Monday, February 23, 2009
Death to Tax Cuts, Long Live Tax Cuts
There's something infuriating about Obama and the Democratic Senate having to accept unproductive tax cuts in order to create any sort of stimulus. After all, previous ill-advised tax cuts are already hamstringing the government's ability to respond effectively to the crisis; and irresponsible tax-cuts were very much part of the weaselly mind-set that created the present crisis.
Again and again the right has been able to use the mantra of "tax-cuts" to hornswoggle the average voter and taxpayer into voting, not for genuine conservatism: but mere corporate rapacity.
So here's the long-term answer. I think it's inevitably where we'll end up, so let's get there while there's still something of our economy and culture to save: The Democratic party, and Canada's Liberals, should commit themselves to moving the tax system, over about a decade, over to one in which the average voter will not pay one dollar in income tax (and perhaps other taxes.)
Elections are won when 51% of the electorate agree with you, and very few people have a long-winded intellectual or ideational commitment to low taxes, for good reasons or bad. They just like the way money jingles in their pocket, that's all. If that same money is in the government's pocket, they don't hear that nice jingle any more; so that's not as much fun.
Fine. Done. Egalitarianism is not a bad thing, overall. No more taxes for you! You're obviously not responsible enough to know what they're for, anyway! At least this way, the most vicious ideologues on the right can't buy your vote for a song, ever again!
So the whole burden of taxation goes onto the top half of the population; and 50% of the voters won't think about taxes, again, ever, because they don't have to, and can't profit by it.
This tax shift means sharply punishing very high salaries, but why not? If a salary cap and high salary tax is acceptable in the big sports league, something like it won't exactly cause a peasant's revolt if government tries it. This one policy action can forever change the mathematics of every election to come. I believe it would initiate a swing away from the intensely corrupt government and legislation that we've seen over the last couple of decades, which ended in a great crash - because the average victim of that excess, the average taxpayer, can't be fooled into thinking that they're getting a part of the action. They're out of that game.
Note that starting on this road may mean, over time, not taxing the less rich half of those who actually vote - and not merely the less rich half of those who could vote or are registered to vote; but this doesn't change the math radically.
Again and again the right has been able to use the mantra of "tax-cuts" to hornswoggle the average voter and taxpayer into voting, not for genuine conservatism: but mere corporate rapacity.
So here's the long-term answer. I think it's inevitably where we'll end up, so let's get there while there's still something of our economy and culture to save: The Democratic party, and Canada's Liberals, should commit themselves to moving the tax system, over about a decade, over to one in which the average voter will not pay one dollar in income tax (and perhaps other taxes.)
Elections are won when 51% of the electorate agree with you, and very few people have a long-winded intellectual or ideational commitment to low taxes, for good reasons or bad. They just like the way money jingles in their pocket, that's all. If that same money is in the government's pocket, they don't hear that nice jingle any more; so that's not as much fun.
Fine. Done. Egalitarianism is not a bad thing, overall. No more taxes for you! You're obviously not responsible enough to know what they're for, anyway! At least this way, the most vicious ideologues on the right can't buy your vote for a song, ever again!
So the whole burden of taxation goes onto the top half of the population; and 50% of the voters won't think about taxes, again, ever, because they don't have to, and can't profit by it.
This tax shift means sharply punishing very high salaries, but why not? If a salary cap and high salary tax is acceptable in the big sports league, something like it won't exactly cause a peasant's revolt if government tries it. This one policy action can forever change the mathematics of every election to come. I believe it would initiate a swing away from the intensely corrupt government and legislation that we've seen over the last couple of decades, which ended in a great crash - because the average victim of that excess, the average taxpayer, can't be fooled into thinking that they're getting a part of the action. They're out of that game.
Note that starting on this road may mean, over time, not taxing the less rich half of those who actually vote - and not merely the less rich half of those who could vote or are registered to vote; but this doesn't change the math radically.
