My commentary is interspersed in bold.
-------------
We hear much these days about a vast redistribution of wealth going on in our country, making (according to Mitt Romney) 47 percent of us dependent on the government and generally destroying “our country’s moral fiber.” (I googled the phrase contained in quotes, and Romney never said it. Which means the Mr. Benert is trying to put words in Romney's mouth.)
Mr. Romney jokes about how Obama has so little time, but so much yet to redistribute. Others angrily call Obama a “Marxist,” although for some reason Robin Hood is still considered a hero. (Robin Hood is generally invoked by the Left as a hero. Seldom if ever does a conservative do so, except to point out that Robin Hood was stealing from the government and their oppressive taxation scheme.)
Actually, come to think of it, “from each according to his ability; to each according to his need,” is not such a horrible idea. It even sounds vaguely Christian. (Um, yeah. As quoted from that paragon of virtue, Karl Marx! Vaguely Christian, as in forcing people to part with their wealth so that government can hand it out? How is that even vaguely Christian?)
But are we, in fact, redistributing wealth in this country? There is reason to think that we are not. Consider an article from the middle-of-the-road “The Economist” (Oct. 13). Yes, it admits, nearly half of Americans pay no federal income tax and yes, (Oops. Despite his earlier statement, Mr. Benert now admits its accuracy.)
40 percent of all income taxes come from the top 1 percent of taxpayers. But if you take into account the loopholes and exclusions that mostly benefit those with money, (Mr. Benert has just quoted the statistic about the disproportionately greater share of income tax paid by the rich, but then asserts that loopholes and exclusions somehow impeach that figure? Perhaps Mr. Benert doesn't understand that the number he quotes is the ACTUAL TAX PAID, which is already reflective of those loopholes and exclusions.)
and the fact that nearly everyone pays payroll, state and local taxes, (This is irrelevant, the topic is income tax. Nevertheless, Mr. Benert is using as his evidence a problem with government which is actively opposed by conservatives. All these forms of taxation do nothing to further Mr. Benert's case, but in fact argues for his opposition. Further, it demonstrates that government has involved itself to pervasively into our private financial lives, so conservatives are once again correct.)
it turns out that “when you consider all taxes, the share paid by the wealthiest 1 percent falls to 21.6 percent, close to their share of pre-tax income, whereas the poorest quintile pay 2.1 percent, not much below their share of pre-tax income. America’s tax system does hardly anything to redistribute income.” (This conclusion is not justified by the facts presented. First, payroll taxes, of which Social Security and Medicare are the primary components, return to the taxpayer at some point, which negates Mr. Benert's point. And state and local taxes are an entirely separate issue, since the conservative position has to do with federal government. State and local governments must be addressed in their own contexts, since they are not federal issues.)
The article goes on to explain that over 60 percent of all “tax preferences” benefit the wealthiest 20 percent; only 3 percent help the bottom 20 percent. (Tax preferences mostly affect those who pay taxes? Wow, and we should be outraged at this?)
The government “spends” four times as much (through the mortgage-interest deduction) on housing for the well-off as it does for public housing for the poorest fifth. (Per household? Per quintile? It only stands to reason that a million dollar house has a substantially larger amount of loan interest, and therefore is a larger deduction. Again, a larger deduction is because of a larger expense, a perfectly sensible outcome.
But beyond that, the government "spends" nothing for deductions. Money that the government does not tax is not money missing from the treasury, because that money belongs to the taxpayer, not the government.)
That quintile does reap 30 percent of entitlement spending (mostly for the sick and elderly), but if that is what you call “redistribution,” then what’s the problem? (If we adopt the rhetoric of the Left, roads and sewers are also subsidies, as are libraries, fire and police, and garbage pickup. So it is hardly true that the "sick and elderly" are the primary recipients of government largess. By that measure, the sick and elderly are minor players in the equation.
But the real problem is that there are so many receiving government benefits, and to add insult to injury, they are simultaneously paying out. And none of it is having a positive effect on society. The country is teetering on the fiscal cliff, and people like Mr. Benert are content or explain it away or ignore it.
Mr. Romney jokes about how Obama has so little time, but so much yet to redistribute. Others angrily call Obama a “Marxist,” although for some reason Robin Hood is still considered a hero. (Robin Hood is generally invoked by the Left as a hero. Seldom if ever does a conservative do so, except to point out that Robin Hood was stealing from the government and their oppressive taxation scheme.)
Actually, come to think of it, “from each according to his ability; to each according to his need,” is not such a horrible idea. It even sounds vaguely Christian. (Um, yeah. As quoted from that paragon of virtue, Karl Marx! Vaguely Christian, as in forcing people to part with their wealth so that government can hand it out? How is that even vaguely Christian?)
But are we, in fact, redistributing wealth in this country? There is reason to think that we are not. Consider an article from the middle-of-the-road “The Economist” (Oct. 13). Yes, it admits, nearly half of Americans pay no federal income tax and yes, (Oops. Despite his earlier statement, Mr. Benert now admits its accuracy.)
40 percent of all income taxes come from the top 1 percent of taxpayers. But if you take into account the loopholes and exclusions that mostly benefit those with money, (Mr. Benert has just quoted the statistic about the disproportionately greater share of income tax paid by the rich, but then asserts that loopholes and exclusions somehow impeach that figure? Perhaps Mr. Benert doesn't understand that the number he quotes is the ACTUAL TAX PAID, which is already reflective of those loopholes and exclusions.)
and the fact that nearly everyone pays payroll, state and local taxes, (This is irrelevant, the topic is income tax. Nevertheless, Mr. Benert is using as his evidence a problem with government which is actively opposed by conservatives. All these forms of taxation do nothing to further Mr. Benert's case, but in fact argues for his opposition. Further, it demonstrates that government has involved itself to pervasively into our private financial lives, so conservatives are once again correct.)
it turns out that “when you consider all taxes, the share paid by the wealthiest 1 percent falls to 21.6 percent, close to their share of pre-tax income, whereas the poorest quintile pay 2.1 percent, not much below their share of pre-tax income. America’s tax system does hardly anything to redistribute income.” (This conclusion is not justified by the facts presented. First, payroll taxes, of which Social Security and Medicare are the primary components, return to the taxpayer at some point, which negates Mr. Benert's point. And state and local taxes are an entirely separate issue, since the conservative position has to do with federal government. State and local governments must be addressed in their own contexts, since they are not federal issues.)
The article goes on to explain that over 60 percent of all “tax preferences” benefit the wealthiest 20 percent; only 3 percent help the bottom 20 percent. (Tax preferences mostly affect those who pay taxes? Wow, and we should be outraged at this?)
The government “spends” four times as much (through the mortgage-interest deduction) on housing for the well-off as it does for public housing for the poorest fifth. (Per household? Per quintile? It only stands to reason that a million dollar house has a substantially larger amount of loan interest, and therefore is a larger deduction. Again, a larger deduction is because of a larger expense, a perfectly sensible outcome.
But beyond that, the government "spends" nothing for deductions. Money that the government does not tax is not money missing from the treasury, because that money belongs to the taxpayer, not the government.)
That quintile does reap 30 percent of entitlement spending (mostly for the sick and elderly), but if that is what you call “redistribution,” then what’s the problem? (If we adopt the rhetoric of the Left, roads and sewers are also subsidies, as are libraries, fire and police, and garbage pickup. So it is hardly true that the "sick and elderly" are the primary recipients of government largess. By that measure, the sick and elderly are minor players in the equation.
But the real problem is that there are so many receiving government benefits, and to add insult to injury, they are simultaneously paying out. And none of it is having a positive effect on society. The country is teetering on the fiscal cliff, and people like Mr. Benert are content or explain it away or ignore it.
As is his habit, Mr. Benert attempts to draw conclusions based on incomplete or misleading data in order to establish his thesis. Unfortunately, his research appears to limited to leftist websites. )
No comments:
Post a Comment