First of all when we're debating income tax, let's remember this is only one of several taxes people pay in this country. While it is true the very poor pay no income tax, they do pay (relatively) a LOT of regressive taxes. Sales tax, energy taxes (gasoline taxes), taxes to register your car, taxes on telephone bills, etc. etc. hit poor people at a much higher rate than they do the wealthy. Poor people can very easily pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than the wealthy. So, exempting them from income tax is really just a small way of balancing out that inequality.
The question was put to me what is fair? Here is my answer. My friends had referred to the rich as the "evil rich":
It's not about punishing the "evil rich". I wanna be rich. I'd like to get to the point where I have enough money to pay MORE than my fair share. The point is "What is fair for someone to pay in taxes?" Should a guy just scraping by be expected to pay the same amount or even the same rate as a guy who is living with an excess of resources? Personally, I think if one has more money than he (and his children) can spend in a lifetime, he has a MORAL (not legal) obligation to share. Going back as far as Thomas Jefferson, he said it was better for society overall if the very rich were taxed at a geometrically higher rate.
I say, as much as possible, leave people below a certain level of income alone and let them live their lives. Once you have been privileged enough to become "wealthy", you owe something back. None of us makes it on our own. Everyone in America takes advantage of conditions afforded to us by living in the greatest country on earth. The man who thinks he is a self-made man and deserves to keep all the wealth he earned with his own grubby little hands is deluding himself. We take advantage of public education, of an educated work force, of a stable economy, of natural resources, etc. all provided to us by the fact that we live in the United States of America. Man up and pay up.Here's what my great, great, great, great, great grandfather Jefferson said (there was no income tax at the time. This is regarding property tax):
The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree is a politic measure, and a practicable one. 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. Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labour and live on. If, for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be furnished to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not the fundamental right to labour the earth returns to the unemployed. It is too soon yet in our country to say that every man who cannot find employment but who can find uncultivated land, shall be at liberty to cultivate it, paying a moderate rent. But it is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most precious part of a state.
Good stuff. We're far from wealthy by this country's standards, but I'll gladly pay a higher tax, within reason, to help those less fortunate than us.
Hi Brian and All,
I think its just a matter of perception, in that those who believe in keeping the Bush tax cuts now, across the board, (which it seems the Pres is likely to concede) believe its the very best way to "share the wealth." Since the rich do pay the majority of tax in this country, and the poor pay none, there's nothing unfair about keeping the tax cuts for all.
Because what happens with higher taxes for the rich, is that they use ways (loopholes in the law and tricks) to avoid them; for instance, Kerry docking his yacht in another state in order to avoid the high taxes in his own state of Mass,) and companies moving overseas to avoid taxes here.
Also, wage-earning over $250,000 a year incorporates many small businesses. In order to really "share the wealth" is to be productive; for business to stay here, be able to afford hiring more employees and insure them; so that people are able to be gainfully employed and create their own "wealth" and a thriving economy.
This method has shown to be the most productive, helping the most people all around. Its a win/win situation when everyone benefits. Just another way of looking at it. :) --rhonda
I do not mind paying more taxes but I not like paying taxes to a government who recklessly spends hard earned tax payer monies.
I sincerely hope that our leaders seriously consider the recommendations proffered by President Obama's debt commission. It is really hard to imagine how we got ourselves in the hole this deep. Unless we do something soon we will be leaving a horrible legacy of debt for our children.
Bob, I think there is a critical mass growing behind the cutting of spending. For the first time in my lifetime, I think people are getting very serious about that. Now, we'll see what happens when we get specific though. It's going to get UGLY when we actually implement cuts.
Post a Comment