So apparently I struck a chord with this one, which I guess is expected. Religion and politics…
Perhaps my point needs a little clarification…and I apologize for not necessarily being more clear to start with. Not everyone agrees with me and that’s what makes this country, and our Constitution, great! Of course, I merely posted a portion of the original blog. To truly appreciate the story, I believe you must start at the beginning and read the whole thing, not just my excerpt. The story is a global (as in big picture) lesson of effort and resulting reward…
Daniel Clark makes some very excellent points and I think he and I could have a terrific debate over a few dozen pots of coffee (see you in New York?). Judi makes some great comments as well to follow up on Daniel’s post. There are points by each that I agree with and of course point that I don’t.
I have issue with the housing bailout announced last week. I understand its point…and I understand the methodology (at least what’s been disclosed). I don’t agree with some of the folks that the money will go to and why. Mr. Prez tried to clarify that last night with a few remarks…perhaps he’s on the right track. But bailing out bad decisions with tax payer money is not the answer. Look at it this way… bailing out banks for bad decisions… bailing out people for bad decisions… which is right, which is wrong, which is fair?
I have issue with taxing the so called “rich” (not me) more than other groups so that they “pay their fair share.” Here’s where the question of “fair” lies….fair to whom? My answer in this case….only to the recipient. Did you know that the wealthiest 5% of this country pay roughly 60% of total income tax revenue and the top 1% of all earners account for almost 40% of income tax revenue to the Federal Government? Is this a “fair share”? Why not have them pay 75%, why not 99%? Where is the line of fair and by whom is it defined?
I have no problem with Bill Gates or Warren Buffet and their billions – they earned it. I have no problem with my client who flies on a private jet – he earned it. I have no problem with the guy down the street who probably earns three times what I do – he earns it. I don’t have a problem with Exxon earning $14 billion on $120 billion in gross revenue (a 12% profit, what was your margin?) – they also pay $35 billion in taxes (which, if you think they’ll just absorb a tax increase and not charge you at the pump, you’re kidding yourself).
Let me make this clear, the CEO of a car company or mega-bank flying on a private jet from his villa in Aspen to go ask for billions in bailouts is a load of crap. I don’t agree with it… and I don’t support it… As far as I’m concerned, when that CEO has sold off his personal stock and reinvested his millions, then he can ask for money, assuming he’s doing his job well (unlike Jeffrey Immelt).
I have a problem with singling out people who have worked hard and earned what they make so that they can pay “their fair share.” I have issue with the continuous load of entitlements we, and our children, and our grandchildren, are burdened with. Too often the cry is…I didn’t have fair opportunity or, you have too much! There’s an easier way to explain my point of earning and keeping your reward:
Let’s use Daniel’s books…
Daniel comes up with an idea for a book…
He toils over his keyboard for hours and days writing the book…often skipping sleep and missing time with his adorable daughter.
Daniel formats and then publishes the book…at his expense and again, probably losing sleep.
He then markets the book…at his own expense, and once again missing time with his daughter.
Daniel sells books for a profit! Hooray!
Now, if Daniel sells two or fewer books, I will pay for his expenses plus issue a credit to him for future expenses at his discretion.
If he sells three to five books, he gets to keep everything he makes (less his expenses of course).
If Daniel sells more than five books, which is now excessive, he must pay me 50% of his profits to help pay for the guys only selling two books.
Is this fair?
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
Thanks for expanding your thoughts. I agree with so many more of them now
. I think what I appreciate the most in this discussion is that it seems to actually be a discussion. More than anything, this illustrates for me how much closer our elected representatives could get to real solutions if they left the name calling and posturing by the side of the road. Now I understand why my friends like you and respect your opinions.
I’m totally planning on being in New York, provided our finances allow for it. We’re hoping to go see my grandparents this year as well, since they’re getting up there in age, and traveling to see family for the holidays, too. Travel money is going to be tight, but I regretted missing Vegas, so I’m making a strong effort to go to New York.
Now, first, thanks for the follow-up. I honestly hope that you weren’t offended by anything I wrote – I firmly believe that we both have the same concerns for our families and our country, but that we just view things from different perspectives. I appreciate the conversation.
I’m not a tax guy, or a numbers guy, really. If you asked me what my tax bracket is, I couldn’t tell you because I only ever pay attention to it in March when I pay someone named Block to do the taxes for us. I have a big-picture perspective of economics that most people would call simplistic and naive. I’m okay with that.
I don’t have a problem with people who earn $20 billion a year paying $10 billion in taxes. Seriously. 50% on $20 billion – fork it over. I don’t have a problem with it because – and I know I’m not the first to say this – what can you do with $20 billion that you can’t do with $10 billion? It’s personal income we’re talking about here, not corporate or company income – this isn’t the money that hires people or supports the broader economy, it’s the money that pays for $100,000 bottles of champagne and $2600/pound chocolate – and when they want a pizza, they don’t call Pizza Hut, they fly to Italy.
On the other hand, take someone who is earning $100,000 a year. If you take 50% of that, this person is in a world of hurt. He’ll be under more stress, will be more likely to get sick, and won’t be able to contribute to society as productively as he might otherwise – but let’s not get started on health care!
So, I guess my overall concept of fairness when it comes to taxes and government is that applying the same percentage to every American is inherently unfair because the amount that is left after the taxes have been paid is what determines a person’s ability to pay for food, shelter and clothing. The rich might pay more in absolute dollars, but the poor and middle class pay more in terms of their ability to pay for what they need. I do think that it’s fair to have the richest of the rich pay a higher percentage. If they have to go without a new private luxury jet every 18 months so they can fly down to one of their 18 homes (which they don’t pay taxes on because they’re out of the country, which is probably where the phrase “tax shelter” came from), then I just can’t shed a tear for that person. Make do with the private jet you’ve already got for a while, you know?
I hear analysts talking about the pre-Reagan years when the top tax bracket paid upwards of 70-90% taxes and how we had steady growth during that time rather than the boom-bubble-burst repeating pattern that we’ve had for the past 30 years. Makes me wonder if that wasn’t a better way – but like I said, I’m more of a big-picture “why can’t it be that simple?” kind of thinker. Maybe there are details that make going back to that sort of system impossible.
I tend to look at society like it’s a team effort. I agree with the current administration that everyone should contribute according to their means. It’s not about wealth redistribution and giving the poor and middle class a lump sum of money to even everyone out. To me, spending the money on roads and bridges isn’t redistribution of wealth, it’s a reinvestment in the team effort.
There are things in the stimulus bill and the various pieces of legislation that I don’t agree with, either. But over the past 8 years, I’ve disagreed with far, far more of the government spending habits than I’ve seen in the bills over the past several weeks.
I have a feeling that we’re going to see a repeat of the 90′s in a lot of ways. After the first 12 years of Reaganomics, people were scared that Clinton was going to jack taxes sky high, spend like a drunken sailor and get nothing done – the country was doomed, according to many “experts”. But for the vast majority of Americans, the 90′s were great. We had growth, we had – for the most part – peace, and things were, overall, good. We’re seeing the same kind of fear about the new Democratic president. Only time will tell if we makes good on his ideas or if he gets us all killed. You know, though… we elected him because he was the smart kid in class. If I were a betting man, I’d bet we’re gonna be fine.
Wow, that was a lot longer than I thought it was going to be… dang small comment boxes make me think I haven’t written much as I’m going along!
A writer being wordy…go figure. Offended? Not at all…I recognize there are many perspectives and each has good and bad points (depending on perspective, of course).
I agree that 50% of income means drastically different things as your income changes. I am opposed to a “flat tax” because of this reason. Our tax system has standard deductions and credits that allow lower income citizens to effectively pay no tax at all. While the “middle class” keeps getting raked over the coals, due only to the percentage of total population and collective income, there is a battle between the extremes.
The elite pay a significant amount in terms of actual dollars, not as an expression of percentage of income. I believe this is appropriate. But those who pay no tax at all need to recognize the benefits in front of them…they get to keep all of their income as a result of those who have been paying more. When that “no tax liability” becomes a hand out check at the expense of the wealthy, then we’ve reached welfare.
I’m not defending the actions of the rich or super rich, they tend to get excessive to a point of obscenity. I’m merely asking, where does the line become “fair?”
Good talk! Hopefully you can make it to NY… it should be fun!