|
Ask
Auntie Pinko
June
21, 2001
Dear Auntie Pinko,
The current presidential administration has proposed tax
cuts. These cuts would benefit all Americans proportionately
to what taxes they actually pay. If you're on the left side
of the fence that means that evil nasty rich people benefit
more. But I'm not an evil nasty rich person, I'm kicking and
scratching just to stay even with the middle class. I need
a tax cut. So why are your fellow travelers in Congress opposing
a tax cut which will benefit me and millions of other hard
working Americans? At what point do you say "OK, taxes are
high enough?" 50%? 40%? Where do you draw the line? Please
help me out because I am a conservative and so I'm not as
enlightened or intelligent as you reds seem to be.
Anonymous,
Speelunk, AR
Dear Anonymous Conservative,
Nonsense, the fact that you can write such a clear and concise
letter indicates that you're plenty intelligent, and your
question certainly merits a thoughtful answer. I think your
confusion about the left's approach to taxation and tax cuts
is rooted in two popular myths. I'll take them one at a time.
The first is connected to one of the words you use: "proportionately."
There is a simple disagreement between the traditional Left
and the traditional Right regarding what constitutes "proportionality"
in taxation. The Left espouses the view that progressive taxation,
based on the taxpayer's ability to pay, is the essence of
fairness and proportionality in taxation. The Right holds
by a one-size-fits all regressive model of taxation, which
taxes every one "the same" regardless of their ability to
afford it.
In other words, the Right strives to make the amount of the
tax proportionate to everyone (as in, say, we all pay 15%
of our income and/or assets and/or purchases, etc.) The Left
strives to make the impact of the tax proportionate to everyone-as
in, we all have to give up something that we would otherwise
have spent that tax money on, but the "give up" has about
the same impact on everyone's budget. So while, for instance,
a taxpayer of modest means might have to give up a family
day at Six Flags and a new television set, the taxpayer of
great wealth might have to give up the new 35-room resort
"cottage" in the Caribbean and go for another year before
trading in the private jet.
You see, the Left is aware that for a taxpayer of very modest
means, paying 15% of the family's wealth in taxes might leave
that family no choice but to give up some very important investments
like education for their children, saving for retirement,
even being able to afford adequate housing and medical care.
Whereas, to a taxpayer who has been fortunate enough to make
vast amounts of wealth from the American system, paying 15%
of that wealth will not impinge in any serious way on their
ability to meet their family's basic needs. So we espouse
the "progressive" model, and we think it's better.
Now, the second myth is that we on the Left "don't want to
give the taxpayer a break." This tired old "tax-and-spend"
label is based on the fact that the Left has always believed
that government should, as far as possible, "pay as you go"
in spreading the expenses of the public good throughout society.
That is, if we need a new road, we should pay for it from
our taxes, even if that is unpleasant. This is as opposed
to the Right's "borrow and spend" belief, that says if we
want to build a fantabulously expensive "missile shield" that
we don't have the money for, we can deficit-spend and let
our grandchildren pay the bill. And pay…
And pay…
And pay…
Thank you for writing to Auntie Pinko!
View Auntie's Archive
Do
you have a question for Auntie Pinko?
Do political discussions discombobulate you? Are you a liberal
at a loss for words when those darned dittoheads babble their
endless rhetoric at you? Or are you a conservative who just
can't understand those pesky liberals and their silliness?
Auntie Pinko has an answer for everything! So ask away!
|
