Sunday, April 02, 2006
One Clear Left/Right Divide
Here is one clear difference between Left and Right, Democrat and Republican (at least good Republicans)--taxes. Here is how a good Republican, like I am, looks at it. Taxes are the rent we have to pay for living in the country. I'm not saying Democrats see it very differently but there's more.
The feds make about a trillion dollars a year (import tariffs and custom fees, BLM grazing fees, tickets to visit the White House, etc.--it all adds up). So when the federal budget is 2.9 trillion as, groan, it is (and we know they're going to spend more than budgeted), 1.9 trillion has to be raised by taxation. 1.9 trillion divided by, roughly 100 million tax payers (children, stay at home moms, retired folk don't pay taxes). So simple division gives us the federal rent. $19,000 per taxpayer. That's pretty steep. Even if we had 200 million working, the rent would be $8,500. There are other taxes (for example non progressive FICA etc., which should be invested. but is promptly spent as tax revenue instead). But we all know that the main taxation is not equally divided.
We have a progressive tax (for income tax). The more successful you are, the more you have to pay. How is that fair? That's the source of the divide. Good Republicans think that it's not fair and all individuals who are receiving any revenue should have to pay a fair share (as hard as that would be on most starting hourly wages). We'll allow the slackers to slough off some of the duty--you can't get blood from a turnip (unless you do serious genetic engineering). The Democrats, on the other hand, think the successful are not taxed enough, even though the successful are hardly using the government programs (we all use the safety our superb military provides, for example, while only a relative few receive money directly from the feds, like, SSDI or welfare). It is the slackers who are feeding at the government trough, as it were, and the Democrats think the successful should pay even more than their fair share of the 'federal rent' than they already are. The good Republicans see a progressive tax as unfair, socialistic, legal theft. And the Democrats want more of it. I can't see why success should be punished with greater taxation, and because the rich can afford it is a rationalization, not a cogent reason for such unfair, anti-human nature treatment.
It's difficult for me to see how that divide ever gets bridged.
One partial solution is to make sure the government is getting a fair deal on its non-tax income and see if we can't increase that revenue. But we'd have also to stop spending too much (Yea, that'll happen). As much as I like the FairTax idea, I can't see a successful 30% sales tax (fed and state combined). Russia, the old center of the Communist world has years ago instituted a flat tax (I think 15% maybe a few points higher) and that seems a fair solution. If the Commies can get government funding right, you'd think we Capitalist would have a prayer.
The feds make about a trillion dollars a year (import tariffs and custom fees, BLM grazing fees, tickets to visit the White House, etc.--it all adds up). So when the federal budget is 2.9 trillion as, groan, it is (and we know they're going to spend more than budgeted), 1.9 trillion has to be raised by taxation. 1.9 trillion divided by, roughly 100 million tax payers (children, stay at home moms, retired folk don't pay taxes). So simple division gives us the federal rent. $19,000 per taxpayer. That's pretty steep. Even if we had 200 million working, the rent would be $8,500. There are other taxes (for example non progressive FICA etc., which should be invested. but is promptly spent as tax revenue instead). But we all know that the main taxation is not equally divided.
We have a progressive tax (for income tax). The more successful you are, the more you have to pay. How is that fair? That's the source of the divide. Good Republicans think that it's not fair and all individuals who are receiving any revenue should have to pay a fair share (as hard as that would be on most starting hourly wages). We'll allow the slackers to slough off some of the duty--you can't get blood from a turnip (unless you do serious genetic engineering). The Democrats, on the other hand, think the successful are not taxed enough, even though the successful are hardly using the government programs (we all use the safety our superb military provides, for example, while only a relative few receive money directly from the feds, like, SSDI or welfare). It is the slackers who are feeding at the government trough, as it were, and the Democrats think the successful should pay even more than their fair share of the 'federal rent' than they already are. The good Republicans see a progressive tax as unfair, socialistic, legal theft. And the Democrats want more of it. I can't see why success should be punished with greater taxation, and because the rich can afford it is a rationalization, not a cogent reason for such unfair, anti-human nature treatment.
It's difficult for me to see how that divide ever gets bridged.
One partial solution is to make sure the government is getting a fair deal on its non-tax income and see if we can't increase that revenue. But we'd have also to stop spending too much (Yea, that'll happen). As much as I like the FairTax idea, I can't see a successful 30% sales tax (fed and state combined). Russia, the old center of the Communist world has years ago instituted a flat tax (I think 15% maybe a few points higher) and that seems a fair solution. If the Commies can get government funding right, you'd think we Capitalist would have a prayer.
# posted by Roger Fraley @ 2:24 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
R,
I won't make another comment about oxymorons but you know I am tempted. This is a complex question, which deserves more time than I can devote to it now, nevertheless.
You begin with the proposition that "slackers" are not paying their fair share and I think you imply that some of thses slackers occupy the botttom rungs of the socioeconomic latter.
The first question involves numbers and I am not prepared to discuss numbers becuase I don't have any data but one issue is how much revenue could be raised by increasing the tax burden on these "slackers" and what would be the unintended consequences? If you take money out of anyone's pocket, they don't have that money to spend and the Republican theory of tax cuts--correct me if I am wrong or misstating it--is that tax revenues increase when people have money to spend.
The second issue is that who are really the "slackers?" Not middle class guys like you and me who between us have 5 children in college. Could it be the uber rich who, comparatively, pay a much lesser share of the tax burden?
Sure, this is the difference between right and left. But are you really saying that Good Republicans believe that people who make less should pay more while the uber rich sail into the sunset on their yachts, clipping dividend coupons?
T
I won't make another comment about oxymorons but you know I am tempted. This is a complex question, which deserves more time than I can devote to it now, nevertheless.
You begin with the proposition that "slackers" are not paying their fair share and I think you imply that some of thses slackers occupy the botttom rungs of the socioeconomic latter.
The first question involves numbers and I am not prepared to discuss numbers becuase I don't have any data but one issue is how much revenue could be raised by increasing the tax burden on these "slackers" and what would be the unintended consequences? If you take money out of anyone's pocket, they don't have that money to spend and the Republican theory of tax cuts--correct me if I am wrong or misstating it--is that tax revenues increase when people have money to spend.
The second issue is that who are really the "slackers?" Not middle class guys like you and me who between us have 5 children in college. Could it be the uber rich who, comparatively, pay a much lesser share of the tax burden?
Sure, this is the difference between right and left. But are you really saying that Good Republicans believe that people who make less should pay more while the uber rich sail into the sunset on their yachts, clipping dividend coupons?
T
# posted by 
: 9:15 AM
: 9:15 AM
You're welcome Seeker, more coming.
Tony, I'm just talking income tax and I'm using 2001 numbers: The top 1% here (those earning $293,000 or better--unfortunately not us) pay 33.89% of the tax. The bottom 50% pays 3.97%. The top 1% earn 17.53% of income in America, the bottom 50 earn 13.81%. I see a disparity between rich and poor vis a vis taxes but it's probably not the same one you see. Yacht living tax feee coupon bond clipping slackers may have escaped most taxes by taking advantage of necessary municipal money raising schemes which pay less interest but give a taz break to make the investment attractive. There aren't many of them with 100% tax free income and I don't see them as freeloaders because they or their ancestors took advantage of the cities' money raising scheme. I'm still not hearing why it is fair and appropriate that the successful should pay a higher rate of tax than the less successful. Ready to try that?
And yes the good Republicans think it's better for the citizens to decide how to spend money and it used to be that lowering tax rates. evem of it lowered revenues, which it probably doesn't, was a way to stop overspending. Obviously that's not working anymore because the Republicans have succumbed to the Siren song of spending other people's money.
Post a Comment
Tony, I'm just talking income tax and I'm using 2001 numbers: The top 1% here (those earning $293,000 or better--unfortunately not us) pay 33.89% of the tax. The bottom 50% pays 3.97%. The top 1% earn 17.53% of income in America, the bottom 50 earn 13.81%. I see a disparity between rich and poor vis a vis taxes but it's probably not the same one you see. Yacht living tax feee coupon bond clipping slackers may have escaped most taxes by taking advantage of necessary municipal money raising schemes which pay less interest but give a taz break to make the investment attractive. There aren't many of them with 100% tax free income and I don't see them as freeloaders because they or their ancestors took advantage of the cities' money raising scheme. I'm still not hearing why it is fair and appropriate that the successful should pay a higher rate of tax than the less successful. Ready to try that?
And yes the good Republicans think it's better for the citizens to decide how to spend money and it used to be that lowering tax rates. evem of it lowered revenues, which it probably doesn't, was a way to stop overspending. Obviously that's not working anymore because the Republicans have succumbed to the Siren song of spending other people's money.
<< Home
