Tag: the rich

The B. S. Theory

tax the rich, tax, pay, paid, paying, Common Sense

Bernie Sanders is worse than merely wrong about the rich not paying their fair share of taxes.

It’s we, the much-lauded “Ninety-nine Percenters,” who don’t pay enough!

At least, when we figure taxes paid against direct subsidies/services rendered: taxes minus transfers. And, according to the Congressional Budget Office, only the top quintile of income earners — including the much-abhorred One Percenters — pay appreciably more in taxes than they receive in “benefits.”

In a republic, you would expect the masses to pay taxes, receiving only indirect benefits, like a broadly defined “security” and “the rule of law.”

The calculation of who is and is not a net tax-payer or net tax-consumer has to be difficult. I certainly haven’t vetted the studies carefully. But previous accountings also show that the super-rich pay the bulk of income taxes in America.

How to put the system aright?

Don’t tax us more!

Bernie’s preference, to tax a whole lot more as well as to provide more subsidies and “benefits,” will only make a bigger mess.

Unfortunately, doing the right thing (cutting back on the giveaways at all levels) is politically . . . tricky.

But there’s something missing in all this: the indirect hazards of the “benefits” . . . the opportunity costs involved when we get hooked on hand-outs. The most trapped people in America are those who pay the least and take the most. The dollar-value of their received transfer payments measure neither their dependency nor their consequent lack of upward mobility.

How could we figure real harms and helps embedded in the current system, when some “benefits” are, in fact, detriments?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Tags Americans for Tax Reform, fairness, tax, tax policy, tax the rich, the rich

free trade & free markets too much government

The Missing Source

The New York Times says something is missing from comments by President Obama on how government has funded scientific research. What is it? The fact that the research can be, has been, and increasingly is funded privately.

Sometimes private efforts have immediate application, as is often true in the firms of electronics, pharmaceutical and other innovative industries.

But scientific research is also funded by wealthy individuals — James Simons, David Koch, Bill Gates, and Eric Schmidt come to mind immediately — without prospect of immediate financial payoff. Such wealthy men have financed investigations of disease, “hunts for dinosaur bones and giant sea creatures,” and “innovative ships, undersea craft and giant telescopes — as well as the first private mission to deep space.”

Good thing or bad thing, these privately inquiring minds?

In light of the billions too often splurged on wasteful or bad (but politically faddish) research programs, all without the assent of the source of those billions — us taxpayers — I see private inquiry into Nature and Nature’s laws as only a good thing.

We needn’t agree about the value of any particular private project. Maybe if you and I were funding research, we’d have different priorities from Bloomberg, Gates or whomever. But when they waste their money, it’s their money being wasted, not ours. And if the research we prefer is important enough to us, what’s to stop us from raising funds from like-minded others to enable the inquiries we want scientists to pursue?

In a free society, nothing.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Tags funding, New York Times, scientific research, the rich

initiative, referendum, and recall

Can’t Buy Me Votes

“Corporations and some of the wealthiest Americans have spent more than $1 billion in the past 18 months on ballot initiatives in just 11 states,” Reid Wilson informed Washington Post readers following last week’s election. He dubbed it “an unprecedented explosion of money used to pass new laws and influence the public debate.”

He’s implying that bad ol’ corporations and “the rich” can change our laws merely by petitioning issues onto the ballot. Is that right?

Thankfully, no: we get to vote.

“Money is most effective on ballot measures when you’re trying to get a ‘no’ . . . the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t,” explained Rob Richie, the executive director of FairVote, appearing yesterday on C-Span’s Washington Journal. “It’s a lot harder, actually, to spend a lot of money and get a ‘yes.’”

He’s exactly right. Big corporations and big labor have had success in defeating measures, but not much at all in passing “new laws.”

Last Tuesday’s election bears this out. While there were 31 issues on state ballots, only three were initiatives petitioned onto the ballot by citizens, and all three were defeated.

In Washington, Initiative 517, a pro-initiative measure, and Initiative 522, a measure requiring genetically modified foods to be labeled, were both badly outspent and defeated. However, in Colorado, those supporting Amendment 66, a tax increase for education, spent over $10 million to promote the measure compared to less than $50,000 spent against it. Still, the tax hike was defeated 2-to-1.

Money helps in campaigning, no doubt. But the facts show that wealthy interests can’t buy our votes or brainwash us to gain new laws. We decide.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.