I used to believe in a flat tax, thought it was the answer to everything until a buddy reminded me of classes taken in college, namely economic classes. Unfortunately, I kind of forgot about them and found myself carried away by all the politicians (yeah, Republicans) and their "It's So Easy Flat Tax" and "9-9-9" plans. Fortunately, I woke up, thanks to this last Friday and the Bill Maher show (don't stop reading even if you hate him, okay? LOL!). He happened to have, as a guest, one of my favorite comedians, Bill Engvall. Now yes, I know he's a rootin' tootin', gun-toting, hunting and fishing Republican from Texas - and I'm a bleeding heart liberal from California - but he's the kind of Republican I think is still open-minded and I could have a really good conversation with, you know? Anyway, it was Bill E. who said something that forced me to remember my Economics classes. He said that he was looking for a Presidential candidate who was a
"businessman". Bill Maher immediately conntradicted him by saying something like, "No, our government isn't a business and, in fact, its job is to do what businesses can't and won't!"
I nodded emphatically in agreement with Maher but mentally - and okay - verbally chastised him (yes I talk to my television, don't you?) for
not adding,
"...so we don't need a businessman as our President, we need an ECONOMIST!"
And
that's when I remembered why a flat tax doesn't - and can't - work unless you're truly running a communistic government (and I mean Communistic in the
good way, not the way it was converted by Russia. Remember, a primary definition of communism is, as quoted from Webster's:
"A system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed....")
Now, if you apply a kind of warped theory similar to above, in other words, if we were all totally equal in jobs, wages, income, etc. a flat tax would certainly work, but we're not, by any means, equal in those areas.
For instance:
Let's say we adopt Rick Perry's flat income tax of 20% across the board - here's what it would look like (I'm not accounting for SS deductions, SSD, State tax or any other deductions from a person's gross income, mostly because the Republican party wants to do away with those programs by privatizing them, thus no deductions. I'm not accounting for any state tax either because many states don't have one):
So - a single woman earning $26,000 a year would pay 20% of her gross income - or $5,200 a year. This would leave her with a net income of $20,800 to live off of. I think we can all agree that losing $5200 a year is a huge amount for someone making only $26,000, right? In many states, this single woman just moved to the poverty level with that net income!
BTW: in 2011, and not counting any deductions she's currently entitled to, she'd be in the 15% bracket.
Okay, now let's apply this same flat tax to a family of four who are also bringing in $26,000 a year. They'd also pay out the $5,200 to the government, thus leaving them with the same $20,800 - except that $20,800 now has to support FOUR people - and that can't be done. They'd actually drop below the poverty level in most - hell, probably all - states!
BTW: in 2011, and not counting any deductions the family is currently entitled to, they'd be in the 15% bracket as well.
Now let's take the pay of the average CEO of a major corporation which, according to Psychology Today, "...was paid $15 million in 2005." (Yes, we know it's more today, but we'll go with $15 million for this demo)
Okay, so based on that, let's apply the flat tax of 20%:
He'd pay three million in taxes, leaving him with twelve million - which is far from anyone's poverty level - even millionaires!
BTW: today, he, and anyone making over $350,000, would pay 35% - thanks to Bush, who lowered the rate from 39% (and which Obama is trying to get back up)
Now, do you really think the above flat 20% tax is fair or equitable? Can you see why our tax system is a
graduated system and
NOT a flat tax?
The loss of
three million dollars to a man/woman/family making
fifteen million is nothing compared to the family of four who loses
five thousand-two hundred dollars from their meager
twenty-six thousand a year! Both the family
and the single woman would find themselves at or below poverty level for 2011 according to
Wikipedia:
"The poverty level was set at $22,350 (total yearly income) for a family of four."
BTW: Wikipedia also posts a table showing the poverty
threshold (which is not the same as the poverty
level or the number of those who are considered 'poor') in the US:
(HHS) figures for poverty in 2011
[3]
Persons in
Family Unit | 48 Contiguous States
and D.C. | Alaska | Hawaii |
| 1 | $10,890 | $13,600 | $12,544 |
| 2 | $14,710 | $18,380 | $16,930 |
| 3 | $18,530 | $23,160 | $21,320 |
| 4 | $22,350 | $27,940 | $25,710 |
| 5 | $26,170 | $32,720 | $30,100 |
| 6 | $29,990 | $37,500 | $34,490 |
| 7 | $33,810 | $42,280 | $38,880 |
| 8 | $37,630 | $47,060 | $43,270 |
Each additional
person adds | $3,820 | $4,780 | $4,390 | | | | |
Pretty clear why we can't have a flat tax, isn't it? Clear why Cain's 9-9-9 plan is even worse and less equitable then Perry's. Not to mention, both candidates have already backed off the 'no deductions', which makes a flat tax totally ridiculous since if you have a flat tax
and deductions, then the tax is no longer flat for all.
Oh, and can you imagine what would happen to charities and tithing for Churches? Think how they depend on charitable contributions based on the fact that said contributions are DEDUCTIBLE! Sure, we'd love to think the rich would still make those contributions, but fact is - most wouldn't. They make them for a specific reason - to get MORE money back, so they're certainly not making those contributions for altruistic reasons! (Oddly enough, the poor would still make their charitable contributions since they don't itemize anyway and can't deduct them!)
This is why we need an Economist in the Oval Office - not to mention within the Senate and House of Representatives. And it's why
you need to do more than watch Fox News, CNN or MSNBC. It's why you need to
RESEARCH candidates and their qualifications. For instance, did you know that 92% of Herman Cain supporters think that the National Restaurant Association is an organization like the PTA??? They have NO idea it's a LOBBY for restaurant owners - one dedicated to the removal of organizations that oversee the cleanliness of restaurants, the food they purchase, and that make their life more difficult and cut their ability to make a higher profit! 92% do
NOT know this because they haven't bothered to
LEARN.
Which brings us to the other part of this post: How smart can our candidates be and still get elected? And again, I have Bill Engvall to thank for asking this question. On Friday, he stated that he was thinking of voting for Herman Cain because the man talked in a way Bill could understand. Cain represented, for Engvall, '
everyman' - or one who speaks plainly with no political mumbo jumbo.
Trouble is - that 'plain speak' is based on nothing substantial. There's no knowledge behind it and that's true for Perry and other candidates as well. They do NOT know American politics, history, foreign affairs, economics, etc.
Does anyone remember Adlai Stevenson? (If not, read up on him). This man lost not once, not twice, but
three times in his bid for President of the United States (he won the Democratic nomination twice but lost the race to Dwight D Eisenhower, then ran in the Democratic primary against Kennedy and lost that). So why do I bring him up? Because historians will tell you that Stevenson lost due to the fact that he was ... yep,
SMART.
In fact, he was
too smart,
too eloquent, too
much of an intellectual and thus, actually scared most Americans. I find that idea abhorrent; that anyone would refuse to vote for someone because he was too
intellectual - when in reality, that's what we need in our President! I also find it abhorrent that we'd support a man who is the opposite, whether deliberately so or because he/she really isn't smart enough to
be President.
In my history classes, I came to truly appreciate Adlai Stevenson - in fact, he's responsible for my choosing to become a Democrat versus following our family into Republican-land. I still remember this quote, which actually made me cry because it said what I'd always felt:
"I think that one of our most important tasks is to convince others that there's nothing to fear in difference; that difference, in fact, is one of the healthiest and most invigorating of human characteristics without which life would become meaningless. Here lies the power of the liberal way: not in making the whole world Unitarian [Universalist], but in helping ourselves and others to see some of the possibilities inherent in viewpoints other than one's own; in encouraging the free interchange of ideas; in welcoming fresh approaches to the problems of life; in urging the fullest, most vigorous use of critical self-examination."
Could
anything be more true or needed - especially today? More worthy of our attention and belief?
I don't think so
- not in a country where one group is trying so hard to segregate us; to steal our ability to vote; to
take rights instead of
protecting them.
Most historians believe Eisenhower won against Stevenson because Ike was not only a war hero, but a "
Plain speaking man", a man '
of the people'. Even his name, "Ike" was easier to deal with than "Adlai" - but again, I believe that kind of thinking sells all of America short. Are we really that dumb that we need an Ike or a Herman or a Rick because they're obviously 'one of us' where a Barak or even a "Mitt" isn't? Are we so stupid that we NEED plain talk that says nothing but reveals a total lack of understanding of our nations needs? Do you really think that being asked about who the President of
Uzbekistan (if you're running for President) is a '
gotcha' question? And if so, do you really believe that
these are the words of a man who should be President based on his response to such a question: (actual transcript of Cain and Christian interviewer)
Sympathetic Interviewer:
"Are you ready for the ‘gotcha’ questions that are coming from the media and others on foreign policy? Like, who’s the president of Uzbekistan?"
CAIN: "I’m ready for the ‘gotcha’ questions and they’re already starting to come. And when they ask me who is the president of Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan I’m going to say, you know, I don’t know. Do you know?"
I know how I'd answer Cain:
"No, Mr. Cain, I don't - but then - I'm not running for the highest office of the land and you are."
Get smart, America. This is your future and the future of your children and your children's children - and it's no time to be short-sighted or to adopt a policy of 'every man, woman and child for themselves' - because that's not who we are. Nor are we a 'small government' - the kind that's so small, it takes rights away from workers, literally makes it impossible for a large percentage of the 'state' or country to vote, takes contraception away from everyone, and defines for everyone what a marriage is and isn't or who we can or can not marry. That's not small government, folks, that's the most intrusive government possible.
