Conservatives don't want to pay taxes that fund social-welfare programs. I know this because I have heard at least a few individuals say that to me, face-to-face.
They say that money is taken from them in the form of taxes and given to people who don't want to work. (At heart this idea is racist: They are really talking about African-Americans and the sentiment relies on the old racist canard that African-Americans don't want to work--never mind pointing out to them that huge numbers of job applicants have turned out, with lines going around the block, when there has been a widely announced hiring event in their communities, as shown in photos and video clips.
I will tell you, them, whomever—where tax dollars are really going to waste.
For one thing, the United States sends billions of dollars to the government of Afghanistan; and in turn, in the course of just one year, a billion dollars of Afghan aid was "lost to corruption." For another thing, Afghan President Karzai is an opportunist who has given power—and immunity from prosecution—to men who in another time and place would be counted as war criminals.
Much as I might support the aspirations of women in Afghanistan to have those rights which Taliban rule in Afghanistan would deny them, I see a relic of the cold war here: The United States got involved in Afghanistan after the country was wrecked and ruined by civil wars, fighting between war lords and factions that followed the withdrawal of the Soviets. (To remember our history: In Vietnam, the French lost and pulled out and America thought it could do better, but could not and lost also. Similarly, the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan and apparently the US felt it could do better, and the final results of that may not be in but it does not look optimistic.)
So, I have to suspect that US efforts in Afghanistan have been a waste of your and my tax dollars. And here is another one: Businesses like Walmart, and fast-food companies like McDonald's who pay their workers inadequate wages.
These companies are allowed to pay their workers a minimum wage which has not gone up, in real dollars (or even in nominal dollars) for decades.
A Walmart worker who is single earns a wage which puts her at about the poverty level. If a Walmart, or McDonald's, worker earns minimum wage but supports a family of four on his or her income, that worker's income is supplemented by aid from the government which costs us an average of about $1700 for that family. So, what Walmart or McDonald's does not pay the worker, you and I pay.
Walmart is making huge profits. Basically every American taxpayer, by having to add to the insufficient income that the Walmart or McDonald's worker receives from her employer, is paying his taxes ultimately into the pockets of the owners of Walmart and McDonald's. It would save us, the middle-class Americans who pay taxes, money if those companies were compelled to pay a living wage.
Copyright © 2013.
Showing posts with label taxes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label taxes. Show all posts
Sunday, October 20, 2013
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
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
"Sovereign Citizens" (and other not-quite-so-extreme conservatives)
There recently was a segment on the TV Program "60 Minutes" (which I viewed online, as you can as well) about a group or movement called "sovereign citizens."* These individuals are somewhat like some of the extreme right-wing militia groups we've got in the US. Based on erroneous ideas about the philosophies that prevailed in the late eighteenth century, they question the legitimacy of the US government as it currently exists. They refuse to acknowledge the authority of the government, or the police, over them. They won't carry driver's licenses. They draw up documents declaring they are "sovereign," so in effect each of these sovereign citizens is his own country. They believe--and this is downright silly--that if they draft these documents in a certain way—for example, putting the text diagonally across the page, or writing with orange crayon or signing with a fingerprint in blood--that this makes their sovereignty documents valid and they can't be challenged.
These people are scary, especially when you combine their extremist ideas with the wide availability of guns—and even assault weapons—in America. One sovereign citizen who was profiled on the program was stopped, along with his son, by police for a traffic violation. The man and his son opened fire with assault weapons—getting off something like 22 shots. A police officer was killed and I think both the sovereign citizen and his son were killed.
People who consider themselves sovereign citizens are estimated to number as many as 300,000. This is scary but of course it's only one American in 1,000. So hopefully most Americans would see these people as extremists and wack jobs. Still, they're only one or two steps farther to the right than some people I have known and talked to.
Some of the latter have told me they don't feel they should have to pay taxes. Such people need to simply read our Constitution, where Article 8 clearly gives Congress the power to impose taxes.
A "no taxes at all" view is extreme, still; but some would simply say they are loath to see their taxes ultimately benefit (or, in their minds, be paid to) any less fortunate individual. I could understand the conservative "no tax money of mine to help the less fortunate" position if their argument went something like, "Lyndon Johnson's Great Society programs didn't work. Rather than throw money at social problems like urban poverty, let's wait until they're better understood, and/or we know what sort of measures work." But their argument is simply, "It's their [the people needing assistance] fault that they are in the situation they're in." I guess if I objected, "What about victims of hurricanes, tornadoes, floods. . . ?" they'd reply, "Well, it's their fault for living in the wrong place."
______________
*If you go to youtube.com and search for "sovereign citizens," about 128 listings will appear, many of them from the viewpoint of the sovereign citizens themselves, who feel they are persecuted when the government lists them as terrorists. Paranoia is one element of the whole phenomenon of the sovereign citizens.
Copyright © 2011 by Richard Stein
These people are scary, especially when you combine their extremist ideas with the wide availability of guns—and even assault weapons—in America. One sovereign citizen who was profiled on the program was stopped, along with his son, by police for a traffic violation. The man and his son opened fire with assault weapons—getting off something like 22 shots. A police officer was killed and I think both the sovereign citizen and his son were killed.
People who consider themselves sovereign citizens are estimated to number as many as 300,000. This is scary but of course it's only one American in 1,000. So hopefully most Americans would see these people as extremists and wack jobs. Still, they're only one or two steps farther to the right than some people I have known and talked to.
Some of the latter have told me they don't feel they should have to pay taxes. Such people need to simply read our Constitution, where Article 8 clearly gives Congress the power to impose taxes.
A "no taxes at all" view is extreme, still; but some would simply say they are loath to see their taxes ultimately benefit (or, in their minds, be paid to) any less fortunate individual. I could understand the conservative "no tax money of mine to help the less fortunate" position if their argument went something like, "Lyndon Johnson's Great Society programs didn't work. Rather than throw money at social problems like urban poverty, let's wait until they're better understood, and/or we know what sort of measures work." But their argument is simply, "It's their [the people needing assistance] fault that they are in the situation they're in." I guess if I objected, "What about victims of hurricanes, tornadoes, floods. . . ?" they'd reply, "Well, it's their fault for living in the wrong place."
______________
*If you go to youtube.com and search for "sovereign citizens," about 128 listings will appear, many of them from the viewpoint of the sovereign citizens themselves, who feel they are persecuted when the government lists them as terrorists. Paranoia is one element of the whole phenomenon of the sovereign citizens.
Copyright © 2011 by Richard Stein
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
