WhyNotWhyNot
Active member
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2012
- Messages
- 483
- Reaction score
- 168
- Location
- Denver, CO
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
In recent years, federal income tax policy arguments have been a central feature of every election campaign. It has become a lightning rod in the daily rhetoric of discord of the House, the Senate, and the President. If we are not careful, the tax system will divide and destroy our union. Modern election strategies have been designed to fracture the populace into small interest segments and then to play to the favorable segments and attack the unfavorable segments. A common strategy is to “fight for the middle class” and denigrate the rich. This is the “Robin Hood” strategy that seeks to establish a “middle class voting block” motivated to vote for the candidate who will make the bad rich people pay for their mythical sins. The opposing strategy, which is equally common, is to “fight to protect us from Government take-over by taxation.” This strategy seeks to create an “establishment voting block” motivated to vote for the candidate who will protect rich people and businesses from losing their fruits of success. Tax policy is the favored tool of those who feature class warfare in their election strategies. On the one hand there are the candidates who accuse “the rich” and the “corporations” of avoiding taxes and not paying their “fair share”. They demand changes to the law that will increase taxes paid by businesses and those who have above average income. They passionately point to examples that on the surface appear to be outrageous – such and such a company made a gazillion dollars and paid no income tax last year!!!; or, so and so hedge fund manager schemed to make millions last year and paid less tax than his secretary. They seek to make us believe that these notable instances are the norm and the “middle class” is being trod upon by “the Man”. On the other hand, there are the candidates who promote lower taxes and absolutely insist on “no new taxes period”. They passionately justify their position with the rationalization that it is the “successful establishment” that makes investments in the new products and business growth that advances our standard of living, creates employment, and enlarges the income pool that is taxed. Therefore, reduction in the “upper class” and corporate spendable cash flow encumbers ability to pursue economic growth opportunities that benefit everyone. The conclusion of this argument is that taxing the establishment “excessively” hurts the middle class more. They speak with apparent logic and less emotion than the Robin Hood strategists but they intend to sow deep seated fear of an impending mythical government wealth grab. This group insists that tax revenue of any kind will not be increased no matter how dire the nation’s financial condition may become. Neither side actually wants a generally satisfying resolution because they are relying on taxation friction to divide and conquer the electorate. One side says “vote for me and I will raise taxes on the filthy rich who obtained their wealth through profits on your labor” while the other says” vote for me because I will hold off the filthy crowd that wants to take your hard gained earnings by raising your taxes”. Both sides say, “Vote for me because the other guy is out to take yours”.
Our fear should be that our national political leadership is so intent on establishing entrenched polarization regarding tax policy that they are “leading” us into becoming a divided nation that trusts nothing and no one.
Our fear should be that our national political leadership is so intent on establishing entrenched polarization regarding tax policy that they are “leading” us into becoming a divided nation that trusts nothing and no one.