Why Does the GOP Want to Protect the Very Rich?
Because absent a critical media, they can get away with it
by Leigh Pomeroy
Like war, taxes are a hot-button issue. Any discussion of them seems to get the blood boiling, and when that happens logical discussion often takes a flier. Too bad.
It often seems that people who don't want to pay taxes either A) want to be self-sufficient, the rest of the world be damned; B) think that everything should be free; C) don't believe there's any need to invest in the future; or D) any combination of A, B or C.
A more reasoned approach is: What's the most efficient way of paying for things that benefits the most people? A highly socialized system kills initiative, which was proved by the collapse of the Soviet Union. A highly capitalist system doesn't work either, as that can lead to economic stratification, a breakdown of democracy, and ultimately dictatorship, as we saw in fascist Germany and Italy, as well as in numerous Latin American countries in the past.
The solution is somewhere in-between.
Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and some Republicans repeat ad nauseam that the Democrats want to raise taxes. The state's media replay their words often without questioning their veracity.
Those who read and listen carefully understand that what the Democrats (and sensible Republicans, I might add) really want to do is to return the playing field to where it was before the Ventura and Pawlenty administrations, when percentage-wise the super-wealthy were paying more or less the same share of state taxes as everyone else.
I'm trying to understand the reason why Republicans have a problem with this plan. The Democrats want to give property tax relief. That sounds very Republican to me, so that can't be the problem. The Democrats want Minnesotans who earn more than $400,000 a year to pay the same percentage of taxes as everyone else. That sounds very Republican to me, too. After all, not a whole lot of legislators make that much money — the governor doesn't even make that much money — so that shouldn't be the problem either.
And another non sequitur: The majority of Minnesotans who scream that taxes in the state are too high would actually see their taxes decrease under the legislation that the Democratic-controlled Legislature has passed. So that also should not be a problem.
Then what is the problem, and who are the governor and his fellow travelers trying to protect?
OK, I confess: I know rich people. I know rich people who, in fact, would have to pay more taxes under the Democratic plan. And the majority of my rich friends vote Democratic and donate to Democratic campaigns.
Is the governor trying to help them? I don't think so.
That leaves us with one tiny group who would benefit if the governor has his way: a handful of wealthy Republicans who presumably donate to his and other Republicans' campaigns. Now that's government at its finest!
Too often the news media believe their only role is to report what politicians say. In this information age when talk is cheap and voluminous, and truth is hard to find among piles of data, those who report the news need to look harder.
The media must challenge all politicians, regardless of political affiliation and title, to prove their statements. Scare tactics like yelling "Tax increase!" in a crowded theater — er, media market — must be examined carefully. All of us, media and citizens alike, have a responsibility to stop glib, catchy phrases from trumping logic and truth.
by Leigh Pomeroy
Like war, taxes are a hot-button issue. Any discussion of them seems to get the blood boiling, and when that happens logical discussion often takes a flier. Too bad.It often seems that people who don't want to pay taxes either A) want to be self-sufficient, the rest of the world be damned; B) think that everything should be free; C) don't believe there's any need to invest in the future; or D) any combination of A, B or C.
A more reasoned approach is: What's the most efficient way of paying for things that benefits the most people? A highly socialized system kills initiative, which was proved by the collapse of the Soviet Union. A highly capitalist system doesn't work either, as that can lead to economic stratification, a breakdown of democracy, and ultimately dictatorship, as we saw in fascist Germany and Italy, as well as in numerous Latin American countries in the past.
The solution is somewhere in-between.
Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and some Republicans repeat ad nauseam that the Democrats want to raise taxes. The state's media replay their words often without questioning their veracity.
Those who read and listen carefully understand that what the Democrats (and sensible Republicans, I might add) really want to do is to return the playing field to where it was before the Ventura and Pawlenty administrations, when percentage-wise the super-wealthy were paying more or less the same share of state taxes as everyone else.
I'm trying to understand the reason why Republicans have a problem with this plan. The Democrats want to give property tax relief. That sounds very Republican to me, so that can't be the problem. The Democrats want Minnesotans who earn more than $400,000 a year to pay the same percentage of taxes as everyone else. That sounds very Republican to me, too. After all, not a whole lot of legislators make that much money — the governor doesn't even make that much money — so that shouldn't be the problem either.
And another non sequitur: The majority of Minnesotans who scream that taxes in the state are too high would actually see their taxes decrease under the legislation that the Democratic-controlled Legislature has passed. So that also should not be a problem.
Then what is the problem, and who are the governor and his fellow travelers trying to protect?
OK, I confess: I know rich people. I know rich people who, in fact, would have to pay more taxes under the Democratic plan. And the majority of my rich friends vote Democratic and donate to Democratic campaigns.
Is the governor trying to help them? I don't think so.
That leaves us with one tiny group who would benefit if the governor has his way: a handful of wealthy Republicans who presumably donate to his and other Republicans' campaigns. Now that's government at its finest!
Too often the news media believe their only role is to report what politicians say. In this information age when talk is cheap and voluminous, and truth is hard to find among piles of data, those who report the news need to look harder.
The media must challenge all politicians, regardless of political affiliation and title, to prove their statements. Scare tactics like yelling "Tax increase!" in a crowded theater — er, media market — must be examined carefully. All of us, media and citizens alike, have a responsibility to stop glib, catchy phrases from trumping logic and truth.
Powered by Blogger
2 Comments:
This sounds like another endorsement for a flat tax - every pays an equal share of their income in taxes, regardless (or irregardless if you live up nort! :) ) of how much money you make. The Cato Institute has been waving the flat tax banner for the better part of 15 years. Why? because progressive taxes get us in to the exact bind the Democrats and the author say we are in now? Once again, left wing myopia rears it's ugly head. In the furor for the left to 'get the rich' with progressive taxes, the exact opposite happens!
I think a flat tax is a good idea and I endorse it wholeheartedly - done the right way of course which is to eschew progressivity across the income board. The left in this country worships at the shrine of equality, it's time for them to support a flat tax once and for all!
I should point out as well that the DFL 'property tax relief' plan is nothing more than voter buyoff. The plan is to raise income taxes on the 'rich' (I think the DFL plan thresholds are $400,000/$220,000 for couples/singles), then send the qualified 'non-rich' a check and call it 'property tax relief'. The part they don't (or won't) tell you is that even if you received a 'property tax relief' check your property taxes are not being relieved at all. You're property tax burden would be the same, probably even higher because of the insatiable appetite for the local tax jurisdictions, you just have a DFL buyoff check in order to buy your vote in 2008. But, thankfully, Pawlenty has vowed to veto this 'property tax relief' scam.
Post a Comment
<< Home