Christians across the country are paranoid. In their mind there is an unmitigated war on Christianity where Christians are becoming the most ostracized group in America.
Essentially Christian oppression has become the white conservative version of playing the race card and conservative media darling Todd Starnes is the Al Sharpton of this movement. No offense is to insignificant for Starnes to fan the flames of imaginary outraged.
- Student gets reprimanded for adding "god bless America" to the morning announcements without permission and it's proof of Christians being marginalized.
- Say the pledge of allegiance in multiple languages to honor America's immigrant history and again its proof of Christians being marginalized.
For people like Starnes it is a matter of religious freedom for Christians to espouse their beliefs whenever and wherever they please. However if Muslims or Atheists were to do the exact same thing it would show how the liberal public education system is instituting Sharia law and indoctrinating students to hate Jesus. The cognitive dissociation required to make such contradictory arguments is astounding.
Of course guys like Starnes are easy to dismiss as media trolls looking to make a buck by pandering to the irrational fears of low information voters. The real problem is the wave of legislators across the nation who are peddling hate under the guise of religious rights.
In Michigan for example the legislature recently took up two different religious freedom bills. One would allow adoption agencies to deny service to people in the LGBT community. The other would allow for the denial of housing, refusal of service, or rejection of employment due to a citizen's religious beliefs.
The adoption bill seems destined to fail a constitutionally test since previous decisions regarding the separation of church and state have shown that these protections are for things that are secular in nature. Allowing a religious based adoption agency to receive state funding while denying service to people solely based on the organizations religious beliefs appears to violate the Supreme Courts previous rulings.
Perhaps more concerning than the potential constitutionality of this legislation is the idea that an organization acting as an intermediary has more rights than the children there are tasked with helping. If the kids don't mind having same sex parents then the religious objections of the adoption agency are completely immaterial. Do these organizations get to deny adoptions to individuals who have been divorced? Can they turn away adults who take contraception? Is being obese a rational religious exception? If an applicant had an abortion previously can they be rejected? These are all sins or against the religious teachings of these organizations - does that mean they are protected too?
But if legislators and these entities are really concerned about the well being of these children than maybe they should support legislation that prevents some of the thousands of mistreatments that occur at the hands of adoptive and foster parent each year. Does anyone really think protecting the religious rights of an organization should be a higher priority for Michigan than preventing harm to children?
Data also show that kids who are forced into foster care are more likely to be homeless, incarcerated, and unemployed. Is letting a same sex couple love and raise a child really worse than the alternative? Should children really have to suffer because of an organization’s religious objections?
The selfishness required to place the religious freedom of an organization above the good of children seems extraordinarily un-Christian.
As far as allowing people to deny services, housing, or employment based on faith is concerned, so far the courts have ruled against such arguments. If you want to discriminate against any particular group then all you need to do is become a member’s only entity. Churches can refuse to marry same sex couples because you must be a member to receive service. If you don't want any women at your private golf club there is nothing the government can do to prevent you from implementing such a policy. But if you want all the benefits of dealing with the public you forfeit your ability to operate outside of government regulations. The baker can refuse to include speech they find offensive on a cake but they can't refuse to provide cake based on who you are as a person.
Having said that if enacted these laws are likely to hurt the people they are designed to protect. A florist may refuse to provide flowers for a Catholic wedding since the Catholic Church has shown to protect pedophiles. A photographer could deny services to white customers because they only serve blacks. An atheist DJ could decline the opportunity to work with Christians because they have a conscious objection to their beliefs. And as soon as the shoe is on the other foot you can guarantee that Todd Starnes will be outraged and pretend that when these laws are used against Christians it is an abomination that requires government intervention.
The good news is that while this legislation may be popular among a small group of people the general trend shows that American's are increasingly against this sort of discrimination. This means like slavery, interracial marriage, and women's equality before it those who are using the bible as justification for their prejudice against the LGBT community will soon find themselves on the wrong side of history as well as the law.
In the end the constitution already protects everyone's religious freedom. If the courts have decided your brand of Christianity isn't covered by this historical document it doesn't mean there is a war against Christianity. It means you're using your religion to hide the fact that you're an intolerant bigot.
Friday, March 27, 2015
Friday, March 20, 2015
America needs labor unions
Speaker of the House John Boehner website says "Helping to build a stronger, healthier economy for all Americans is priority number one for House Republicans". He also is one of a small but growing number of Republicans that admit income inequality is a huge obstacle to reaching this goal. Unfortunately Boehner has failed to offer any solutions to this problem beyond the standard "blame Obama" rhetoric.
Luckily for Republicans like Boehner the party's policy from decades ago offers a simply solution to the U.S. income inequality problem. In extolling the virtues of former President Eisenhower's first term in office the GOP platform stated "The protection of the right of workers to organize into unions and to bargain collectively is the firm and permanent policy of the Eisenhower Administration." In fact, labor unions were so integral to America's success President Eisenhower also said "Labor is the United States. The men and women, who with their minds, their hearts and hands, create the wealth that is shared in this country—they are America."
Despite the Republican's change of heart the value of unions to the success of the U.S. economy remains the same today. A report from the Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development finds that that income inequality cost the U.S. economy 6 to 7 percentage points of growth during the first 10 years of this century. Considering that studies have found a direct correlation between the number of people in labor unions and the distribution of wealth it becomes clear that if the Republicans goal is to build a stronger, healthier economy for all Americans then continuing to add obstacles to organizing is the wrong approach.
Data show that in 2013 corporations profit as a percentage of gross domestic product hit record highs passing the record that was set just a year earlier. If trickledown theory, championed by Republicans, were ever to work then now would be the time since never before has then been so much available to trickle down. Unfortunately instead of sharing this wealth with the laborers who "create the wealth" the numbers show that the vast majority of the gains end up in the pockets of CEO's and shareholders.
Of course the problem isn't that Republicans are necessarily against collective bargaining or letting the workers get a greater piece of the pie. The problem is that they have latched on to every negative union stereotype they have ever heard of and created a union caricature that is antiquated and inaccurate. For example many believe that union bosses earn outrageous sums of money with some of the highest paid earning a little over 10 times the average union member salary. Yet of the companies that comprise Standard & Poor's top 250 the lowest ratio for CEO to employee wage is 173.
It's certainly possible that union heads bring home too much money but it is totally disingenuous to pretend that earning 10 times as much as the average worker is an atrocity while supporting companies who pay their top brass as much as 1,795 times what the average worker makes. The reality is that regardless of whether the organization is a union or a corporation the money the people at the top earn results in less money for the average worker.
These people also pretend that unions have an inordinate amount of influence in politics despite the data that show corporations outspent unions 15 to 1 in the most recent Presidential election cycle.
Some people suggest union members would be better off negotiating their wages independently as though each individual has the tools and power to strike a better deal than they could get as a union member. This is a mighty peculiar argument given that nearly all corporations use the power their size affords them to gain an advantage every day. Would Wal-Mart be able to offer the deals they currently do if they only owned one small store?
Corporations also hire experts to handle nearly every facet of business. Could the CEO also do the job of the accountant, the corporate lawyer, or the salesman? Sure, but they probably aren't as good as the people who have trained for these jobs. Similarly union members have experts in negotiation represent them which are why union members get a greater share of profits and have better benefits than their non union counterparts.
There are also people who believe unions go out of their way to protect bad members. Obviously unions would like to have as many members as possible but in a closed shop situation where is the incentive to retain the worst workers? The guy that is hired to replace the fired union member will automatically be enrolled in the union so there is no benefit in holding onto bad members. This is however an issue in so called "right to work" (RTW) states since the replacement employee may or may not join the union. This uncertainty may lead the unions to be slightly more protective of underperforming employees - making this a self fulfilling prophecy for RTW advocates.
Having said that what the unions are doing in these situations is representing the rights of the employee. The union isn't asked to be judge and jury; they are tasked with making the best case for the employee. To ask the unions to arbitrarily side with the company - against their members - suggests these people believe the corporation and their dismissal process to be infallible despite the mountains of evidence to the contrary.
In the end there are very few people who profit from diminished union membership. Unfortunately for the vast majority of those who oppose unions they are not in the group that enjoys the monetary benefits from low unionism.
There is no doubt that unions need to make some changes to address the image problem they currently have but to some extent that case if very easy to make. Lower union membership leads to higher income inequality which is bad for the economy. Unions are democratic capitalist organizations. If you don't like the way they are being run become a member and vote for change. After all Republicans have spent decades asserting that using government to pick the winners is losers is something only socialist would do.
The reality is unions are the greatest tool at most workers disposal for rebuilding the middle class. Advocating for the elimination of this tool is the epitome of cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Luckily for Republicans like Boehner the party's policy from decades ago offers a simply solution to the U.S. income inequality problem. In extolling the virtues of former President Eisenhower's first term in office the GOP platform stated "The protection of the right of workers to organize into unions and to bargain collectively is the firm and permanent policy of the Eisenhower Administration." In fact, labor unions were so integral to America's success President Eisenhower also said "Labor is the United States. The men and women, who with their minds, their hearts and hands, create the wealth that is shared in this country—they are America."
Despite the Republican's change of heart the value of unions to the success of the U.S. economy remains the same today. A report from the Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development finds that that income inequality cost the U.S. economy 6 to 7 percentage points of growth during the first 10 years of this century. Considering that studies have found a direct correlation between the number of people in labor unions and the distribution of wealth it becomes clear that if the Republicans goal is to build a stronger, healthier economy for all Americans then continuing to add obstacles to organizing is the wrong approach.
Data show that in 2013 corporations profit as a percentage of gross domestic product hit record highs passing the record that was set just a year earlier. If trickledown theory, championed by Republicans, were ever to work then now would be the time since never before has then been so much available to trickle down. Unfortunately instead of sharing this wealth with the laborers who "create the wealth" the numbers show that the vast majority of the gains end up in the pockets of CEO's and shareholders.
Of course the problem isn't that Republicans are necessarily against collective bargaining or letting the workers get a greater piece of the pie. The problem is that they have latched on to every negative union stereotype they have ever heard of and created a union caricature that is antiquated and inaccurate. For example many believe that union bosses earn outrageous sums of money with some of the highest paid earning a little over 10 times the average union member salary. Yet of the companies that comprise Standard & Poor's top 250 the lowest ratio for CEO to employee wage is 173.
It's certainly possible that union heads bring home too much money but it is totally disingenuous to pretend that earning 10 times as much as the average worker is an atrocity while supporting companies who pay their top brass as much as 1,795 times what the average worker makes. The reality is that regardless of whether the organization is a union or a corporation the money the people at the top earn results in less money for the average worker.
These people also pretend that unions have an inordinate amount of influence in politics despite the data that show corporations outspent unions 15 to 1 in the most recent Presidential election cycle.
Some people suggest union members would be better off negotiating their wages independently as though each individual has the tools and power to strike a better deal than they could get as a union member. This is a mighty peculiar argument given that nearly all corporations use the power their size affords them to gain an advantage every day. Would Wal-Mart be able to offer the deals they currently do if they only owned one small store?
Corporations also hire experts to handle nearly every facet of business. Could the CEO also do the job of the accountant, the corporate lawyer, or the salesman? Sure, but they probably aren't as good as the people who have trained for these jobs. Similarly union members have experts in negotiation represent them which are why union members get a greater share of profits and have better benefits than their non union counterparts.
There are also people who believe unions go out of their way to protect bad members. Obviously unions would like to have as many members as possible but in a closed shop situation where is the incentive to retain the worst workers? The guy that is hired to replace the fired union member will automatically be enrolled in the union so there is no benefit in holding onto bad members. This is however an issue in so called "right to work" (RTW) states since the replacement employee may or may not join the union. This uncertainty may lead the unions to be slightly more protective of underperforming employees - making this a self fulfilling prophecy for RTW advocates.
Having said that what the unions are doing in these situations is representing the rights of the employee. The union isn't asked to be judge and jury; they are tasked with making the best case for the employee. To ask the unions to arbitrarily side with the company - against their members - suggests these people believe the corporation and their dismissal process to be infallible despite the mountains of evidence to the contrary.
In the end there are very few people who profit from diminished union membership. Unfortunately for the vast majority of those who oppose unions they are not in the group that enjoys the monetary benefits from low unionism.
There is no doubt that unions need to make some changes to address the image problem they currently have but to some extent that case if very easy to make. Lower union membership leads to higher income inequality which is bad for the economy. Unions are democratic capitalist organizations. If you don't like the way they are being run become a member and vote for change. After all Republicans have spent decades asserting that using government to pick the winners is losers is something only socialist would do.
The reality is unions are the greatest tool at most workers disposal for rebuilding the middle class. Advocating for the elimination of this tool is the epitome of cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Monday, March 16, 2015
The white persons guide to eliminating racism
The conservative media has turned denying racism into a cottage industry. They say things like "the only people perpetuating racism are people like this gentleman from NAACP", "to drive African-Americans to the polls, the race card is now being played", "We have a black president, we have black senators... I don’t think there’s racism.", and "we don't have racism in America anymore".
The report regarding the systemic racism in Ferguson as well as a litany of other incidents over the past few years suggest racism is far from over in the U.S. With that in mind white America should consider the following statement from Thomas Sowell: “When you want to help people, you tell them the truth. When you want to help yourself, you tell them what they want to hear.” Well, the truth is data show if you are white you are probably racist. You may not be overtly racist but you are racist nonetheless.
Luckily conservative whites have spent an awful lot of time recently telling other races and cultures how they can go about fixing their issues so there is already a guide for white people to follow to help with their racist tendencies.
For example many conservative pundits obsessed over the idea that black leaders were ignoring problems in their communities to focus on systemic inequality in the justice system leading to the deaths of a disproportionately high number of African America's at the hands of law enforcement.
Bill O'Reilly even went as far as to offer up a couple "solutions" to fix what ails the African American community. The first gem was to suggest that "you’ve got to stop young black women from having babies out of wedlock".
Forgetting for a second that socioeconomic status not skin color is the greatest predictor of women having children out of wedlock it seems that if we were to apply O'Reilly's principles equally to both whites and blacks then to end racism we need to stop single whites from having children. After all if being unattached and black means your children are destined to be criminals then children of unwed white mothers will similarly have no choice but to be racist. It's just common sense.
The second completely not racist solution from O'Reilly was "you have to demand discipline in your public schools" because everyone knows that black students are inherently more disruptive than white students. If that wasn't the case then it would mean the reason black students are three times as likely to be suspended and expelled is racism.
Again, following the O'Reilly logic, we also need to demand discipline for whites in public schools since the education system has clearly failed these students. Some whites will claim that students are already being racially indoctrinated in Comrade Obama's public school system but if the conservative media has taught us anything it’s that reality doesn't matter when it comes to discussion about race. If it did then the fact that scores of black leaders were discussing the high rates of crimes in their communities, long before it became a conservative racist denial tactic, would have killed a key media talking point before it started.
Of course African American's aren't the only group that conservative whites have advice for. Following any violence by individuals or groups who are associated with Islam the conservative media outrage machine goes into overdrive. Muslims who interpret their holy book completely differently than the violent extremists are told they must denounce the actions of these people simply because the name of their faith is the same. It is also suggested that these people learn how to assimilate into a society that may be different than the way of life they are used to.
Obviously if these recommendations are good for Muslims then they should also be good for whites. Instead of making excuses for racists and their ignorant actions and statements all whites should denounce them. After all if you are white then you have something in common with racist whites. Essentially you are racist by proxy unless you excoriate white racists.
The same is true for assimilation. Clearly these racists are having trouble assimilating into a world where non-white people are afforded all the same freedoms and rights as their Caucasian countrymen. If whites followed Sean Hannity's rules for Muslims and eliminated all ‘no-go zones’ that deter or prevent non whites from certain places and activities, remove all religious paraphernalia from hotels, and prevent the government from representing any one religion then these racists would assimilate into the American melting pot and racism would completely disappear.
The good news is that conservative pundits have no shortage of spurious solutions that they could support to fix white America's racism problem. The bad news is that the arrogance that allows these people to pontificate on topics they are ill-informed to solve is the same arrogance that lets them dismiss even the most scientific data as invalid. If only these conservatives were as enthusiastic about addressing their own faults as they are pointing out the defect of others.
The report regarding the systemic racism in Ferguson as well as a litany of other incidents over the past few years suggest racism is far from over in the U.S. With that in mind white America should consider the following statement from Thomas Sowell: “When you want to help people, you tell them the truth. When you want to help yourself, you tell them what they want to hear.” Well, the truth is data show if you are white you are probably racist. You may not be overtly racist but you are racist nonetheless.
Luckily conservative whites have spent an awful lot of time recently telling other races and cultures how they can go about fixing their issues so there is already a guide for white people to follow to help with their racist tendencies.
For example many conservative pundits obsessed over the idea that black leaders were ignoring problems in their communities to focus on systemic inequality in the justice system leading to the deaths of a disproportionately high number of African America's at the hands of law enforcement.
Bill O'Reilly even went as far as to offer up a couple "solutions" to fix what ails the African American community. The first gem was to suggest that "you’ve got to stop young black women from having babies out of wedlock".
Forgetting for a second that socioeconomic status not skin color is the greatest predictor of women having children out of wedlock it seems that if we were to apply O'Reilly's principles equally to both whites and blacks then to end racism we need to stop single whites from having children. After all if being unattached and black means your children are destined to be criminals then children of unwed white mothers will similarly have no choice but to be racist. It's just common sense.
The second completely not racist solution from O'Reilly was "you have to demand discipline in your public schools" because everyone knows that black students are inherently more disruptive than white students. If that wasn't the case then it would mean the reason black students are three times as likely to be suspended and expelled is racism.
Again, following the O'Reilly logic, we also need to demand discipline for whites in public schools since the education system has clearly failed these students. Some whites will claim that students are already being racially indoctrinated in Comrade Obama's public school system but if the conservative media has taught us anything it’s that reality doesn't matter when it comes to discussion about race. If it did then the fact that scores of black leaders were discussing the high rates of crimes in their communities, long before it became a conservative racist denial tactic, would have killed a key media talking point before it started.
Of course African American's aren't the only group that conservative whites have advice for. Following any violence by individuals or groups who are associated with Islam the conservative media outrage machine goes into overdrive. Muslims who interpret their holy book completely differently than the violent extremists are told they must denounce the actions of these people simply because the name of their faith is the same. It is also suggested that these people learn how to assimilate into a society that may be different than the way of life they are used to.
Obviously if these recommendations are good for Muslims then they should also be good for whites. Instead of making excuses for racists and their ignorant actions and statements all whites should denounce them. After all if you are white then you have something in common with racist whites. Essentially you are racist by proxy unless you excoriate white racists.
The same is true for assimilation. Clearly these racists are having trouble assimilating into a world where non-white people are afforded all the same freedoms and rights as their Caucasian countrymen. If whites followed Sean Hannity's rules for Muslims and eliminated all ‘no-go zones’ that deter or prevent non whites from certain places and activities, remove all religious paraphernalia from hotels, and prevent the government from representing any one religion then these racists would assimilate into the American melting pot and racism would completely disappear.
The good news is that conservative pundits have no shortage of spurious solutions that they could support to fix white America's racism problem. The bad news is that the arrogance that allows these people to pontificate on topics they are ill-informed to solve is the same arrogance that lets them dismiss even the most scientific data as invalid. If only these conservatives were as enthusiastic about addressing their own faults as they are pointing out the defect of others.
Friday, March 6, 2015
Federal tax code unfair to the super rich
This past week the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) chaired by Republican Paul Ryan released a document titled 'Fairness in Tax Policy". Not surprisingly conservative pundits like Forbes contributor Robert W. Wood fall all over themselves to misrepresent the information in this document with statements like "The 1% Makes 19% Of All Income, Pays 49% Of All Taxes". The reality is this number is just a projection for 2015 tax returns not the actual data. As Fox News reports the most recent release by the IRS show the top 1% making 19% of the adjusted gross income while paying 35% of the taxes.
Of course this statistic only tells half of the story. Reports show that the top 1% also hold 40% of the wealth. Paying only 35% to control 40% seems like a situation most Americans would gladly accept. This simplistic statistic also misses the fact that federal income tax is only one of many taxes that American's pay. After taking into account all of the other taxes involved the reality is the top 1% actually pay less in taxes as a percentage of income than the next 20%.
Having said that, the supposed purpose of the JCT report is to discuss fairness in tax policy. If this is the case then why would they only touch a few minor tax inequality statistics?
For example is it fair for the top 1% to earn just 19% of the income yet receive 50.6% of the tax breaks?
Is it fair that nearly 20,000 household with income over $500,000 paid zero federal income tax?
Is it fair that someone in the 10% tax bracket that donates $1,000 only gets a credit of $100 while the same donation from someone in the 35% tax bracket gets a credit of $350?
Is it fair that the wealthiest 0.01% earn half of all the capital gains yet pay as little as a 15% tax rate on that income?
Is it fair that the top 20% of households receive 80% of the tax benefit of retirement savings while the bottom 60% only receives 7%?
Is it fair that each year the wealthy enjoy approximately $40 billion in tax breaks thanks to a step up basis rule that allows heirs to receive assets completely free of taxes?
Is it fair that politicians use misleading partial information to push for further tax cuts even though studies show those cuts tend to hurt economic growth?
Is it fair that interest and dividends earned must be reported as income yet capital gains are only realized upon the sale of the asset?
Is it fair that if you lose money in the stock market the government will subsidize your loss but if you lose money in your 401K they won't?
Is it fair that the mortgage interest deduction benefits only a third of American households?
Is it fair that as tax rates have come down over the last half century the top 1% has seen their share of income double?
Is it fair that some people get to consider the bulk of the income they earn for their job as capital gains and pay nearly half the rate those with a similar income?
If the goal of Paul Ryan and the JCT was to find one simple bit sized statistic that would convince low information voters that the super rich are somehow being repressed then using "the top 1% makes 19% of the income but pays 35% of the federal taxes" is the ideal talking point. It's easy to consume and allows Republicans to ignore the litany of benefits the tax code affords certain groups of wealthy Americans.
If, however, the goal was to report on the fairness in tax policy this report is an unmitigated failure.
If fairness is the ultimate objective then the fact that some of the top 1% pay the top tax rate while others pay zero in federal income taxes should obviously be a topic of discussion. If broadening the base is important then fixing the ever increasing income equality problem in the U.S. that causes the widening tax gap should be a top priority. If applying the tax code uniformly to all citizens is a concern then using official reports to mislead the public and advance a partisan agenda is shamefully unpatriotic.
It's certainly possible that the top tax rate in America is too high but the fact that elected officials in charge of tax policy pretend that what the top 1% pays in federal income tax is reasonable proxy for fairness tells you all you need to know about how serious they are about fixing the problem.
Of course this statistic only tells half of the story. Reports show that the top 1% also hold 40% of the wealth. Paying only 35% to control 40% seems like a situation most Americans would gladly accept. This simplistic statistic also misses the fact that federal income tax is only one of many taxes that American's pay. After taking into account all of the other taxes involved the reality is the top 1% actually pay less in taxes as a percentage of income than the next 20%.
Having said that, the supposed purpose of the JCT report is to discuss fairness in tax policy. If this is the case then why would they only touch a few minor tax inequality statistics?
For example is it fair for the top 1% to earn just 19% of the income yet receive 50.6% of the tax breaks?
Is it fair that nearly 20,000 household with income over $500,000 paid zero federal income tax?
Is it fair that someone in the 10% tax bracket that donates $1,000 only gets a credit of $100 while the same donation from someone in the 35% tax bracket gets a credit of $350?
Is it fair that the wealthiest 0.01% earn half of all the capital gains yet pay as little as a 15% tax rate on that income?
Is it fair that the top 20% of households receive 80% of the tax benefit of retirement savings while the bottom 60% only receives 7%?
Is it fair that each year the wealthy enjoy approximately $40 billion in tax breaks thanks to a step up basis rule that allows heirs to receive assets completely free of taxes?
Is it fair that politicians use misleading partial information to push for further tax cuts even though studies show those cuts tend to hurt economic growth?
Is it fair that interest and dividends earned must be reported as income yet capital gains are only realized upon the sale of the asset?
Is it fair that if you lose money in the stock market the government will subsidize your loss but if you lose money in your 401K they won't?
Is it fair that the mortgage interest deduction benefits only a third of American households?
Is it fair that as tax rates have come down over the last half century the top 1% has seen their share of income double?
Is it fair that some people get to consider the bulk of the income they earn for their job as capital gains and pay nearly half the rate those with a similar income?
If the goal of Paul Ryan and the JCT was to find one simple bit sized statistic that would convince low information voters that the super rich are somehow being repressed then using "the top 1% makes 19% of the income but pays 35% of the federal taxes" is the ideal talking point. It's easy to consume and allows Republicans to ignore the litany of benefits the tax code affords certain groups of wealthy Americans.
If, however, the goal was to report on the fairness in tax policy this report is an unmitigated failure.
If fairness is the ultimate objective then the fact that some of the top 1% pay the top tax rate while others pay zero in federal income taxes should obviously be a topic of discussion. If broadening the base is important then fixing the ever increasing income equality problem in the U.S. that causes the widening tax gap should be a top priority. If applying the tax code uniformly to all citizens is a concern then using official reports to mislead the public and advance a partisan agenda is shamefully unpatriotic.
It's certainly possible that the top tax rate in America is too high but the fact that elected officials in charge of tax policy pretend that what the top 1% pays in federal income tax is reasonable proxy for fairness tells you all you need to know about how serious they are about fixing the problem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
