Maybe one of the biggest and most lasting parts of Reagan's legacy is that he made many Americans believe that government is evil—though this idea may in fact be deeply rooted in the American consciousness; one only has to look at the Declaration of Independence.
He persuaded us to make him head of that which he despised, namely the government. Evidently it didn't occur to anyone—least of all Reagan himself—that there was an irony there.
He tried to gut, undermine, and render powerless regulatory agencies such as the EPA and the FDA by cutting funding and causing staff cuts. Some of these agencies are still not restored to the funding or staffing that they need: thus Reagan's legacy lives on.
(These regulatory agencies protect consumers. Republicans--Reagan and more recent ones--argue that anything that impedes business is bad for all of us. So the argument comes down to this: Who do you trust to be on your side--"you" meaning the average Joe--corporations or the government? People mistrust the government but, to my mind, we've had plenty of cases of greedy, even evil and corrupt corporations. And, think of this: We don't elect corporations, so how do you expect them to be accountable, if they are free of all restrictions?)
It may well be due to Reagan that many people today feel that the government takes away their money—which they have earned and are thus entitled to keep—to give to people who don't want to work. (There is more than a hint of racism in this idea; I remember well Reagan's campaign speeches, which to me at least clearly included an appeal to racism. But you only have to look at photos or video clips--such as have appeared over and over—of job fairs that have been accessible to minorities, to see that there have been enormous, incredible, numbers of people willing to expend great amounts of time standing in long lines in hopes of getting a job.)
Further, to this type of thinking, this "redistribution of wealth"—that is, taxing their incomes--is outright socialism. Never mind that we have had an income tax for 150 years now, and the government's power to levy such a tax was confirmed by the Sixteenth Amendment 100 years ago.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
Showing posts with label income tax. Show all posts
Showing posts with label income tax. Show all posts
Sunday, September 16, 2012
Sunday, July 22, 2012
Liberals and Conservatives (Again)
For those conservatives who complain about liberals: If you appreciate having clean air to breathe and clean water to drink, thank the liberals. If you appreciate having food and medicine that are safe, thank liberals. It's conservatives who want to gut the government's (the FDA's and EPA's) ability to ensure the safety of our food, medicines, water, and air. But public health is one of the major government success stories.
Ronald Reagan convinced much of the country that the government is the problem. But, if you think it through: Who do you want to provide you with police and fire protection? To build and repair highways? To put up traffic signals, or control air traffic? Are you going to get together with your neighbors to create organizations to provide these things? Then you've created a government!
Conservatives have also persuaded people that the government takes too much from them in the form of taxes, usually with the further thought that their taxes go to support no-good people who don't want to work--actually an appeal to racial prejudice and racial stereotypes.
But really, those who say these things are the wealthy whose motivation is to avoid paying tax themselves. If you are not also one of the 1%, they don't care what you pay. If you look at the facts (which seem to get overlooked in these arguments): the top income tax bracket under Eisenhower it was 91%. Under Nixon it was 70%. Under Ronald Reagan it was 50%. So it's been steadily going down for decades. It's currently 35%. (And since the top tax rate on capital gains is only 15%, the rich get a real break, and that is why billionaire Warren Buffet has told us that his secretary pays more tax than he does!)
Yet the super-rich are still not satisfied. Some conservatives go so far as to claim that if they've earned their money, they have the right to keep it. But court decisions have repeatedly upheld the government's right to tax its citizens, and anyone who rejects that is not just a conservative but an anarchist.
Copyright (c) 2012 by Richard Stein
Ronald Reagan convinced much of the country that the government is the problem. But, if you think it through: Who do you want to provide you with police and fire protection? To build and repair highways? To put up traffic signals, or control air traffic? Are you going to get together with your neighbors to create organizations to provide these things? Then you've created a government!
Conservatives have also persuaded people that the government takes too much from them in the form of taxes, usually with the further thought that their taxes go to support no-good people who don't want to work--actually an appeal to racial prejudice and racial stereotypes.
But really, those who say these things are the wealthy whose motivation is to avoid paying tax themselves. If you are not also one of the 1%, they don't care what you pay. If you look at the facts (which seem to get overlooked in these arguments): the top income tax bracket under Eisenhower it was 91%. Under Nixon it was 70%. Under Ronald Reagan it was 50%. So it's been steadily going down for decades. It's currently 35%. (And since the top tax rate on capital gains is only 15%, the rich get a real break, and that is why billionaire Warren Buffet has told us that his secretary pays more tax than he does!)
Yet the super-rich are still not satisfied. Some conservatives go so far as to claim that if they've earned their money, they have the right to keep it. But court decisions have repeatedly upheld the government's right to tax its citizens, and anyone who rejects that is not just a conservative but an anarchist.
Copyright (c) 2012 by Richard Stein
Sunday, January 15, 2012
Growing Social Inequality in America
A little survey of man-in-the-street–type individuals by a TV show showed them all saying that what America needs is to raise the taxes on the rich—and maybe also reduce taxes on the poor.
And that is a core message of the "Occupy Wall Street" and other "occupy" demonstrations.
So millions of Americans feel this way. But—you know what? It's not going to happen. At least not as long as some of the fundamental facts of the American political system do not change.
The fact is that wealthy interests control our government. They can effectively buy Congress through lobbying, and through campaign contributions. Wealthy individuals and corporate-organized and -funded lobbying organizations buy Congress. Whereas political contributions from individuals are limited to $2500, the so-called "Super PACs" (political action committees) have little or no limitations on them. This state of affairs was made possible by the disastrous Supreme Court decision known as Citizens United (discussed elsewhere in this blog).
A recent book by Hacker and Pierson, two social scientists, called Winner Take All Politics, shows how the concentration of wealth in America has worsened. That is, the top few as regards wealth have grown wealthier—in fact vastly, astronomically wealthier—in the last 25 or 30 years.
The concentration of wealth in America is worse than in other Western countries: in Europe, in Canada, in Australia. And of course money is power. It can even be concluded that we no longer have a democracy.
The situation is the result of money buying influence; of the tax code; and of lax or even lack of regulation of Wall Street. (The countries named above, for example Canada, did not have as severe an economic crisis as the US four years ago, because they have more effective regulation of their financial systems.)
In 1986 legislation was enacted that closed many of the loopholes in the tax code that enabled the super-rich to escape taxation. But in the years since, those tax reforms have been very largely undone.
It's a sad situation in America. People are speaking out and voicing their dissatisfaction. But have they got power to effect change? Are any of the political candidates even promising to do something about the situation? It does not seem to be one of the issues discussed in candidate debates. The Occupy people are aware of all this but otherwise it all seems to be a big secret.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
And that is a core message of the "Occupy Wall Street" and other "occupy" demonstrations.
So millions of Americans feel this way. But—you know what? It's not going to happen. At least not as long as some of the fundamental facts of the American political system do not change.
The fact is that wealthy interests control our government. They can effectively buy Congress through lobbying, and through campaign contributions. Wealthy individuals and corporate-organized and -funded lobbying organizations buy Congress. Whereas political contributions from individuals are limited to $2500, the so-called "Super PACs" (political action committees) have little or no limitations on them. This state of affairs was made possible by the disastrous Supreme Court decision known as Citizens United (discussed elsewhere in this blog).
A recent book by Hacker and Pierson, two social scientists, called Winner Take All Politics, shows how the concentration of wealth in America has worsened. That is, the top few as regards wealth have grown wealthier—in fact vastly, astronomically wealthier—in the last 25 or 30 years.
The concentration of wealth in America is worse than in other Western countries: in Europe, in Canada, in Australia. And of course money is power. It can even be concluded that we no longer have a democracy.
The situation is the result of money buying influence; of the tax code; and of lax or even lack of regulation of Wall Street. (The countries named above, for example Canada, did not have as severe an economic crisis as the US four years ago, because they have more effective regulation of their financial systems.)
In 1986 legislation was enacted that closed many of the loopholes in the tax code that enabled the super-rich to escape taxation. But in the years since, those tax reforms have been very largely undone.
It's a sad situation in America. People are speaking out and voicing their dissatisfaction. But have they got power to effect change? Are any of the political candidates even promising to do something about the situation? It does not seem to be one of the issues discussed in candidate debates. The Occupy people are aware of all this but otherwise it all seems to be a big secret.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
Monday, August 15, 2011
Buffet Says Rich Should Pay More Tax
Warren Buffet, one of the wealthiest men in America, has gone on record publicly saying that the wealthiest in America should pay more taxes, should pay their share and "share the sacrifice."
That that is true seems to me should be non-controversial, a no-brainer. Yet a local TV station in Chicago polled its viewers, "Do you think that the wealthiest Americans should pay more taxes?" Even though a pretty good majority—91%--voted "Yes," I am surprised that 9%--that is roughly one in 10—voted "No." I wonder why not. Maybe they buy that often-voiced Republican and Conservative argument that taxing the wealthy stifles job creation. But sparing the wealthiest individuals and corporations from taxes is trickle-down economics. It was tried during the Reagan years and it does not work.
Anyway, Congress take note of these poll results: There is very wide public support for raising taxes on the wealthy.
Warren Buffet is a good guy, there's no doubt. He has partnered with his fellow-richest guy Bill Gates to form a little group that lobbies other wealthy people to get them to be more philanthropic. Buffet said he pays some 17% of his income in taxes. Unfortunately, with the many loopholes that exist, many wealthy individuals are able to shield almost all their income from taxes. The rich can afford clever attorneys who help them to exploit a large number of ways of avoiding the income tax. Thus wealth, as always, begets wealth, and the rich and super-rich, under current policies, just get richer. Those in the upper 1% by income now control 33% of assets in this country.
Copyright © 2011 by Richard Stein
That that is true seems to me should be non-controversial, a no-brainer. Yet a local TV station in Chicago polled its viewers, "Do you think that the wealthiest Americans should pay more taxes?" Even though a pretty good majority—91%--voted "Yes," I am surprised that 9%--that is roughly one in 10—voted "No." I wonder why not. Maybe they buy that often-voiced Republican and Conservative argument that taxing the wealthy stifles job creation. But sparing the wealthiest individuals and corporations from taxes is trickle-down economics. It was tried during the Reagan years and it does not work.
Anyway, Congress take note of these poll results: There is very wide public support for raising taxes on the wealthy.
Warren Buffet is a good guy, there's no doubt. He has partnered with his fellow-richest guy Bill Gates to form a little group that lobbies other wealthy people to get them to be more philanthropic. Buffet said he pays some 17% of his income in taxes. Unfortunately, with the many loopholes that exist, many wealthy individuals are able to shield almost all their income from taxes. The rich can afford clever attorneys who help them to exploit a large number of ways of avoiding the income tax. Thus wealth, as always, begets wealth, and the rich and super-rich, under current policies, just get richer. Those in the upper 1% by income now control 33% of assets in this country.
Copyright © 2011 by Richard Stein
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
