Tax Letter

This guy wrote an outstanding letter in the Minneapolis paper. I leave the name omitted.

---

---

---

I am not an avid listener/reader of the radio talk-show host/journalist Jason Lewis, but I am fast becoming a fan. He's right: The numbers are right there in the state's Tax Incidence Study ("The rich pay the taxes -- that's a fact," April 3), and they are disturbing for several reasons:

1) Everyone should have some skin in the game when it comes to paying for state government, and when the bottom 20 percent pay no income taxes and receive more than $40 million in refundable tax credits (not to mention services), they are not sharing any of the burden.

2) I am not a fan of "progressive taxation," and I strongly disagree with the premise that it's "fair" to increase the rate of taxation as your income increases simply because you can afford to pay more of that
income in taxes as a percentage of your income.

Where is that fairness argument when the top 10 percent of earners in our state pay 56 percent of the total income taxes collected and the bottom 20 percent of earners in our state pay 0 percent of the income
taxes collected and receive $40 million in refundable tax credits?

3) I would prefer a simple flat rate income tax without any deductions or exemptions. Think of it like tipping. Assume you tip at 15 percent of the total amount of the bill. The larger the bill, the larger the tip.

Your income may determine where you dine, how much you spend and how often you dine out, but it should not determine the percentage of the bill you leave as a tip unless you choose to leave a larger amount.

4) For those who argue that a flat tax would be "regressive" or "unfair" on the bottom 20 percent, I say, so what? There is nothing "progressive" or "fair" about their paying nothing and receiving credits, and having an equal voice on election day.

Furthermore, if it's "fair" to be "aggressively progressive" when it comes to taxing the "rich" to the point where they leave for a state with lower income taxes or no income taxes (yes, there are states with no income taxes), why is the opposite not true? If the bottom 20 percent want to leave for a more favorable tax environment and lots of government benefits and refunds, that's OK.

http://www.startribune.com/opinion/letters/119508324.html

I would just love to see the counter argument to the simple logic of this.

How is it "fair" that people who pay nothing in taxes and, in fact, get money from actual taxpaying citizens in the form of government subsidies are allowed to vote? Who do you think they are going to vote for? The candidates who seek to reign in out of control government spending or the candidates who promise these leaches more money (via subsidies and welfare programs) from taxpaying citizens?

Honestly, how can anyone possibly justify giving the vote to people who make no contribution to their government and instead actually subsist on government handouts?

I would love to hear the left's justification for such a system.

Honestly, how can anyone possibly justify giving the vote to people who make no contribution to their government and instead actually subsist on government handouts?

So to be part of a society and to have the right to vote, one must be paying taxes? Where would that place the stay at home mum - in your estimation? Someone who greatly contributes to the society yet earns no money and therefore can pay no taxes? They have no right to vote? Or does she only have a right to vote as an extension of her husband, whose bringing home the money? Money=productive member of society, does it?

How about someone who has paid taxes all their life but due to some unforeseen circumstance, has lost their job or is unable to work. They should lose their right to vote for the time they are getting back on their feet - even though they have paid into the society most of their life?

Benefit systems are in place as an insurance policy. We all pay into it. We take from it when we have to. Some people may take advantage of that system, and that should be dealt with - but there is no justification for removing a person's right to vote. A job is not the only thing which makes a person a productive member of society. Money is not the only thing that equals a productive member of society.

And removing someone's right to vote because you don't like the way they might choose to vote - on whatever grounds - is completely at odds with any and all democratic principles.

BecMacFeegle wrote:

Honestly, how can anyone possibly justify giving the vote to people who make no contribution to their government and instead actually subsist on government handouts?

So to be part of a society and to have the right to vote, one must be paying taxes? Where would that place the stay at home mum - in your estimation? Someone who greatly contributes to the society yet earns no money and therefore can pay no taxes? They have no right to vote? Or does she only have a right to vote as an extension of her husband, whose bringing home the money? Money=productive member of society, does it?

How about someone who has paid taxes all their life but due to some unforeseen circumstance, has lost their job or is unable to work. They should lose their right to vote for the time they are getting back on their feet - even though they have paid into the society most of their life? No - but those aren't the people I'm talking about

Benefit systems are in place as an insurance policy. We all pay into it. We take from it when we have to. Some people may take advantage of that system, and that should be dealt with - but there is no justification for removing a person's right to vote. A job is not the only thing which makes a person a productive member of society. Money is not the only thing that equals a productive member of society.

And removing someone's right to vote because you don't like the way they might choose to vote - on whatever grounds - is completely at odds with any and all democratic principles.

Let me define the word "fair" - according to the Merriam Webster dictionary fair means "marked by impartiality and honesty : free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism."

How is it "fair" that some people pay absolutely nothing to help finance the very government they depend on for national defense, infrastructure and other key functions of government?

How is it "fair" that nearly 50% of the "taxpaying" members of this country are, in fact, not only not paying taxes but are receiving money from the government to help subsidize their existence?

How is it "fair" that these people, who are not pulling their own weight (or any portion of it) through taxes are allowed to dictate to those of us who are paying the lions share of the tax burden by electing politicians that promise them even more of other people's money?

I fail to see anything "fair" about this at all!

I say to be "a part of society" one should have one's shoulder to the wheel just like the rest of us, and not be freeloading on the backs of hard-working people by electing to public office those politicians who promise these freeloaders more other people's hard-earned dollars.

Giving people who live off the public dole the right to vote only guarantees a compliant and subservient voter-base to the kinds of unscrupulous politicians who are only too willing to tax the productive members of society at ever more confiscatory rates. And as more people become dependent on government it can only spiral out of control until this nation becomes a bunch of greedy, whiny, entitlement-minded leeches who will scream bloody murder and demand even more from government when they finally come face-to-face with the cold hard fact that we've run fresh out of other peoples money.

I'm sorry, I feel as bad for the truly disadvantaged as the next guy; the people who just lack the physical or mental capacity to care for themselves. But we have programs in place for those people. The people I don't feel sorry for are those who could work, who could pay taxes, who could do without foodstamps, housing assistance, government-paid cell phones, tax rebates, welfare checks and all the other government loot that is handed out by politicians to buy the votes of the willingly dependent.

The productive members of our society have been under attack here for decades. More and more of their hard-earned work product is being stolen from them each year through taxes that the unproductive are demanding from those politicians they have elected to office. And as the unproductive, government-dependent class approaches a full 50% of all legal voters (we are only a couple of percentage points away from that now), the productive are under threat of being ruled by the very people who are stealing their money through government taxation.

Please, tell me... how that is even remotely "fair?" Tell me how that builds a worthwhile society? Tell me how that comports with the "democratic principles" you speak of?

In point of fact, this is why our founders loathed a democracy and founded a republic. As one wit once observed "a democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner."

And guess what? What's for "dinner" in America is the hard-earned dollars of hard-working, taxpaying Americans as the government-dependent "wolves" lick their chops every two years at the polls.

As an aside, under our Constitution, citizens do not have a "right" to vote for President. And until 1913 (so many wonderful things happened that year - including passage of the income tax) they did not have a "right" to vote for Senators.

Just thought that bit a relevant knowledge to have.

Didn't actually answer her post though.

Nor was my original response answered.

Really? Because in your original post you began by questioning the fairness of the situation but you progressed to demanding how it is possible to justify giving the vote to people in the bottom 20% - with no provisoes whatsoever.

BecMacFeegle wrote:Really? Because in your original post you began by questioning the fairness of the situation but you progressed to demanding how it is possible to justify giving the vote to people in the bottom 20% - with no provisoes whatsoever.

I suppose I should point out that my second post expanded on my first so as to make it clear that I was not talking about the very people you mentioned in your response. You will notice in the body of your post that I put a short sentence in blue to indicate that those were not the people I was referring to.

To see who I am referring to specifically, see my second post.

Hope that helps.

How is it "fair" that some people pay absolutely nothing to help finance the very government they depend on for national defense, infrastructure and other key functions of government?

How do they manage to pay "absolutely nothing"?! Do they buy nothing and therefore pay no sales tax? Do they not own cars or buy petrol for it? Do they buy no food or alcohol?

Call me pedantic but I fail to see how such people can pay "absolutely nothing".

Now, we can complain all we like about people who do not work who take more than they pay in but it concerns me that you would suggest financial qualifications for being able to vote. The next logical step to that would be for multimillionaires to say "I earn and pay 100 times more than the average American, surely I deserve more votes?" wouldn't it?

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

How is it "fair" that some people pay absolutely nothing to help finance the very government they depend on for national defense, infrastructure and other key functions of government?

How do they manage to pay "absolutely nothing"?! Do they buy nothing and therefore pay no sales tax? Do they not own cars or buy petrol for it? Do they buy no food or alcohol?

Call me pedantic but I fail to see how such people can pay "absolutely nothing".

Now, we can complain all we like about people who do not work who take more than they pay in but it concerns me that you would suggest financial qualifications for being able to vote. The next logical step to that would be for multimillionaires to say "I earn and pay 100 times more than the average American, surely I deserve more votes?" wouldn't it?

Let's boil this down to it's absolute simplest form - in a society where all can vote and where half the population subsists on the work product of the 50 percent who are productive, who do you think that 50 percent that live on government largess are going to vote for? Will it be the politician who says the gravy train must stop? Or will it be the politician who says the gravy train is taking on more passengers, all aboard?

That is the position we are nearly in. You ask how can people pay "absolutely nothing." Sure, even low income persons pay payroll taxes, and sales taxes and even have income taxes deducted from their pay. But that means nothing if federal and state governments turn around and hand that money right back to those "taxpayers" in the form of programs that pay for everything from food to cell phones! Yes, you read it right, we have a federal program that pays for cell phones for low income earners. We have so many assistance programs it's insane!

Tex made a post here a while back that demonstrated that a person who did not work (or did minimal work) could actually walk away with a higher disposable income than a person who worked 40hrs/wk and earned something like $40,000/yr (or something like that).

Who do you think that person is going to vote for?

Now it might concern you that I suggest financial considerations come into play when it comes to the right to vote, but what really concerns me is what is happening to my country before my very eyes. We are rapidly going broke (hell, we're already broke) and it seems that unscrupulous politicians, preying on the dependent class and promising them ever more of other peoples money, are winning the day by making more and more citizens dependent on government largess.

Even as I type this I am watching President Obama's speech on the budget saying we have to do something about our debt and deficits out of one side of his mouth while STILL saying that he wants to "invest" (read that spend productive people's money) in the poor, the elderly, the young, and minorities out of the other side of his mouth. He just said that we can afford his "progressive" vision for America even as he demagogued the Republican's plan.

Yes, bringing financial considerations into play on the right to vote is a radical thought. It will never happen of course.

But what do we do when the dependent-class hits the magic 50% mark and then passes it? Right now that lower 50% contributes a mere 2% of the tax burden. When that hits 0%, where does the country go from there?

The people have learned that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury - and more and more every year elect those who will help them in that endeavor - who actually promise to assist them.

How is this justified?

I'm not justifying it, I'm commenting on how somebody could pay "absolutely nothing". If somebody did do that, it would be quite a remarkable achievement actually. There may even be a case to train them as financial advisors.

I find it concerning that you are still advocating that you would take the vote away from somebody because they might vote in a way that you disagree with.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:I'm not justifying it, I'm commenting on how somebody could pay "absolutely nothing". If somebody did do that, it would be quite a remarkable achievement actually. There may even be a case to train them as financial advisors.

I find it concerning that you are still advocating that you would take the vote away from somebody because they might vote in a way that you disagree with.

I think we (and you) as English speakers with a semi-common background have a difference here: our governments and ways of taxation.

Our tax system is one of the most complex things I've ever seen. Lemme try to simplify it for shits and giggles.

Here's a really good example:

I just had my taxes done yesterday. Between unemployment and the post office, I made a little over $16,000 in 2010. I paid $204 in taxes between the two. I elected to not have federal and Minnesota state tax withheld from unemployment. I couldn't pay bills and buy food otherwise. Anyway, I have to pay IN almost $340 to the fed and the state of Minnesota.

No problem, right? Well, here's the kicker. People who own a house (I don't) and have a wife and two kids (I have neither) get so many tax deductions that they end up getting money back from the fed. We're talking people who make $40,000 or more. What's fair in that? So, if the Dems say that they're going to make it so that those people will keep getting money back from the gov't, and then the GOP says, no we're going to have to tighten up gov't spending and there's not going to be much (if any) going back to people in the from of tax credits or refunds... who are those people going to vote for?

People in this country actually get what's called a tax credit. That means, if you don't make a certain amount of money (like only $15,000) but you have 3 kids, you actually get money from the feds for having those kids. That's no bullshit. My ex-girlfriend (around 2000, 2001 and 2002) made about $12,000 a year. She paid literally nothing in federal tax. But hey.... she got what's called Earned Income Credit each year. The last year we were together, she received a little over $5,000 in EIC. She paid nothing to receive it yet she collected it.

That's called welfare without even having to technically apply for welfare. It's a crock of shit and it pisses me off to no end.

Then we have my uncle who does agricultural farming (corn, soy beans, wheat, etc). He makes over $400,000 a year doing it. He has so many deductions that he pays nothing into the feds. He pays as the year goes by but he gets it all back in the form of a refund. Two years ago, he actually got back over $10,000 in a federal tax refund. He also knows that if we go to a flat tax (or Dbl's Fair Tax), he won't have much for deductions (if any). He knows that he'd actually have to pay taxes then.

Now... do you see just how fucked up our system is? Do you see how it benefits certain people and not others?

All of what I just stated is true, not a hypothetical situation.

Yes, your tax system does seem unnecessarily complex and I always find it frustrating when somebody can be better off not working than working, that is fucked up. However there is no justification for claiming to want to prevent such people from voting.

Imagine if I advocated taking votes away from creationists on the basis that they would vote for somebody who would damage science teaching in our schools, or homoeopathists on the basis that they would destroy the NHS by wasting money on sham remedies and damaging health of the population with their 'magic water', or climate change denialists on the basis that their propaganda will do untold damage to humanity?

No, I wouldn't even think about suggesting it.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:Yes, your tax system does seem unnecessarily complex and I always find it frustrating when somebody can be better off not working than working, that is fucked up. However there is no justification for claiming to want to prevent such people from voting.

Imagine if I advocated taking votes away from creationists on the basis that they would vote for somebody who would damage science teaching in our schools, or homoeopathists on the basis that they would destroy the NHS by wasting money on sham remedies and damaging health of the population with their 'magic water', or climate change denialists on the basis that their propaganda will do untold damage to humanity?

No, I wouldn't even think about suggesting it.

I would never advocate others not being able to vote personally. But that's just me. There is no absolute right to vote in this country on the federal level. States have laws on it though. But state laws can't trump the federal constitution. Those state laws are based on state-wide elections.

But on the tax thing, it frustrates me to no end. I'm not bitching because I have to pay taxes or the fact that I have to pay in this year (and last year). My gripe is how the tax code is set to favor certain people and not others. In this I mean, married folks with kids and a house get a great tax break. Someone with none pays in.... even if they make far less than the hypothetical family with 2 kids and a house.