HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
May 22, 2003 Let the class warfare begin. Now that the bulk of President Bush’s second round of tax cuts look like they will be passed, albeit in a very convoluted form, the first salvos pitting rich vs. poor are sure to follow. You can almost hear the “tax cuts for the rich” mantra already echoing across the 2004 election landscape. In fact, I’m going to set the over-under for the number of times we hear that particular catchphrase on the Democratic campaign trail at 500. Any takers? Seriously, you can’t swing a dead cat inside the Beltway these days without clocking some Democrat, especially those with presidential aspirations, crowing on about the unfair nature of President Bush’s approach to reinvigorating the economy. And who can blame them? In one pithy slogan, the Dems have added the ultimate weapon to the class warfare arsenal. Short, direct, and unambiguous, it’s the perfect way to convince Joe Sixpack that tax cuts, at least ones that apply to ALL taxpayers, are bad. “Tax cuts for the rich” invokes images of the “Monopoly” guy – monocle and all – wrapping a Cuban cigar in a $50 bill…and then lighting it with a $100. What else would the “rich” do with their ill- gotten tax relief - shred it to make bedding for their Shih Tzus? My added color aside, this characterization is disingenuous. Yes, the “rich” will get tax cuts, but what’s the alternative? The notion that tax relief is only justified by the relative paucity of digits in one’s annual income is ridiculous. If people in higher tax brackets pay much more than those in lower brackets each April, as they do, it follows that they will get more come relief time. To arrange a tax cut any other way amounts to income redistribution, plain and simple. But the Dems don’t want us to think of it that way. “Income redistribution” doesn’t sound so good. It smacks of socialism, as it well should. Democrats are well aware that while “steal from the rich and give to the poor” may have played well in Sherwood Forest, it’s a decidedly un-American concept. And let’s remember that the definition of “rich” – if a firm definition even exists - isn’t what most people think it is. An income of about $75,000, middle class by any standard, puts you in the top 10% of taxpayers. If you earn about $120,000, that puts you in the top 5%, which is the bracket that pays a whopping 55% of the total federal take from income taxes. Don’t get me wrong -120k makes for a nice income, but it hardly means you can jet to Vail for your skiing weekends. And how about that magic 1% that Democrats constantly carp about? Millionaires and rock stars all? Hardly. To qualify for that top tier, you must make about $293,000. Congrats. Again, that’s a very comfortable living, but you’re not exactly mackin’ it P-Diddy style (then again, who is?). Furthermore, few people stay in the same bracket for their whole lives. The “tax cuts for the rich” message may speak to a recent college grad traveling across the country in a rented Winnebago, living off Ramen noodles and trying to “find himself.” However, flash forward four years: the same guy has ditched the bong, cut his hair, and has computer degree from DeVry. Now that federal clip from his $75k salary that didn’t mean anything to him before hits a little closer to home. Bottom line: we’re talking real human beings here, not generic, static categories. All things to keep in mind when the Democrats attack the president’s tax cuts. Are they cuts for the rich? Well, depending on your definition of “rich,” yes, they are. But anything else would be income redistribution - taking money from people who make it and giving it to others, whether directly or in the more palatable guise of “programs.” That’s socialism, which manifests itself among democracies as the welfare state. (And one only has to look to the stagnant economies of Western Europe to find out what happens when the cradle-to-grave welfare state comes into full bloom.) That said, as long as people continue to buy into the divisive, class warfare approach to taxes, Democrats would be foolish to abandon their tactic. Again, who could blame them? On second thought, I’ll set that over-under at 750. Any takers? ------------ About Matthew Bastian: Recovering socialist, part-time drummer, long-suffering Brewers fan, and all-around beach hound, Mr. Bastian lives in central New Jersey. Email Matthew Bastian: mbastian19@hotmail.com Comment on this column in the forum. ------------ |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
