She's Right on Taxes
In case you missed it, a couple of weeks ago, I posted a link to a reader survey (now closed) to gauge how much She’s Right readers know about my views on five hot topics. This week, I have been doing a series about the results and the correct answers. Scroll down or click for day one, day two, and day three.
The fourth question in the survey was: What is the “She’s Right” view on taxes?
Answer choices were: She thinks that the current system is about right; She thinks that the tax burden should be more heavily on people who can afford it; She thinks that everyone should pay some amount of taxes; She thinks that programs like the Earned Income Tax Credit should not be refundable (people should not get a bigger refund than their withholding); She thinks that if taxes were used only for what they should be, the tax rate would be much lower and we wouldn’t need to talk about taxes.
Zero people said that I thought the current system was about right. Right on.
Also, zero people said that I think the tax burden should be more heavily on the people who can afford it. Right again.
As much as it would totally suck for people like me, who currently pay no federal income taxes, I think that everyone should pay some amount of taxes (as three people guessed). I think placing the tax burden more and more heavily on a small group of people leaves the rest of us with no real, tangible interest in how the government spends the money.
I understand that the people with higher incomes will always pay a disproportionate amount of the taxes collected, but my concern is over the number of people who pay $0 in income taxes. Worse than that, many people are getting a tax rebate of money that they did not even earn through the Earned Income Credit (EIC).
If a person has an EIC that exceeds their tax burden, that money is refunded to them.
A lot of people do not understand this, so I want to take the time to explain it. I did the taxes of a friend of mine on my Turbo Tax program for tax year 2004. Luckily, I keep everything on my hard drive, so these are real numbers for a single-mom with two kids.
The tax on her taxable income was $583, but she also had a $583 childcare deduction, so her tax liability was $0. She had $289 withheld from her paychecks and qualified for a $2,566 EIC. She ended up getting the $289 plus the $2,566 refunded to her.
Not only did she pay no taxes and get back all money withheld, but she also made money from her tax return.
This practice needs to stop. Tax refunds should not be welfare payouts. (Three people correctly chose this answer on the survey.)
If everyone paid at least a little something in income taxes, then everyone would have more of a reason to care about government waste.
Even the conservative flat tax proposal still leaves some people paying no taxes. I tried the FreedomWorks flat tax calculator (just enter income, status, and number of dependants) and we would still pay no taxes.
At any rate, as eight people said in the survey, I think that if taxes were used only for what they should be, the tax rate would be much lower and we wouldn’t need to talk about taxes. The question then of course is, what should they be used for?
The federal government should, as it is spelled out in Article one, Section eight of the Constitution, “pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States.” (General Welfare in this case does not mean providing “welfare benefits” to certain individuals, a concept that did not exist when the Constitution was written.)
The federal government should not be involved in regulating education, paying for healthcare, providing welfare benefits, or sending money back to the states for projects that have no national significance (not to mention the long list of other things the federal government should not pay for). These are things that should be dealt with on a state or local level, allowing the residents thereof to determine what services and tax rates they desire, giving more control to the people.
15 comments:
This is too long to read. I'm sorry I can't see your blog at work anymore. At night I'm too tired to really do it justice.
I do know this, you should take the EIC, and the downward redistribution of wealth by the government is a good thing.
I think it would be better if the majority voted in their own best interest, rather than be tricked into voting for the interests of the fat cats.
America has nowhere near the level of socialism it needs to be a healthy society. All of our socialism comes a the most tragic and expensive times- in emergency rooms and prisons- at the back end of failed policies.
Why can't we make some minimal social investments in a proactive way to avoid the tragedies that are such a part American life.
Why do we continually elect people who punish us?
Voting for candidates with sane social and foreign policy goals goes a lot futher toward helping America than throwing away money you could be using to improve your children's lives with.
I feel like we've already had this discussion.
I hear you, Haik. I don’t like to read long blog posts, either.
Bob told me that they blocked entertainment content on the internet at work. That’s a bummer. (Bob is my husband, who works with Haik, for the rest of you.)
And you’re right; we have had this conversation before. We see things differently. I would rather elect politicians who respect freedom and personal property rights over ones who think they know what is best for us better than we do.
I disagree that I am throwing away money that could improve my children’s lives by not taking the EIC. My children’s lives are just fine. They have everything they absolutely need and quite a bit of things they want. They don’t have extravagance, but they are better for it. They know that is a sacrifice we make to be home together.
Although, I was considering taking the EIC next year (if we qualify) and just sending it to the Dept. of Treasury to reduce the public debt. Check this out.
Hey, did you get my e-mail?
That Haik Bedrosian, he loves his welfare.
"America has nowhere near the level of socialism it needs to be a healthy society."
Keep 'em coming.
"America has nowhere near the level of socialism it needs to be a healthy society."
Like China?
Like the USSR?
Like North Korea?
They all have A LOT more socialism and yet, they're all shitty places to be.
Hmmm... socialism bad, freedom good.
Redistribution of wealth is theft on the personal level and taxes on the federal level.
And to make matters worse, some self-rightous asshole college student will tell you to pay YOUR fair share.
How heart warming.
Go live in a real socialist country. Then come back and preach to us.
Well- my point was that we do have socialism- but it's stupid reactive socialism (emergency rooms, prisons), and it costs more than the smart, proactive socialism I envision- like better schools, free health care and more and better homeless programs and shelters.
As long as we have a government, we're going to have socialism. Right NOW we have socialist police and fire departments, socialist water systems, socialist schools, socialist courts, socialist prisons, socialist roads, and of course, a socialist army, air force, navy and marine corps- to name a few.
So as long as we have socialized to the degree we have- we might as well get smart about it and go all the way to smart. Not just stay stuck in half-assed, tragic, stupid because a few small minded anonymous fools like you can't get over the imaginary contruct of the cold war.
Your mind is in a socialist prison.
(construct)
BTW Charity- the taking the EIC would get you closer to home ownership. Don't tell me that wouldn't be better for your kids.
If you really wanted Americas deficit and debt to go down- you would vote for Democrats. They balance budgets. Your EIC is a single water molecule in the ocean. You must be on some of Tarrant's meth not to take it. :)
"Well- my point was that we do have socialism- but it's stupid reactive socialism..." (snip)
Wow, that's a long way to just reiterate that you think the US should be a socialist country. That plays big in the NNE, does it? Sure not what I heard.
There's an enormous difference between the "socialist" institutions you cite, which at least potentially benefit all of those who contribute to them; and a completely socialist society - "a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to social control." It would be giving you the benefit of the doubt to assume that you're being disingenuous in making those comparisons, rather than really having such an utter lack of understanding of what socialism is.
The same can be said for your invocation of the cold war, as the other anonymous was clearly not bringing up examples of countries because of their relationship with ours; but rather because they are examples where socialism has led to an inescapably lower standard of living than ours.
I tend to find that those who argue for increased socialism in our society would, without exception, be gleeful recipients of the increased welfare payouts that that would entail. You are pretty close to being the poster boy for this rule.
Wow, that's a long way to just reiterate that you think the US should be a socialist country.
Wrong!
Pretty obviously not wrong, actually. What you're recommending fits the classic definition of socialism precisely, just declaring that it doesn't is meaningless. At least your hero Bernie explicitly cops to being a socialist, why don't you grow a pair and follow his lead.
What exactly do you think I'm recommending? Am I really nuts to want to socialize medicine? This is simple math. Insurance exists to spread risk among a pool. The larger the pool, the more spread out the risk. Just put everyone in one pool and you've optimized your equation... Unless of course you are trying to turn a profit, then you try to cover those with the lowest risk and squeeze out the old and unhealthy. This is unethical and it's bad math. If that otherwise sick or old people difer care and end up in emergency rooms paid for by the rest of society. Private health insurance is foolish.
What else do I want? Basic shelter for all homeless. Not the kind of place you would want to live in necessarily, but basic livable shelter and food. Now I know you're going to say that would just encourage millions of freeloaders, but you're wrong. Nobody would want to live in these places long, and if they do live there long, they would obviously otherwise be homeless.
What else? Better roads, better trains. Better levys. Better parks. A Social Security Lock Box.
And you talk me as the poster boy for welfare... what about Neil Bush? His savings and loan bailout cost taxpayers one billion dollars. Why doesn't that bother you as much as someone eating a piece of government cheese? American contractors have lost nine billion of China's dollars we're gonna have to pay pack. Why is that so much easier for you to swallow than a kid getting a check-up for free?
Is the whole world off its rocker?
Well, at least you're finally admitting that you want the US to be a socialist country, in your own clumsy way.
Terms like "socialist country" are mental prisons. I'm not saying we should do away with capitalism, and as I pointed out, there are many American forms of socialism now. Anything paid for by the government is socialist. I'm just proposing we bite the bullet and make the necessary minimum collective investmemts to have a healthy society. That means not creating the conditions for for expensive tragedies, such as poverty so desperate people turn to crime which clogs our socialist courts and prisons. In the long run, I'm actually advocating less socialism than currently exists, but in a smarter more effective form. I notice most right-wingers, conservatives, Republicans or what have you always cheer the building of prisons, hiring of cops, etc. That is socialism. Why is that ok? Why is spending billions on prisons better than spending billions on education or job-training to help people toward a path away from crime in the first place? Because watching someone study isn't as entertaining as "Cops?" Why is it if the government pays for someone to go to college, that someone is freeloading, but when We pay to lock them up for ten years- why that person is "paying their debt to society?" Please
The current paradigm is broken.
"Terms like "socialist country" are mental prisons."
Wow, I guess every economist, historian, and... well, basically everyone with a brain lives in a mental prison. They're just waiting to be released by a visionary like you - a visionary who can only spread his wisdom on nights and weekends because the boss at his data entry job apparently cut off his internet access after he dicked around too much during work hours.
Stay Anonymous.
"Stay Anonymous."
I'll bet you wish you had.
Post a Comment