(Forgive the length of the post, but I found it all necessary to discuss the topic)
I've never liked this phrase. Perhaps, I will admit, because I don't like the political ideology that it is currently used to describe, but we'll get into that in a minute. As anyone who knows me is aware, I have been more and more disillusioned by the political landscape of late. Will has pointed out that he feels bad for me, as my side of the political spectrum over the last ten years has moved further from what I stand for, his has moved closer to what he stands for. But I guess thats what you get when you are a communist (Will, not me), but I digress.
I decided this last year, that it was wrong of me to sit on the sidelines and complain about this migration that the party most closely aligned with my beliefs is experiencing, and I should get active. So, as the time for political activity approached, I studied up on the various Republican candidates for Senate in Utah. I read everything I could find that the various candidates themselves said or printed. I then studied the various stances they espoused. I did everything that I could to prepare myself for the upcoming local meeting where we would pick a delegate. I had never before registered with a political party, and had never before attended one of their meetings, but being a spectator no longer seemed like an option, so I got ready and went to the local caucus. I would have loved to be a delegate, but didn't feel comfortable nominating myself, so I ended up being an alternate. To the credit of the delegates that represented our district, my voice and opinions were always very sincerely listened to, and sought after, though in the end my delegates and I did not at all see eye to eye, this is not a commentary on them, as I believe them to be sincere, and wonderful people as I know them personally. This is all back story, because the true point of this post is to point out the multitudinous problems with a phrase that became popular as it was championed by the likes of Mike Lee, and portions of the current political movement on the right. Skin in the Game.
Now, what is actually meant by this. As far as everything I can gather from reading and discussions with the proponents of this ideology, it means that we need to have everyone, every single adult, paying taxes. The basic theory is that if everyone, no matter how poor, paid taxes, they would be less likely to support candidates and legislation that spent more money. I don't find fault with the goal, to encourage the government and our representatives to be more fiscally responsible, I too would champion such an outcome. I will, however, through this post, lay out the reasons for my very strong opposition to this idea, and line of thinking.
Poor people don't pay taxes. Its an oft used phrase, one I have myself used. Though it is not wholely accurate. While it is true that up to a certain income, people don't pay income tax (by the way, its not just the poor, with my number of children and the amount of money I make, I don't pay federal income tax either), its not accurate to say that they don't pay any taxes. Property tax, sales tax, and the payroll taxes are not income discriminate. Anyone that lives in anything pays property tax, anyone that buys anything pays sales tax, and anyone that has a job pays payroll tax. So, to set the foundation for the discussion, lets just clarify. There is a segment of the populace, that pay no income tax. It is wide ranging, as I pointed out, in my current situation that includes me. However, even the poorest do already pay some taxes.
Taxes are, by their very nature, unfair. It was the first thing my Basic Income Tax professor told us the first day of that class in Law School. You can waste your time arguing it if you want, but I believe it to be indisputable. We (the government) are taking your money, and you get nothing assured in return. Now of course in practice there are a multitude of things that everyone gets in return from the taxes taken, but bear in mind that those aren't guaranteed, whoever happens to be in office decides how much of your stuff to take, and what to spend it on. People, I think, really need to understand that. There isn't a 'fair' level of taxation and an 'unfair' level of taxation. All taxation is unfair, but some taxes or kinds of taxes, or taxing paradigms may be more palatable to one person or another.
So, lets get to it. Skin in the game, the idea that everyone should pay taxes, or rather, the idea that everyone should pay taxes, the way Mike Lee (using Mike Lee as an archtype, as I know he stands for this, and I can't really say 'Republicans' or 'Tea Partiers' as I don't think all of any one group has this stance) thinks is the fairest. The most common proposal I have seen is for a 'fair tax' (I hate this term, but they came up with it, not me). This is usually denotes a complete repeal of income tax as it is now, and institution of a consumption or national sales tax, estimates I have seen put the national sales tax in the range of 26%. Lets talk about that for a second. You don't pay your income tax, but everything you purchase costs 26% more. To put that in real world situations.
When I was going to Law School, I didn't have a job, Alisa worked. We made very little money, had our first child 7 months into Law school, and lived frugally in the old married student housing at the U. For the first year, Alisa was also finishing her degree, to say we had little money is accurate. We didn't buy much, but there is, of course, a basic level of stuff that has to be purchased. Earned income credits, child tax credits, and college tuition credits were incredible blessings every February, I grew to love doing my taxes. Now, I imagine losing all of that money, and my expenses going up by 26%, and I don't think I could have done it. Our options would have been Alisa or I getting a second job, moving in with my parents, dropping out of Law School, or going into even more student debt than I did. Now, while all of those are things we could have done, what is the benefit? Bear that question in mind as I continue.
Someone who makes minimum wage grosses 1260 per month (believe me, I deal with incomes constantly in my job). Lets take a single mom with two kids. She works full time, but only makes minimum wage. She lives in a government subsidised apartment, so that rent is low, and she is on food stamps already. She is on medicaid, because of course her minimum wage doesn't have benefits. She pays no income tax, obviously, but of course she does pay payroll taxes, so after all her fixed expenses her take home from a minimum wage job is only a few hundred dollars. She has utilities, and a car payment, school supplies, clothes for her and her kids, cleaning supplies, basic household neccesities and any unforseen expenses. Maybe, if she is lucky, she has enough for some Christmas, and Birthday stuff, and an occasional fun activity or extra curricular for one of her kids. All in all, stuff is tight. Now, say we take away all the Earned income credits and child tax credits, and on top of that, we make everything she buys 26% more expensive. So, her buying power is now 26% less. She obviously can't buy as much stuff, so stores sell less stuff to her, her quality of life, and that of her kids goes down further. Lets say she spends 400 dollars a month on various things, 26% of that is 104 dollars. She doesn't just magically get that much money more per month, so she really only is able to purchase 296 dollars worth of stuff now, but still spends 400, 104 of that goes to the federal government. So, what is our benefit. We have made her have 'skin in the game'. She now pays 104 dollars per month in taxes to the government. We'll be out of debt before you know it. Sales drop by 26% to the segment of the society that have no extra disposable income in their monthly budgets. But we do get 104 dollars per month from a single mom who makes minimum wage. So surely, with all these new tax payers on the rolls, the budget problems will be more balanced, right? Well, bear in mind, you've also lost all the income tax of people who make more than 7.25 per hour.
You see, there is a finite amount of stuff that most people will purchase in a given month. Everyone needs a certain amount of stuff, now, some of us buy an amount more than we need, but at a given point, you can just only purchase and consume so much. So a national sales tax has a break off point. A person making minimum wage, 7.25 per hour, may spend 400 dollars per month and pay of that 104 dollars in taxes. Making their relative tax burden 8.25%. But in order for that to actually be 'fair' or even, a person making 120.19$ per hour, or 250k a year, would have to pay $1718.75per month in this national sales tax spending roughly 6610.57 every month on purchases. It strains credulity to claim that there is not a natural cut off on how much people actually spend each month, to believe that everyone that makes 250k per year will spend six and a half thousand dollars a month on taxable purchases, does not ring true to me.
Taking all of that into account, what is the benefit to the nation of taxing the minimum wage earner 26% on all purchases? Does it make them go get a degree, so they can earn more? Does it relieve the national budget burden, and bring in enough money to pay the bills? Does it force congress to spend less? I would say the answer to all of these questions is a resounding no.
There is only one thing that, in my opinon, this tax system would do, only one, and that is lower the tax burden exponentially the more money you make. Thats right, it would lower the taxes on people who make more money. I would ask anyone who cares to, to explain how raising the taxes on the poor, while lowering the taxes on the more well off solves any problem?
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Friday, July 2, 2010
A Modest Proposal (but no baby eating)
So, I was asked what I would do about Illegal Immigration so I'll lay it out here. I'm more than happy to entertain suggestions, but from all of the thought I have given it, I've come up with the following. (In the spirit of disclosure, not all of the ideas are mine, but I take what I like and run with it).
First, to get some basic foundational things out of the way. I do think illegal immigration is a problem. I do think our society would be better off with 0 illegal immigration. There are obvious problems with tax implications, working under the table, and most importantly in my mind, id theft. Plus, the influx of people coming over the border makes enforcement nearly impossible, which I also believe is very problematic. I see those as the main problems, and I do believe that they need to be fixed. Here is my basic plan for what to do.
First, to be perfectly clear, I think trying to deal with only half of this problem at a time is just ridiculous. To compare it to say, the oil leak in the gulf, makes absolutely no sense, you do not have to 'plug the leak' before any 'clean up' takes place. If the system to get here legally, and the system for dealing with people already here is not fixed at the same time the border is fixed, the border fix will not work. They must go hand in hand.
Okay, here we go. There are 3 basic problems that need to be dealt with. First, the border. Second, the system of entering the country legally. Third, what to do with the millions of undocumented people already here.
First, the border. Having a secure border is absolutely necessary for national security. Immigration proponents that do not believe that, in my opinion, are just as self-deluded as immigration opponents who think all we need to do is enforce harshly and the rest cares for itself. I will forego a giant list of reasons for enforcing border security, the necessity is a given. I believe in a multi prong approach. I believe that there needs to be a combination of physical barriers, increased border patrol presence (i.e. more agents), and a high reliance on advanced technology. Currently, our best weapon, the advanced technology, is basically crippled. So many people come across that it is hard to use the technology to its utmost, to pinpoint spots that bad guys are crossing. This is fixed with dealing with the second basic problem, but we'll get there. Once there is a way for those who want to come here for work/school/medical care/freedom etc. legally, then those who are sneaking across, and are caught with the technology, we know they are the bad guys. All of these things, in my opinion, will be very successful, but only if we drastically cut the number of people crossing the border everywhere.
(to be clear though, no matter how much security at the border is stepped up, there will always be ways to cross the border illegally. But if we can expend the resources to stop drugs, criminals, and all around bad people from coming in, instead of the good guys, we'll be much more effective)
Second, we need to fix the system of entering the country legally. Currently, for someone to enter the country legally requires a lot of money, time, and luck. The system imposes burdensome fees at almost every crossroads of legal entry and residence and citizenship. The fees themselves are a giant fence keeping out the poor. Then there is the beauracracy. Paperwork, and waiting periods. The yearly alotment of guest worker visas is routinely gone by January or February. People's requests for entry into the country can take literally (and its very important that that is understood, this is not hyperbole) years. YEARS. However, if you have luck on your side it might work. A labyrinth of rules on which people we want to let in and who we don't make it so that there are some (professional athletes, maybe someone a big corporation wants to come in and work, basically someone that a very wealthy person/corporation is interested in), are able to get through the system fairly quickly, while someone unskilled or 'less desireable' may for all intents and purposes be barred from entry.
It would be my proposal that we simplify the process. People wishing to come here could. A criminal background check would be used. And everyone entering would be fingerprinted, and obviously have to go through a search for drugs etc.. There would be a few specific entry points, anyone entering at any other spot would be assumed to be a criminal. We could have two separate systems, one for those who just want to come work (guest worker program) and another for those who want a path to citizenship.
Third, what to do with those that are here. Honestly, I have no problem with the word amnesty. I think its a great word, and I embrace it fully. If estimates are to be believed, there are between 12-20 million undocumented people here. In my opinion, the only workable option is to provide a plan to let these people make themselves right with the law. A system whereby individuals need to come forward, pay a fine, and register. They then can enter one of the two systems, guest worker, or path to citizenship. I don't care if we put them at the end of the line (I actually don't think it matters, since we are blowing up the line anyway), but those that are here that want to become citizens should have that opportunity.
This takes care of all of the problems I have heard associated with illegal immigration. Taxes are now paid, they pay into the system that they benefit from, and most importantly, identity theft is left to the tweakers. Immediately the demand for false/stolen ids plummets, which cuts into the money of criminal elements.
On top of this, once these problems are taken care of, I have no problem with huge penalties for those who employ anyone illegally. Giant fines, and possible criminal penalties for knowingly employing someone here illegaly.
Any thoughts?
First, to get some basic foundational things out of the way. I do think illegal immigration is a problem. I do think our society would be better off with 0 illegal immigration. There are obvious problems with tax implications, working under the table, and most importantly in my mind, id theft. Plus, the influx of people coming over the border makes enforcement nearly impossible, which I also believe is very problematic. I see those as the main problems, and I do believe that they need to be fixed. Here is my basic plan for what to do.
First, to be perfectly clear, I think trying to deal with only half of this problem at a time is just ridiculous. To compare it to say, the oil leak in the gulf, makes absolutely no sense, you do not have to 'plug the leak' before any 'clean up' takes place. If the system to get here legally, and the system for dealing with people already here is not fixed at the same time the border is fixed, the border fix will not work. They must go hand in hand.
Okay, here we go. There are 3 basic problems that need to be dealt with. First, the border. Second, the system of entering the country legally. Third, what to do with the millions of undocumented people already here.
First, the border. Having a secure border is absolutely necessary for national security. Immigration proponents that do not believe that, in my opinion, are just as self-deluded as immigration opponents who think all we need to do is enforce harshly and the rest cares for itself. I will forego a giant list of reasons for enforcing border security, the necessity is a given. I believe in a multi prong approach. I believe that there needs to be a combination of physical barriers, increased border patrol presence (i.e. more agents), and a high reliance on advanced technology. Currently, our best weapon, the advanced technology, is basically crippled. So many people come across that it is hard to use the technology to its utmost, to pinpoint spots that bad guys are crossing. This is fixed with dealing with the second basic problem, but we'll get there. Once there is a way for those who want to come here for work/school/medical care/freedom etc. legally, then those who are sneaking across, and are caught with the technology, we know they are the bad guys. All of these things, in my opinion, will be very successful, but only if we drastically cut the number of people crossing the border everywhere.
(to be clear though, no matter how much security at the border is stepped up, there will always be ways to cross the border illegally. But if we can expend the resources to stop drugs, criminals, and all around bad people from coming in, instead of the good guys, we'll be much more effective)
Second, we need to fix the system of entering the country legally. Currently, for someone to enter the country legally requires a lot of money, time, and luck. The system imposes burdensome fees at almost every crossroads of legal entry and residence and citizenship. The fees themselves are a giant fence keeping out the poor. Then there is the beauracracy. Paperwork, and waiting periods. The yearly alotment of guest worker visas is routinely gone by January or February. People's requests for entry into the country can take literally (and its very important that that is understood, this is not hyperbole) years. YEARS. However, if you have luck on your side it might work. A labyrinth of rules on which people we want to let in and who we don't make it so that there are some (professional athletes, maybe someone a big corporation wants to come in and work, basically someone that a very wealthy person/corporation is interested in), are able to get through the system fairly quickly, while someone unskilled or 'less desireable' may for all intents and purposes be barred from entry.
It would be my proposal that we simplify the process. People wishing to come here could. A criminal background check would be used. And everyone entering would be fingerprinted, and obviously have to go through a search for drugs etc.. There would be a few specific entry points, anyone entering at any other spot would be assumed to be a criminal. We could have two separate systems, one for those who just want to come work (guest worker program) and another for those who want a path to citizenship.
Third, what to do with those that are here. Honestly, I have no problem with the word amnesty. I think its a great word, and I embrace it fully. If estimates are to be believed, there are between 12-20 million undocumented people here. In my opinion, the only workable option is to provide a plan to let these people make themselves right with the law. A system whereby individuals need to come forward, pay a fine, and register. They then can enter one of the two systems, guest worker, or path to citizenship. I don't care if we put them at the end of the line (I actually don't think it matters, since we are blowing up the line anyway), but those that are here that want to become citizens should have that opportunity.
This takes care of all of the problems I have heard associated with illegal immigration. Taxes are now paid, they pay into the system that they benefit from, and most importantly, identity theft is left to the tweakers. Immediately the demand for false/stolen ids plummets, which cuts into the money of criminal elements.
On top of this, once these problems are taken care of, I have no problem with huge penalties for those who employ anyone illegally. Giant fines, and possible criminal penalties for knowingly employing someone here illegaly.
Any thoughts?
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Tone of Discourse
I was asked to speak in church this last week based on a comment I made in Bishopric meeting. Thats what I get for opening my mouth right? Who am I kidding, I enjoy speaking in church. But, I have to admit, I was more nervous about this talk than any before. I actually wrote the whole thing out, instead of just having an outline. I wanted to make sure that the things I was saying were not just my opinions, but that they were doctrine. So, I reined in some of the things I wanted to say, and kept it very specifically from conference talks, and the scriptures. After two youth speakers and an intermediate hymn, I still had 30-35 minutes to talk. So, what was my talk about? It was about working towards Zion, with a particular focus on being unified. It all blossomed from thoughts I have had about the level of political discourse, on all levels of society today.
I have been very disappointed over the last few months as I have watched this new wave of angry citizens use their collective political might. Its not so much their political stances (which I don't particularly agree with), its more in the tone. And don't for a second think that I believe that the tea partiers, or any specific group is solely responsible for political tone, I don't, but the current atmosphere is just a great example of where we have come to. And where we are is a place I am uncomfortable with.
In a talk entitled, "Instruments of the Lord's Peace" Elder Robert Wood of the Seventy asked the following,
How often do we get email forwards filled with jokes about those who disagree with us, and not really funny ha ha jokes, but jokes that are filled with cruel stereotypes or vicious denunciations? How often do we assume and attribute the worst motives of human nature to those on the other side of an issue, instead of giving the benefit of the doubt that though we disagree, others motives are as sincere as our own?
Elder Wood went on to say,
Those of us in the church hear ever election season the letter from the First Presidency stating that the Church does not support or endorse any candidate, party, or platform, and that we should support good men and women, and that they can be found in all parties. Do we believe it? I'm serious, how many people tune out when that letter is read, because they have heard it before. I think it may contain some of the most important counsel for us today we could have. It is too easy to assume that because our personal opinions coincide with one political party or another, that that is the party where truth and right are, that these are the good stances, and the other side is bad, wrong, and evil.
For those of us that are members of the church, it may be instructive to go to lds.org and look at the church's political stances. There aren't many, which should be incredibly telling. It is easy to slip into the idea that because the church is conservative on several major social issues, that conservatism is the way of the church. It is not. The gospel of Christ is not bound by such man made labels. It deals in eternal principles, not these things. Examples, do I think that taxes should be low, and that a more free market system is better for a country and an economy? Yes, does the gospel require, or suggest that? Not anywhere I can see. Embryonic stem cell research? Thats a hot button topic for a lot of people. Surely it is a moral question, right? Well, check out the website, the church is neutral on it.
It may seem that I am picking on more republican leaning people, and that is probably because members are usually right leaning, but it can go both ways. How about when the church has come out with a stance, and it disagrees with what we have come to believe? Gay marriage, abortion, mothers staying home to care for their children?
The problem that we must watch for is when our political beliefs, those temporary temporal subjects that hold little to no eternal value become so important in our lives that they overshadow those things that are eternally important. One such eternal value is unity. The Lord said in Doctrine and Covenants 38:27 ". . .be one; and if ye are not one, ye are not mind."
We can't be unified if our hearts are filled with animosity towards those who think differently politically. Elder Wood counseled in his talk,
Also, quoting President Hinckley,
I used to be so interested in politics. I was kind of a junkie, and constantly read and kept up on everything, and consequently, had very strong opinions that I would argue tooth and nail. I can't do it anymore. Politics, for the most part, leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I am grateful for any good man/woman who can get involved and serve with integrity, but so much of it has become so distasteful. And I don't think we have anyone to blame but ourselves. Conservative or liberal, both sides inject so much vitriol to gain ground, to one up the other. We must learn to do differently if we are to be one.
I have been very disappointed over the last few months as I have watched this new wave of angry citizens use their collective political might. Its not so much their political stances (which I don't particularly agree with), its more in the tone. And don't for a second think that I believe that the tea partiers, or any specific group is solely responsible for political tone, I don't, but the current atmosphere is just a great example of where we have come to. And where we are is a place I am uncomfortable with.
In a talk entitled, "Instruments of the Lord's Peace" Elder Robert Wood of the Seventy asked the following,
"Have we who have taken upon us the name of Christ slipped unknowingly into patterns of slander, evil speaking, and bitter stereotyping? Have personal or partisan or business or religious differences been translated into a kind of demonizing of those of different views? Do we pause to understand the seemingly different positions of others and seek, where possible, common ground?"
How often do we get email forwards filled with jokes about those who disagree with us, and not really funny ha ha jokes, but jokes that are filled with cruel stereotypes or vicious denunciations? How often do we assume and attribute the worst motives of human nature to those on the other side of an issue, instead of giving the benefit of the doubt that though we disagree, others motives are as sincere as our own?
Elder Wood went on to say,
"We should avoid caricaturing the positions of others, constructing “straw men,” if you will, and casting unwarranted aspersions on their motivations and character. We need, as the Lord counseled, to uphold honest, wise, and good men and women wherever they are found and to recognize that there are “among all sects, parties, and denominations” those who are “kept from the truth [of the gospel] because they know not where to find it.” Would we hide that light because we have entered into the culture of slander, of stereotyping, of giving and seeking offense?"
Those of us in the church hear ever election season the letter from the First Presidency stating that the Church does not support or endorse any candidate, party, or platform, and that we should support good men and women, and that they can be found in all parties. Do we believe it? I'm serious, how many people tune out when that letter is read, because they have heard it before. I think it may contain some of the most important counsel for us today we could have. It is too easy to assume that because our personal opinions coincide with one political party or another, that that is the party where truth and right are, that these are the good stances, and the other side is bad, wrong, and evil.
For those of us that are members of the church, it may be instructive to go to lds.org and look at the church's political stances. There aren't many, which should be incredibly telling. It is easy to slip into the idea that because the church is conservative on several major social issues, that conservatism is the way of the church. It is not. The gospel of Christ is not bound by such man made labels. It deals in eternal principles, not these things. Examples, do I think that taxes should be low, and that a more free market system is better for a country and an economy? Yes, does the gospel require, or suggest that? Not anywhere I can see. Embryonic stem cell research? Thats a hot button topic for a lot of people. Surely it is a moral question, right? Well, check out the website, the church is neutral on it.
It may seem that I am picking on more republican leaning people, and that is probably because members are usually right leaning, but it can go both ways. How about when the church has come out with a stance, and it disagrees with what we have come to believe? Gay marriage, abortion, mothers staying home to care for their children?
The problem that we must watch for is when our political beliefs, those temporary temporal subjects that hold little to no eternal value become so important in our lives that they overshadow those things that are eternally important. One such eternal value is unity. The Lord said in Doctrine and Covenants 38:27 ". . .be one; and if ye are not one, ye are not mind."
We can't be unified if our hearts are filled with animosity towards those who think differently politically. Elder Wood counseled in his talk,
"President George Albert Smith observed, “Whenever your politics cause you to speak unkindly of your brethren, know this, that you are upon dangerous ground.” Speaking of the great mission of the latter-day kingdom, he counseled: “This is not a militant church to which we belong. This is a church that holds out peace to the world. It is not our duty to go into the world and find fault with others, neither to criticize men because they do not understand. But it is our privilege, in kindness and love, to go among them and divide with them the truth that the Lord has revealed in this latter day.”"
Also, quoting President Hinckley,
“Now, there is much that we can and must do in these perilous times. We can give our opinions on the merit of the situation as we see it, but never let us become a party to words or works of evil concerning our brothers and sisters in various nations on one side or the other. Political differences never justify hatred or ill will. I hope that the Lord’s people may be at peace one with another during times of trouble, regardless of what loyalties they may have to different governments or parties.”
I used to be so interested in politics. I was kind of a junkie, and constantly read and kept up on everything, and consequently, had very strong opinions that I would argue tooth and nail. I can't do it anymore. Politics, for the most part, leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I am grateful for any good man/woman who can get involved and serve with integrity, but so much of it has become so distasteful. And I don't think we have anyone to blame but ourselves. Conservative or liberal, both sides inject so much vitriol to gain ground, to one up the other. We must learn to do differently if we are to be one.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Return of REAL.
Yes, I know it officially started last week, with a 3-0 road win I might add, but it won't really be here until I walk up the Grand Staircase at Rio Tinto and look out over that beautiful soccer field. Their first home game is against the team I most like to see come to town, Seattle. I don't have any special attachment to Seattle, but Kasey Keller is my favorite soccer player of all time, so I kind of dig getting to watch him play, even if he does have to lose. Its soccer season people, and if you don't have tickets, get on the ball, you will never have more fun at a professional sporting event.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)