Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

ECONOMY: Tax structure must be more equitable

Letter by Robert Jacklin, Lakewood on Nov. 10, 2011 at 11:34 am with 23 Comments »
November 10, 2011 12:42 pm

With all the productivity gains going to the top 1 percent since 1980, the middle class is starved of the money to serve as stimulus for the economy.

Since 1980, all growth stimulus was created by credit card borrowing, borrowing against inflated home prices, decline of savings rates, more two-earner families and deficit spending exacerbated by tax cuts primarily benefiting the well off.

None of these mechanisms are available now to reignite the economy. What is left is revision of the tax structure to more equitably spread the productivity gains to those who actually made them and will spend them.

Leave a comment Comments → 23
  1. concernedtacoma7 says:

    So Bob, you are saying the govt should use taxes to redistribute wealth?

    Why not just create more wealth, rather than steal from the top like Robin Hood?

  2. sandblower says:

    Redistribution through taxes is the only way that works. Money equals power and too few have too much power.

  3. What’s stopping any of you from accumilating more than you have now?

    any of you….?

  4. aislander says:

    I agree that the tax burden must be distributed more equitably. The top one percent pay over 36% of income taxes while controlling only 18% of the wealth. I believe everybody needs to have skin in the game…

  5. hansgruber says:

    So in the Declaration of Independence the famous line:

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” (But equal in taxes?)

    Anyone remember why the American’s revolted?

    Here’s one hint:

    After 1763, the British Parliament enacted a series of measures to increase tax revenue from the colonies. Parliament believed that these acts, such as the Stamp Act of 1765 and the Townshend Acts of 1767, were a legitimate means of having the colonies pay their fair share of the costs of maintaining the British Empire.
    Taxes?
    Having the colonies pay their fair share of the costs?
    Sound familiar?

  6. Hans – Does ‘NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION” sound familiar?

    The Stamp Act, and the Townshend Acts were passed by the English Parliament and applied only to England’s North American Colonies.

  7. took14theteam says:

    My lifestyle has significantly improved since 1980. My annual income has increased at least 20 times my 1980 level, yet I am not part of the 1%. Perhaps the seminar letters are trying to be a bit too supportive of the liberal buzzwords of today. The 1% vs the 99%. Keep telling a lie over and over and the uneducated masses will believe it as truth.

  8. sandblower says:

    thanks xring. these guys and gals never will learn if we don’t educate them with the truth.

  9. sandblower says:

    I confess. Conservatives are spin doctors. That’s it in a nutshell.
    There is nothing there in the information they provide. It is a sad commentary that repeating a falsehood over and over equates to the truth for so many on the extreme right.

  10. aislander says:

    Actually, concernedtacoma7, Robin Hood was reputed to have stolen back from the tax man what HE stole from the people. It’s kind of like today, when nonproductive nobility (the government types) took from the productive freemen (all of the 99% who are not in the 47% who pay NO taxes), but Robin gave it back to the freemen. As WE’RE going to do in 2012…

  11. aislander says:

    So…how does sending money to DC help anyone? Never mind: I know the answer already. It doesn’t.

  12. stumpy567 says:

    Lets penalize those who prosper.
    It will, no doubt, inspire those who have less to have more.

    I don’t see the sense in this. What country has ever succeeded with this ideal.
    It would be interesting to investigate the actual dollar amounts that the 1% pay in taxes relative to the 99%

    Put that in you pipe and smoke it Sandman!!!

  13. SwordofPerseus says:

    Hans- more school for you, recognize this?

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    Most of you right wingers seem to neglect the part of the constitution about promoting the general Welfare, of WE THE PEOPLE!

    The reason that many people in the US pay no income tax is because they do not make enough money, but to say they pay no taxes is a complete lie. They pay SS taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, phone taxes, gasoline taxes. In fact the average American wage earner in the lowest income bracket pays a larger percentage of his/her income in taxes than do the top 10%. Though most of the neanderthal brained right wingers fail to recognize this simple fact of economics and rather than think the information out, they mindlessly parrot the GOP talking points propagandized by FOX News or the inane comments and ideas from the newest crop of Repuglican presidential candidates. I use the term presidential very loosely.

  14. hansgruber says:

    SwordofPerseus-general Welfare?

    I happened to have a copy of the 1828 edition of Noah Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language. Here is how the word “welfare” was defined 40 years after it was written in the Constitution:

    WEL´FARE, n. [well and fare, a good going; G. wohlfahrt; D. welvaard; Sw. valfart; Dan. velfærd.]
    1. Exemption from misfortune, sickness, calamity or evil; the enjoyment of health and the common blessings of life; prosperity; happiness; applied to persons.
    2. Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government; applies to states.

    Clearly #2 applies

    No today’s def of Welfare like food stamps, section 8 housing ect…

  15. aislander says:

    The Founders discussed the idea of “general welfare” in their letters and in the Federalist Papers. As they saw it, the Federal government was proscribed from spending tax money in any way that benefited specific individuals, municipalities, or states. The expenditures had to benefit every American, in ways such as defense, transportation infrastructure, foreign relations, and so forth. Charity HAD to be private–general welfare meant general

    This was the accepted norm clear up until the first Roosevelt administration. Grover Cleveland, a Democrat, refused to approve relief to Texas farmers hit by a weather disaster, explaining that doing so would be unconstitutional. No Federal funds for rebuilding were sent to San Fransisco, Galveston, or Chicago after their respective disasters.

    This view is, in my opinion, one major reason that Social Security is universal and inaccurately referred to as insurance, when it is, in fact, a form of charity. Making ALL the charitable pursuits of government similarly universal is what is bankrupting the nation, and, in fact, the entire world…

  16. “Social Security is universal and inaccurately referred to as insurance, when it is, in fact, a form of charity.”

    Right. We pay into it all our working lives, but when we get it back, suddenly it’s charity. Right.

  17. There hasn’t been a tax increase in ten years – the “temporary” tax cuts were extended.

    The Recession resulted from policies put in place before the Obama presidency.

    The “Defend the 1%” group – what are your solutions? Lower taxes for the “job-producers” has not led to higher job creation – Bush’s Administration saw the worst job creation rates since Hoover, and might-as-well-be-Bush Obama’s jobs numbers are abysmal.

    What – besides denigrating the #ows movement – are your solutions?

  18. aislander says:

    LarryFine: The poor take out MUCH more from Social Security than they put in and the “rich” much less. Sounds like charity to me…

  19. aislander – ALL insurance payouts are not directly related to one’s premiums and therefore not “equitable”.

    But – just as is true with any insurance policy – the benefits you are eligible to receive directly responds to how much you pay in. Since I was a “starving artist” for years who worked as an independent contractor and didn’t net enough to have to pay Self-Employed alternative taxes – I have paid less into SSI and will receive less when I retire.

  20. aislander says:

    beerBoy: That’s just wrong. The less you put into SS the more you get out proportionally. It’s charity and a Ponzi scheme…

  21. concernedtacoma7 says:

    The more important part is that people receive more in SS and Medicare than they pay in. That is not how insurance works, when every policy is a loser (financially).

    More 1% and blame Bush. Cute. Ok, BHO inherited a recession. What has he done to improve the situation? He wants to solve the problem by growing a govt already drowning in deficit spending. Sorry, that hasn’t worked for the last 3 (or 11) years.

    Pelosi and Reid got the green light to push through a far left agenda. Those policies have done zero to help our Nation but a lot to hurt business and our standing in the world.

  22. How soon Concenered and company forget the Party of No and the Do Nothing Congress.

  23. Pacman33 says:

    How soon the Party of Tax, Spend and Corrupt Demunists forget the Party of Know has widespread backing in the American people.

    The people of Know announced this support with an extraordinary 63 seat swing in the House of Representatives. The American people confirmed they Know how costly and ineffective the debacle of Demunist majorities in the House and Senate along with a wealth-redistributing activist-attorney in the White House.

    They know the steep price of government intrusion into our lives, not only monetarily, but also the incalculable expenditure of liberty.

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0