I've been wondering about something recently...
Why is it that so many people are in favor of fiscal policies that disproportionately benefit the ultra-wealthy, to the extent that some of those policies are even harmful to these same people?
This article provided me with a few clues
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/30/business/30rich.html
So, in the name of simplification of the tax code (and is there a living soul who does not dread the 1040?!), we have eliminated the distinction between a family making $250,000/yr and one making $25,000,000!
$250,000 is a nice amount of money, but in certain parts of the country (the coasts, for example) an income in that range does not make you rich. Heck, faced with $500,000+ mortgages for your basic 3-bedroom home, that income buys you a middle-class life. Families in this range are likely to be small-business owners, or professionals (think doctors and such)... that is, people who work, hard, for a living. People who are successful through their own efforts. People who are creating jobs and opportunities for other Americans.
So it's perfectly understandable that when the talk turns to "raising the taxes on the rich", families in that range raise a howl. It does affect them. And hard-working people should be rewarded, not punished.
The solution, as suggested in the article, is quite simple: allow the tax code to differentiate better between these hard-working people and the idle ultra-rich by creating more tax brackets at the upper end.
Done and done.
I agree with having more brackets. But even those people at $250K are going to have to pony up more, if we're going to be serious about paying for priorities. People at that income level may be a long way from Easy Street, but there are many people who are much, much farther away.
ReplyDeleteA news post that I saw yesterday provides an instructive and pertinent point. It was about the house in Tennessee that burned down, because the tenants would not pay the $75 for fire protection. It was an absurd choice on the part of the tenants, but it was truly unconscionable for the municipal government to even allow such a choice. Any residents in a "neighborhood" have some responsibility to the neighborhood, in that their actions directly affect those around them, whether it's containing hazards such as fire, or just keeping up the property. If they wish to be libertarian hermits, then they should get the hell out of the neighborhood, and move to a wilderness area.
The same principle applies to all of us with regard to taxes: if someone is going to be part of society, then they have to participate; which, at minimum, means they have to pay their taxes like everyone else. Those with more must be prepared to contribute more.