Progressive Taxes?
In case you haven’t noticed, the economy is having severe problems. Businesses are closing or reducing workforces. There are two side effects of this trend that are mostly overlooked by the majority of people.
First, with many people out of work the tax base falls drastically. Local and state governments, already strapped by voter demands for reduced taxes, find it impossible to meet the costs of services. Services get cut to make budgets balance. The services that get cut first are those that have the least voter support. These same services are aimed at the people who most need them. The result is that more people find themselves without health services and housing support. People with treatable mental health issues loose their support and end up on the street.
Second, the people most likely to loose their jobs are, for the most part, the people who are barely making a living. They are not likely to have savings to fall back on or to pay for health insurance. They then provide additional load on services that are already being cut.
This current situation will continue to be painful and there is little hope that the state of affairs is going to turn around quickly. We must make an extra effort to support charities to help our citizens get through this mess.
What we need to understand is the reasons why we have taxes and government. If we were all equally talented and skilled, there would be little variation in incomes across the range of employees. In fact there are people who possess the skills or abilities of managers, the ambition or drive of entrepreneurs, or the talents of teachers. The person who has worked faithfully on an assembly line for 10 years (at $10.00) suddenly finds he is jobless though no fault of his own. He has minimal education and his pay rate has provided no margin for savings. He needs the government services to tide him over and help him prepare for a new job. Without some support, he becomes another homeless statistic – and a drain on society.
If, while the economy was in growth mode, we had provided a small tax increase to set aside a buffer fund, the government services would be able to weather the economic downturn without reducing services. The economic recovery just might happen sooner with fewer people loosing income. A tax – based fund is a good idea, in spite of what bean counters say. Bean counters do not know how to assign value to humanity.
One analogy that will be understandable to electrically knowledgeable people is the filter capacitor in a DC power supply. Without the capacitor (the buffer fund) the output (government services) varies greatly. The load on the power supply (the human condition of society) is degraded. With the capacitor in place the output is stable and the load does not degrade.
Please stop demanding reduced taxes just because your child has to drive a Chevy instead of a Porsche or she won’t get to go to Princeton. Allow the government to provide for the poor and the result will be an improvement in society over the long run.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
WHAT PART DID THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES NOT GET WHEN PRESIDENT CLINTON WAS IN OFFICE AND NAFTA WAS SIGNED INTO BEING. DID YOU PEOPLE REALLY THINK THAT OUR MANUFACTURED GOODS WERE GOING TO FLOW EQUALLY AS FAR AS THE IMPORTS AND EXPORTS WERE CONCERNED. IN CASE SOME OF YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT NAFTA STANDS FOR, I DO THINK THAT IT IS THE NATIONAL ALLIANCE FREE TRADE ACT. IF I AM WRONG ON THIS, FEEL FREE TO CORRECT ME. WHERE DO YOU THINK USA JOBS ARE MOVING TO? HOW ABOUT JAPAN, CHINA, MEXICO AND THAT IS JUST TO NAME A FEW. IF PRESIDENT CLINTON AND CONGRESS HAD NOT SIGNED NAFTA INTO LAW AND ACTED SURELY AND SWIFTLY WHEN THE CAR BOMB WENT OFF IN THE BASEMENT OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER AND THE USS COLE WAS ATTACKED, THE PERHAPS PRESIDENT BUSH, OF WHOM, I AM NOT A FAN, WOULD NOT HAVE INHERITED THE MESS HE IS BLAMED FOR. THE MAIN ISSUE THAT I DIAGREED WITH PRESIDENT BUSH ON WAS THAT WE ALL KNOW THAT HE WAS NOT ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY. I KNOW THAT I HAVE STRAYED FROM THE MAIN SUBJECT, BUT THIS IS JUST TO SET THE STAGE FOR WHAT I AM ABOUT TO POST. YES, WE WERE IN GOOD SHAPE FINANCIALLY WHEN PRESIDENT CLINTON WAS IN OFFICE, BUT HE WAS THE BEGINNING OF THE END. HE STARTED THE DOWNHILL MOTION WITH HIS ACTIONS AND INACTIONS. WE STARTED FEELING THE CRUNCH DURING THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION WITH THE BOMBING OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER, HIGH COST OF FUEL, AND LOSS OF AMERICAN JOBS. WE BEGAN A HUGE DEBT TO THESE OTHER NATIONS THAT WE WERE ALREADY DEPENDENT ON FOR OIL, CLOTHES, AUTO PARTS, SHOES, BUILDING SUPPLIES; GET THE PICTURE. TODAY, WE HAVE PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA WHO, LIKE, PRESIDENT CLINTON PROMISED THE AMERICAN PEOPLE EVERYTHING AND ANYTHING THAT THEY WANTED TO HEAR. WE ARE REALLY IN DEBT NOW TO FOREIGN NATIONS. PLEASE, SOMEONE CORRECT ME IF I AM WORNG, BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT AIG THAT INSURES AMERICAN BANKS IS OWNED BY MEXICO. IT IS NO LONGER A MATTER OF IF A KID DRIVES A PORSCH OR A CHEVROLET, BUT A MATTER OF OUR OWN GOVERNMENT TRYING TO ELIMINATE CLASSES OF PEOPLE. I DO BELIEVE THAT IS CALLED SOCIALISM WITH EVERYONE BEING EQUAL AND GOVERNMENT-FUNDED INSURANCE FOR EVERYONE. PEOPLE THAT THINK THAT THIS COUNTRY IS IN A MESS HAS NOT SEEN ANYTHING YET. WHY DO CANADIANS THAT HAVE GOVERNMENT FUNDED INSURANCE COME TO THE USA TO SEEK MEDICAL TREATMENT? WITH HILLARY CLINTON AND NANCY PELOSI AT THE HELM, OUR HIGHER POWER IS THE ONLY ONE THAT CAN STOP THIS NATION FROM FALLING FLAT ON IT'S FACE. NO, I DO NOT THINK THAT I SHOULD PAY HIGHER TAXES WHEN I AM PAYING FOR HEALTH INSURANCE, PAYROLL TAXES, INSURANCE ON MY HOME, LIFE INSURANCE AND INSURANCE ON MY VEHICLES. SORRY, BUT MY JOB HAS NOT BEEN PAYING ME 35 TO 75 DOLLARS AN HOUR FOR 35 YEARS AND HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY BAIL-OUT MONEY.
The North American Free Trade Act also includes Canada. Has Canada been helped or hindered by the act?
Since I have admitted to being a Democrat, it should come as no surprise that I blame the Republicans for this. The reason behind the whole thing was to provide a way for businesses to increase profits. I suspect the people who pushed it through did not think far enough ahead to see the long term effects or simply did not care about the little people who are negatively impacted.
After I gained the wisdom of age, I began to see what is really happening. In the most recent election it seems many others have seen through the fog as well. The Republican party has embraced certain "hot topic" issues to influence voters who blindly vote specific issues without looking at what else is part of their plan. People who vote pro-life vote for the conservative republican candidates exclusively. Until recently the Gun-rights group has voted exclusively republican as well. These groups often include poor working class families who are actually hurt by republican economic policies.
Recently, leaders of the Democratic party realized and actually announced that the party was never going to do well in national elections as long at it promoted gun control. They stopped making it a major campaign issue and it actually helped them.
Post a Comment