaks stop coming) may, in the long run, bear more of a burden than we immediately realize. Were it up to the childless to provide engineers, scientists, and business and political leaders to create solutions to society's future problems, we would someday find ourselves wanting. Were it up to the aged to defend our shores, right now, right away, we may find our freedoms vulnerable. We need one another, even if we have to shoulder a burden every now and then.
Children from these large families may one day provide solutions to problems far more significant than needing to pinch pennies in public education. If we need to allow these families to take a fair deduction for the burden they bear while putting those children through school, so be it.
Wow! Homerun to left field.
Fairness. Equity. One's "burden to society." These seem to be the driving points behind Jones-Mascaro. And, from a dollars and cents perspective, with focus on this one issue – education funding – they may be good points.
The problem with the proposal, however, is that a well-run society is not fair, nor is it equitable. In a strong, stable, and viable (in the long term) society, unfair burdens are placed on its members and these burdens cannot be viewed in the context of one issue.
The rich help the poor. The strong help the weak. The young help the aged (and vice versa). The knowledgeable help the ignorant. We recognize these concepts in a number of ways in the United States. Some of these concepts are codified in law. They are, perhaps, some reasons why the United States is the longest-lasting republic in the world's history. Most of us have been on the giving end as well as the taking end.
Representative Mascaro states, "Asking our neighbors with fewer or no children to pick up our education costs through State Income Tax is not the principal my heritage taught me. It is a family value to teach responsibility, accountability and self-reliance. It is contrary to me to ask someone else to pay for my children's educational experience." (source: http://www.utahpolicy.com/pages/2004/10/is-this-finally-year-for-real.htm)
It sounds good. It even sounds noble. Assuming that Mr. Mascaro and his children all went or will go to private schools (K-12 and beyond), it is also possibly true. It is probable, however, that Mr. Mascaro's heritage also taught him about helping others, providing when he had surplus, and perhaps taking when he did not. This is a common teaching in most cultures, secular and religious, past and present, in many, perhaps most, areas of the world. Mr. Mascaro probably did not escape this teaching.
A public school system is founded on the premise that everyone cannot pay their education bill. If everyone could, and did, pay for their education, the education system would be called private education. In the United States, the public has, for many years, made it a priority to fund a public education system. It has not based funding requirements on the number of children one has in the public education system. This, in fact, would be an American heritage of at least the 20th century. A century that history calls " The American Century."
Do the math on Jones-Mascaro. Get out your tax form from last year:
Remove the 50% credit for federal taxes.
Take the 75% deduction for yourself, your spouse, and your first dependent (same as before) .
Take half a deduction for your third dependent.
Remove deductions for all other dependents.
Calculate your taxable income with the changes above.
Base your tax on $689 + 7% of your income above $16,400 (if your household makes more than 16K/year).
That will give you a decent idea of what Jones-Mascaro means to you personally. It means something to almost everyone. Almost all taxpayers, not just the families with children, will pay more taxes. Figure out if you agree with what it is doing to you, and write to your representative.
Aspects of Jones-Mascaro are worth considering. We need to look at the tax structure. Currently, almost every tax-paying adult is taxed at the same rate – which actually creates a regressive tax for lower-income earners. However, we also need to ask if it really is appropriate (in the ninth-highest taxed state in the nation and a state known, and often lauded, for its families and its educated population) to target additional taxes for families with more than two children? Is it appropriate for a state with a surplus this year to consider this legislation without further and better refining?
I believe we need to be cautious when we talk about equity in society. These larger families (and "more than two kids" according to Jones-Mascaro is where the tax breaks stop coming) may, in the long run, bear more of a burden than we immediately realize. Were it up to the childless to provide engineers, scientists, and business and political leaders to create solutions to society's future problems, we would someday find ourselves wanting. Were it up to the aged to defend our shores, right now, right away, we may find our freedoms vulnerable. We need one another, even if we have to shoulder a burden every now and then.
Children from these large families may one day provide solutions to problems far more significant than needing to pinch pennies in public education. If we need to allow these families to take a fair deduction for the burden they bear while putting those children through school, so be it.
Wow! Homerun to left field.
posted by steve u. at 1/28/2005
Subscribe
1 Comments:
Fantastic analysis. I included some of these same points in my blog (http://reachupward.blogspot.com), but I emphasized a different point. The Jones-Mascaro bill has the chilling effect of establishing an official public policy on the maximum number of children a family should have. Imagine family friendly Utah doing that! China's official (and enforced) family size limit also started with noble sounding intentions. Regulating family size is the ultimate in Big Brother.
<< Home