- Oct 9, 1999
- 12,513
- 49
- 91
I was listening to talk radio on the way home for some reason, and the announcer was really harping on the fact that there is "no need to cut taxes for the wealthy."
That kind of got me thinking. . . . so here I go.
To me, a low-income tax cut is nothing more than a political ploy. I made about $24,000 last year, and I paid just over two grand in taxes all told. That's without any special deductions for children, the earned-income credit, or interest write offs - none of which I qualify for.
Anyway, recently got a promotion which kicked my annual salary up to about $41,000, or 70% higher than what it was before. But my paycheck is only 50% higher than what it was before - where'd my money go? (I know, but I'm trying to make a point.)
There is a trend of punishing success that is rather perturbing. Let's take Tiger Woods, for example. There's no question that he is a charismatic and skilled athlete. He is payed well for his talent at doing something better than anyone else in the world. He is payed well by companies who want him to endore there products. But half of the money he earns is taken away from him in taxes.
So what does he do? He hires a tax lawyer, who scavenges through the tax code to find any loopholes he can, and save Tiger a bit of his money. For the sake of argument, let's say Tiger saves 15% of his salary this way.
Successful people, for obvious reasons, want to keep their money. They've earned it - no one can say otherwise. These successful people hire lobbyists, and these lobbyists go to Congress and the Senate, and they intice lawmakers to insert loopholes into the tax code so that their clients can save some of their money.
As a result of the complicated tax code, auditors are needed to study the tax returns to make sure they're done correctly and legally, requiring the government to increase the number of employees in the IRS.
Now, my question is, why not settle on a set percentage - say fifteen to twenty percent, and charge everyone the same (I'm talking about FICA only, of course)9? This is a "fair" policy, despite what some politicians would say. Charging everyone the same proportion is a fair taxation. As a result, tax returns become much simpler, and the size of the IRS can be reduced, saving the government - and Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Taxpayer - money. There's no need to lobby for loopholes, because the tax code could literally be written out on one page. The employees of the IRS could focus on the taxes for corporations.
What happens? People have more money, so they will do one of two things - they will save it, or spend it. If they save it, they're investing in American infrastructure, and our banks become healthier. If the money is spent, it improves the economy. Would it cause inflation? I'm not sure; it's possible, but some judicious interest rate wrangling by Allan Greenspan would probably keep it under control. But more money spent means more products consumed which means more jobs, and hence, more money. It works, it makes sense . . . so why are we punishing success? I want the other 20% of my raise!
That kind of got me thinking. . . . so here I go.
To me, a low-income tax cut is nothing more than a political ploy. I made about $24,000 last year, and I paid just over two grand in taxes all told. That's without any special deductions for children, the earned-income credit, or interest write offs - none of which I qualify for.
Anyway, recently got a promotion which kicked my annual salary up to about $41,000, or 70% higher than what it was before. But my paycheck is only 50% higher than what it was before - where'd my money go? (I know, but I'm trying to make a point.)
There is a trend of punishing success that is rather perturbing. Let's take Tiger Woods, for example. There's no question that he is a charismatic and skilled athlete. He is payed well for his talent at doing something better than anyone else in the world. He is payed well by companies who want him to endore there products. But half of the money he earns is taken away from him in taxes.
So what does he do? He hires a tax lawyer, who scavenges through the tax code to find any loopholes he can, and save Tiger a bit of his money. For the sake of argument, let's say Tiger saves 15% of his salary this way.
Successful people, for obvious reasons, want to keep their money. They've earned it - no one can say otherwise. These successful people hire lobbyists, and these lobbyists go to Congress and the Senate, and they intice lawmakers to insert loopholes into the tax code so that their clients can save some of their money.
As a result of the complicated tax code, auditors are needed to study the tax returns to make sure they're done correctly and legally, requiring the government to increase the number of employees in the IRS.
Now, my question is, why not settle on a set percentage - say fifteen to twenty percent, and charge everyone the same (I'm talking about FICA only, of course)9? This is a "fair" policy, despite what some politicians would say. Charging everyone the same proportion is a fair taxation. As a result, tax returns become much simpler, and the size of the IRS can be reduced, saving the government - and Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Taxpayer - money. There's no need to lobby for loopholes, because the tax code could literally be written out on one page. The employees of the IRS could focus on the taxes for corporations.
What happens? People have more money, so they will do one of two things - they will save it, or spend it. If they save it, they're investing in American infrastructure, and our banks become healthier. If the money is spent, it improves the economy. Would it cause inflation? I'm not sure; it's possible, but some judicious interest rate wrangling by Allan Greenspan would probably keep it under control. But more money spent means more products consumed which means more jobs, and hence, more money. It works, it makes sense . . . so why are we punishing success? I want the other 20% of my raise!
Facebook
Twitter