[Insert Adjective] People Are Subhuman
Like most Americans, I am a taker. I receive more in government services than I pay in taxes. Far more.
I work hard at a really great job. And I grumble when I pay my taxes. But the amount I pay – like most Americans – comes nowhere near paying for the government services I receive. So, who pays my way? Who pays the way for most Americans? Rich people.
So, I’ve never understood the bit about the rich don’t pay taxes. They do. They pay lots of taxes, and people like me benefit as a result.
To those of you who pay to educate my kids, pave my streets, police my neighborhood, take care of my waste, feed and medicate members of my community, fight my enemies, judge our disputes and so much more – thank you. Those folks are performing great work, and I'm happy there are revenues to pay them. Hopefully things will go well for me and someday I’ll be able to pay my own way. But, for now, I sure appreciate the lift.
For a contrary viewpoint, this Trib editorial is truly amazing to me. Though it aggressively argues that rich people are mostly turds and should have more of their money taken, I think it really would like to advocate that rich people should be beaten with sticks until they confess. Nowhere does it contain the truisms that rich people (a.k.a. "robber barons") pay a lot of taxes and a higher percentage of taxes than most others.
I don’t really care one way or another about someone’s wealth. That fact alone does not establish or disqualify goodness or badness. Whether a grouping is based on wealth, race, religion, occupation, neighborhood, etc., some members of the group will be outstanding individuals, some members will be losers, and most will just be people.
I’m as quick as the next guy to jump on a group that is actively denying equal opportunities to others, but I don’t get the media’s fixation with demonizing rich people just because they are rich. Aren’t such generalizations just a form of bigotry?
I work hard at a really great job. And I grumble when I pay my taxes. But the amount I pay – like most Americans – comes nowhere near paying for the government services I receive. So, who pays my way? Who pays the way for most Americans? Rich people.
So, I’ve never understood the bit about the rich don’t pay taxes. They do. They pay lots of taxes, and people like me benefit as a result.
To those of you who pay to educate my kids, pave my streets, police my neighborhood, take care of my waste, feed and medicate members of my community, fight my enemies, judge our disputes and so much more – thank you. Those folks are performing great work, and I'm happy there are revenues to pay them. Hopefully things will go well for me and someday I’ll be able to pay my own way. But, for now, I sure appreciate the lift.
For a contrary viewpoint, this Trib editorial is truly amazing to me. Though it aggressively argues that rich people are mostly turds and should have more of their money taken, I think it really would like to advocate that rich people should be beaten with sticks until they confess. Nowhere does it contain the truisms that rich people (a.k.a. "robber barons") pay a lot of taxes and a higher percentage of taxes than most others.
I don’t really care one way or another about someone’s wealth. That fact alone does not establish or disqualify goodness or badness. Whether a grouping is based on wealth, race, religion, occupation, neighborhood, etc., some members of the group will be outstanding individuals, some members will be losers, and most will just be people.
I’m as quick as the next guy to jump on a group that is actively denying equal opportunities to others, but I don’t get the media’s fixation with demonizing rich people just because they are rich. Aren’t such generalizations just a form of bigotry?
posted by steve u. at 7/26/2007
Subscribe
8 Comments:
The progressive take on this issue is that the rich don't pay their fair share because (despite the fact that they pay a lot more Dollar-wise and percent-wise) their overall tax burden is far less than what they are capable of bearing (i.e. they can afford to pay a lot more). The tax burden on the poor is significantly higher because they can ill afford to pay taxes. Every Dollar paid in taxes is far more burdensome to the poor guy than to the rich guy.
Look at it this way. $100 in taxes paid by a guy making $10/hour significantly impacts his ability to provide for his family, while that same amount would be completely unnoticeable to somebody like Bill Gates or Warren Buffet. The socialist ... uh, progressive way to approach the matter, is for Bill and Warren to pay enough taxes to feel the same level of pain that the guy making $10/hour feels when he pays $100.
For this reason (relative burden), progressives hate flat rate tax schemes. Everybody pays the same rate, but they don't feel the pain equally. And that, as far as I can tell, is one of the main goals of socialism. If you can't force everyone to have equal income levels, at least everyone should feel the same level of pain. It's all about pain.
I'm sure a good socialist could put a much more positive spin on this.
This is a pretty odd twist to the story.
I got the impression that the Trib was arguing that the poor shouldn't have to pay a greater share of the piddling they take home than the rich do.
As far as government services - I'd have to say the rich usually have better streets, more attentive police, and wind up in court over silly disputes a lot more than the people on the other end of the pay scale.
You yourself said (in relation to teacher salaries) that:
So, rich kids are offered a better public education than poor kids.
But, I really don't get how anyone is demonizing the rich just because they're rich. You've got me confused about why you're saying that.
Misty,
How is calling a group "robber barons" different than Imus's comment. Neither generalization is fair.
The Trib clearly is not arguing that tax responsibilies should be equal between rich and poor. Despite the fact that the rich pay much more in taxes (which I assume the Trib understands), the Trib is arguing that they should pay more because they have too much.
I agree with you that rich people have it far better in terms of services (like education), but that is a different issue than whether they pay enough into the system.
And -- to clarify -- I'm not arguing that the burdens should be different than the presently are. I don't have an issue with some progressiveness in the tax code (e.g., like a complete exemption for some basic level of income in a flat system). I'm just saying that editorial boards do dialogue a disservice by demonizing the rich and implying that they pay less in taxes than others.
If, though, they do want to make a point that is valid about the taxation of the rich, they should focus on wealth accumulation through non-income means (e.g., capital appreciation of stocks). But that has nothing to do with taxation rates on income -- which are higher for rich people, no matter how many times people say the opposite.
Here's my take Steve and you can take it for what it's worth.
Most of the tax burden at the local/state level is based upon a three legged stool. You've got the property tax, the income tax, and the sales tax.
The sales tax, as as consumption tax is definately a regressive tax. The property tax, is also marginally regressive, except for those in the higher income brackets who decide to maintain secondary residences which do not benefit from the 45% residential exemption on their secondary properties.
In Utah, the income tax has, due to a lack of appropriate changes in it's structure, has been for most Utahns a flat tax. So you have two regressive taxes, and one flat tax, a state tax burden that is regressive. That a family that makes 50,000 a yr pays through taxes an overall tax burden that is a greater percentage of their income than a family that makes 150,000 is a concern to me.
Admittedly, there are those who would argue that reducing the tax burden on those who have excess money to spend provides money to capital markets and therefore fuels growth in our economy. I challenge such a perspective under the guise that their is nothing prohibiting that capital expenditure to go to foreign countries or to investments in capital projects in other states.
The challenge for state lawmakers is to balance the tax burden based upon the ability to pay, as well as incent investment in Utah's economy.
My own sense of fairness believes that the tax burden on a struggling family making 30,000 a year should not exceed on a percentage basis that of a family that is making 300,000 a year.
I hope that lawmakers such as yourself would take those considerations into account in tax policy.
Best regards.
The biggest threat to low income taxpayers is the Legislature's decision to keep asking voters to increase sales taxes for transportation.
The unofficial current plan is to increase local sales tax authority by 0.25 percentage points every five to ten years until total state/local sales tax rates approach 8% (currently 6.85% in Salt Lake County).
Unless the state enacts major reform, which we've discussed on our blog, the tax system will only get more regressive.
Warren Buffet has spoken about taxes for the rich and taxes for the not-rich many times before. From the NY Times:
It turned out that Mr. Buffett, with immense income from dividends and capital gains, paid far, far less as a fraction of his income than the secretaries or the clerks or anyone else in his office. Further, in conversation it came up that Mr. Buffett doesn’t use any tax planning at all. He just pays as the Internal Revenue Code requires. “How can this be fair?” he asked of how little he pays relative to his employees. “How can this be right?”
Jeremiah,
Buffett’s point is what I was referring to in my comment above. That point is true, but it does not go to the income tax rate itself.
Obi Wan,
I don’t think property tax is regressive at all. Just about every household commands the same amount of fixed infrastructure (the huge variable being family size, not value). Yet, more expensive properties pay much more in property tax. (Many variable costs, like water use, energy use, and waste generation, are taxed based on use).
As you note, sales tax is regressive – at least on basic necessities. Though it is a use tax, there are basic needs that must be covered. Covering those basic needs is much tougher for poor people than wealthy people. The sales tax on those basic needs is much more burdensome on the poor than the wealthy. That is why I am a big advocate for removing the sales tax on food. Utah Taxpayer makes an excellent point on the regressivity of rapidly increasing sales taxes for transit.
A flat income tax is not regressive – if it exempts from taxation a certain base level, which we do. As you correctly note, we were becoming more and more regressive every year by leaving that exemption level flat. The key here is to make sure the exemption level continues to increase every year with an appropriate inflationary factor.
Thank you for your excellent commentary.
Don't you just love those uptight, wealthy metropolis-dwellers that come crashing in to ruin little towns?
There's nothing like it: senior citizens that have lived in a town quietly for years now have to come out of retirement to work at WalMart because Richie McWealthy decided to plant his fat arse in their town and increased property value to three or four times the normal rate, which people on a limited income cannot afford SINCE THEY HAVE RETIRED. I guess this means the ghetto cars, knives, and salsa music will be kept out though.
Post a Comment
<< Home