Bio
I was born in Ohio in 1953. We moved around because my parents did not get along. We kids spent one year in an institutional home near Pittsburgh. My dad took us to Oregon when I was in high school, accepting a job offer there to get me away from the drug culture and radical politics found in the Cleveland area. Despite my uneven high school record, I was accepted at Portland State in Oregon, later transferring to Columbia University in NYC from on the advice of a professor. Politics were nauseating at the time, '74, and I was undergoing a radical shift in my political orientation. I worked in a freight forwarder's office, then in a college library and studied Art History in New York. There, at age twenty, I married my boyfriend from Ohio. He left New York after a year back to Ohio and was caught by God while there. Eventually, so was I, caught by God. The encounter was so transforming that I left college with my degree uncompleted. We moved to a small town in Ohio, raised and home schooled five sons and a daughter.
I made good use of my local library and later found that what I was is known by the term "autodidact". Raising children allowed leisure for reading and my tastes in that were eclectic, but tended to history, often through biography, and literature. Twenty-five years after leaving New York, I went back to C.U. and finished my degree over a summer. I taught high school for three years, also homeschooling my dyslexic youngest for two of those years. Currently, I teach Freshman Composition as adjunct faculty at Lakeland Community College in Willoughby, Ohio. This is much easier than either high school or home schooling; I am finding my way into the working world. I also pleasurably pursue a master's degree in American History and Government at Ashland University through their summer program.
By no right nor reason have I an excuse for writing about or even thinking in any serious way about politics and world events. I always have, since I was a girl. Happily, this is America and I may.
Comments
Interesting
Let's hope they eliminate it. Oh, and regarding the 120K figure, I believe they are still using the "beer and darts" model.
Well, regarding the $100,000
Well, regarding the $100,000 and $120,000 figures, by the way. Census numbers for 2004 indicate that of around 113,000 households in ths U.S., only around 18,000 made $100,000 or more, and only 7,000 made $150,000 or more (unfortunately they don't break it down into smaller ranges once it gets that large).
So while in turns of absolute wealth $120,000 might not seem that large, certainly in relative terms, someone making $120,000 is doing better than the vast majority of Americans. I don't know what kind of bite that represents for households making that much though. I suppose one could make an argument that given the income disparity for those on the extreme end of the spectrum (the $250,000 or more households) this is a tax that should only apply up in that range.
See http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032005/hhinc/new06_000.htm and/or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States
Hypothetical
Let's put aside the real world arguments for and against Laffer curves and marginal rates and the rest, and let me ask a question:
If there was a tax code that you found fundamentally unfair, but brought in significantly more total tax revenue every year than the current system, would you be in favor of it? What if this "Plan B" resulted in many new people at the bottom paying no income taxes, everyone in the middle getting a small tax cut, and everyone at the top getting a big tax cut? So everyone gets a tax cut, total taxes collected are higher, and the only catch is that some people at the top got a bigger tax cut. Forget reality for a moment -- hypothetically, good deal, bad deal?
Jumping
Ok, Michael Dunaway, I'll jump at it. It sounds lovely. Tell us all about it.
Kate Pitrone
Bad Idea
Michael,
I'm going to go with "bad idea". If, like the Flat Tax, you create exemptions below $25K or $30K, you will have all kinds of unintended negative political consequences due to wranglings at the margin. You essentially pit lower and upper classes against one another with the State as mediator.
What we need is less government spending, not more efficient ways to gain more tax revenue.
I actually agree
...with the "class warfare" danger. And don't worry, I'm not going to spring a trap and say, Ha! Here's the plan! Now you have to support it. I'm just interested in people's lenses through which they look at the issue -- what's most important? Fairness? Productivity? Something else? How much of one are we willing to trade for some of the other?
Curious to see how this one develops...
What's fair?
I would prefer a tax wherein "class warfare" did not have to be part of the political dynamic. Most of all, I would like a system of taxation where the government did not have the right to invade our financial affairs and private lives to collect the needed revenues. That is what I most hate about the current system. That, and that the code is so complex that in some instances, you can NOT be right, as if you are right by one point of view, or in one area of the tax code, you might be wrong and subject to prosecution elsewhere, or in another IRS agent's eyes.
I like the idea of a flat tax and I think everyone ought to pay tax, even if only a bare minimum amount, because it creates an interest in government spending. However, I do not think a flat tax system would reduce government intrusion. I might prefer a VAT, or national sales tax, as at http://www.fairtax.org/
because they are consumption taxes. Consumption taxes can be targeted, with the basic necessities of life taxed minimally or not at all. The Fair Tax proposal would rebate the sales tax to those at or below poverty level.
A tax on consumption might even encourage saving and investment, the lack of which seems to be a concern for many reasons, including our worries about our demographically at-risk Social Security program.
But really, my "something else" is an interest in having a smaller, much less intrusive Internal Revenue department of our government. I know I must say this with a smile, but the IRS seems un-American, to me. Surely, from our beginning, if we were to have a right to privacy in anything, it ought to have been in our property.
Kate Pitrone
un-American?
Which is more un-American, the burden that the IRS puts on private income or the 47 million people without health insurance, a hodgepodge system of social services so that merely a few months of unemployment can make a family homeless and forced to see me at the charity where I volunteer, or the impossible situation of those who aren't mentally or physically fit to hold a job, but don't meet government criteria for disability? I realize that with the tax change you describe, you could say both, but let's say until this better tax system is enacted.
I'd be happy if private charity took care of those problems, but private donations come nowhere near that. So what's left is the government.
What is the American response to this? I hear small parts of that, such as the lie that homelessness is just the mentally ill who don't take their medicines or the lie that any man can get a job. Is it American to settle for lies such as those and indifference? It might be. It has been, though one can argue that Americans just haven't worked through to the best solution to such suffering yet.
I have an opinion about what the best solution is, which is to help those suffering, not those who aren't. I know, it sounds too much like LBJ. But is it American or un-American? I'd prefer if people were just straight with the poor and say they think it's un-American to help them more.
That would go along with saying the IRS is un-American. I'd be among those who would say that's not the America I want, but at least it's not mincing words.
American Spirit and the Poor
David,
It is un-American that the private sector is not taking care of the needy. As far back as the first half of the 19th century, Tocqueville was astonished by how little government, relative to Europe, was present in the operation of American society. Voluntary associations were quite active in caring for the poor.
It is also un-American to turn to coercive authoritarian force to achieve something that could be done voluntarily in the private sector. Why is it that the private sector doesn't handle all the needs of the poor? It can't be greed. How would politicians who pass welfare laws get elected or re-elected if a majority of Americans were just plain stingy? It can't be operational efficiency. The only real operational advantage the government has over private institutions is the legal right to use force.
It may be a case of the American spirit being willing but the flesh being weak. Perhaps Americans don't mind having their paychecks clipped since they want to help the poor, but just can't be bothered to take action themselves. This seems un-American to me, but perhaps the American spirit is in a state of decline.
However, this philanthropic lethargy may be the result of socialized welfare itself. We are several generations deep into taking socialized welfare for granted. We have organized our lifestyles around this arrangement. We hardly even think about the percentage of our paychecks that goes toward this endeavor or what we would do with it if we could take it home.
It is a simple mathematical reality that the potential funds for charitable giving in the private sector are reduced by the taxes that go to the government's efforts in this area. I think it is quintessentially American to assume that if these funds were returned to the people that a good portion of them would be allocated to better and more efficient ways of caring for the poor.
quintessentially American?
Many people see things as black and white qualities instead of something quantitative. It's human nature. It's better to be quantitative.
Marc, you ask how welfare laws could get passed if Americans were stingy? Because they're not funded that well. And even then, there are constant cutbacks, such as to Medicaid. I started volunteering when I retired as a physician 4 years ago. At that time the wait to get help with rent from HUD was 2 years. Now it's 5-7 years. Much of our system relies on not helping people. It is cheaper that way, but then why are we doing anything?
I freely admit that it's hard to know what the optimum amount of help to the needy would be. Maybe I should sit down someday and see what I think the poor would need in numbers. Today I just know they need more. Whether Americans agree is up to them. I do agree with conservatives that this is better determined by someone close to the situation than a bureaucrat thousands of miles away. But I'm quite sure which side of the optimum we're on now, unless one decides not to help the needy at all. The needy need more help, while the parking lots of conservative churches in my community are full of $50,000 SUV's and luxury cars.
The health needs of those without health insurance didn't exist in the 19th century, to be a burden on those trying to help the poor. Then it was OK not to treat hypertension or diabetes. There wasn't much care needed when such people go on to have strokes and other complications. I'm not sure what was done then about the fact that such a person might never work again. Then it wasn't such a contrast between the plight of the poor and the plight of the wealthy regarding health.
Now there is such a contrast. Any American gets an equal vote about whether that's important.
Health care financing is difficult. I'm convinced we could spend our entire GDP on health care and still be doing useful things, back schools for everyone, help with dieting for everyone, things like that, so the line that has to be drawn doesn't just eliminate waste. It eliminates things that would be nice to do if we could afford it. Now who should give those things up? My Medicare coverage goes through the Kaiser HMO. It's OK. I pay about $200 a month and get everything I need, though not everything I would want. I don't know the numbers, but I would think the whole country could get this much care for less than what is currently spent on health care.
It doesn't work that way. Politics is important. It's important, Marc, that you see yourself as a victim of coercion and authoritarianism instead of as a participant in a democracy. It wouldn't be important if you were the only one, but a lot of people feel that way. I'm sure a lot of people feel as Kate feels that the IRS is un-American. I think I've heard that before.
Now I'm sure Kate could list a number of ways that the US has changed since the 18th century so that what a reasonable intrusion is with respect to the 4th amendment has changed, too. So says the Supreme Court. If she wants to say that the IRS is un-American knowing that, she's free to do so. That's certainly American. I was just wondering if she would see things that need more taxes as un-American, too, or if it's just taxes that are un-American. I don't see the IRS as un-American myself. I see it as vital.
Likewise I disagree with Mark that it is quintessentially American to believe that if public funds were left to the people who feel so oppressed by taxes, they would be generous in providing funds for the poor in ways that are more efficient than the government programs. Oh, baloney. That is not American. That's late 20th-century conservative, ignoring the difficulties of health care, ignoring that unemployment is not laziness, ignoring that homelessness is not because people choose to be homeless, ignoring that there is plenty of marginal income now if people wanted to donate anything more, which would stimulate the economy through purchases for others just as much as one's own purchasing does.
This is a belief by people who see their government as coercive and authoritarian, which I might feel if I didn't want to pay my taxes. Maybe I wouldn't if I just thought about what I would do with the money I pay the government. I'm devoted to my charity, but I don't think even I would give everything to my charity, much less all these people who give 10% or less now. Instead I know where my taxes go. I see clients getting the benefit of them. They need more. So I pay my taxes willingly and donate to charity as well.
It may be American to make excuses for having one's head in a hole. That changed for America regarding international isolationism. I don't know if it will change on helping the needy. Time will tell. I notice it is rare for people to come straight out and say that they don't want to help the needy. Instead there are these ideas that blame the needy or blame the government. Those are lies. I'm close to the needy, not a bureaucrat thousands of miles away. I'm in that position that you think is better to make decisions, and I'll confirm for you that it is better for you to believe me than conservative rhetoric that I know misrepresents my clients and misrepresents the private donations we get. Why not be honest and say it's un-American to help the needy as much as they need and un-American to pay taxes, that this is what you stand for? Or let the meaning of American change, as it has changed for other things. I know, people don't want to do that. People prefer rhetoric that lets them off the hook. That's human, but it doesn't fool everyone.
selfishly and arrogantly American
The 4th amendment is just as American today as it was in the 18th century, but what constitutes a reasonable intrusion has changed. Many things have changed.
Slavery is now un-American; then it wasn’t.
Seeing problems and solutions nationally is now American; then it wasn’t.
Pragmatism is now American; then it was more about principles, sometimes.
Global entanglements are now American; then they weren’t.
A professional military is now American; then it wasn’t.
Industry and services are now American; then it was mostly agriculture.
Keeping treaties, even with Native Americans, is now American; then it wasn’t.
Innovation always has been American, except for suspicious things.
Helping one’s neighbor always has been American, but who is my neighbor?
Self-reliance always has been American, not admitting when that’s impossible.
Maybe it’s that last thing that keeps the American poor in line, except when there were so many of them in the Depression. Maybe it’s they’re too busy scratching out their survival, too busy to see taxing them as a civics lesson. There were riots in the sixties, but that was race, not poverty. There have been occasional riots since after certain court decisions, also not about poverty.
None of my needy clients see their poverty as so bad that they light themselves on fire in protest. That is significant. They’re just all anxious and sometimes angry at the crazy system we have for them, where there aren’t just single cracks to fall through, but for some people we have many cracks simultaneously regarding their health, their lack of children, their lack of military service, their lack of friends and family to help them, their lack of hope for improvement, all of which limit the help they can get. Fortunately lack of food and clothing we can fix for everyone. Maybe that list could get longer.
Up to this point this has been OK for Americans not to look at or spout false slogans to explain. I don’t see any poverty riots to change that. Demonstrations for the poor are the most ineffective political acts I’ve seen. So it can remain American to see the poor as needing to pull their own weight as far as taxes, to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps in general. I’d like to think this will go the way of American isolationism internationally, but Americans will decide.
And if Americans continue to see poverty as the fault of the poor, there may be such a large contingent of Americans in hell that our flag will fly over them there, over so many Americans who read Matthew 25: 31-46, but didn’t believe it applied to them and didn’t believe that Jesus is in all these people that need help, not a select few. That might be the final word on what is selfishly and arrogantly American unless Americans decide to change that.
Anecdotes and Evidence
David,
I appreciate your passion for this issue, but your anecdotal experience is not representative of the available data. Your assessment of motives does not square with the evidence. According to Arthur C. Brooks, in his study Who Really Cares?:
Brooks goes on to say that it is religious, conservative individuals that are the most likely to give to charity. Someone who goes to church and rejects the idea that the State should be responsible for redistributing income is twice as likely to give to charity and will give one hundred times the amount a secular socialist will. Furthermore, those Americans who don't give any time or money to charity are more likely to support socialized welfare policy. (p. 10) I wrote about this phenomenon with respect to a report by John Stossel. You'll see in the comments that a fellow GWH blogger provides us with a textbook example of the ad hominem fallacy, calling Stossel a conservative shill. No one can level this accusation against Arthur C. Brooks.
The problem is not "selfish and arrogant Americans". The problem is socialized welfare. No one is fulfilling Christ's will by supporting these policies. In fact, these policies are driving more Americans to Christ's left.
Perspective
To follow up on Ben Martin's comment above, keep in mind that according to 2005 census data, the median household income is $46,326 (for black households it is only $30,858). The median per capita income is $25,036. When you focus only on those with full-time year round jobs, that number rises to $41,386 for men and $31,858 for women. 12.6% of American households are below the poverty threshhold. If you look at how that threshhold is calculated, you will likely conclude that the percentage of Americans living in poverty is actually quite higher.
Just the same, there's also a lot of millionnaires these days and a handful of billionnaires. More importantly, housing costs are high, tuitions are high, and gas is high--so a lot of middle class Americans feel the pinch. So, how you judge that six figure income depends on your point of comparison.
Dustin Kidd
Dustin Kidd
Post new comment