It was like this. An electrician working on our room addition told me it would cost me $125 for him to do the work. "Or," he went on, using a calculator, "You can pay me in cash, and only pay $100, 'cause then I won't have to pay any taxes."
I had to know, so I asked. "You're a Democrat, right?"
"Sure!" he said. "Union all the way."
Well, of course you are, buddy. Liberals believe that taxes, and for that matter all rules, are for other people. The system is only there to control bad people, or dirty immoral rich people. We can ignore bad things done by good people, like our boyfriend.
Anyway, I told him: "My wife is an attorney, an auditor for the IRS. You have to realize that if you really want to make me that offer, you are going to get investigated. So let's just pretend you didn't say it."
His eyes bugged out, and he just sat down and pretended to work. I could hear him cursing under his breath.
After about an hour, he shouted up the stairs. "Finished!"
I realized my wife had the checkbook. I would have to pay him....IN CASH!
So, I counted out $125 in twenties and a five. Started to hand it to him.
He laughed, a little too aggressively for my taste.
I pulled back the cash, and said, "I'll need your social security number before I can give you this."
Eyes bug out. But he stopped laughing.
Me: "I'm just messing with you, man. Now go out there and vote for higher taxes."
He was muttering again as he went to his brand new extended cab Ford truck with the dualies in back.
It really does surprise me how many people who consider themselves liberals, and who are quite wealthy (this electrician was making $75/hour) also can justify a special exemption for themselves from those very rules. The rules COULDN'T have been intended to apply to them. They WORK for their money.
My wife and I together paid more than $80,000 in taxes last year, federal and state, and another $10,000 local. Can we afford it? We can't afford NOT to. Men with guns will come to our house and take our property. If we resist in any way, they will beat us, and quite possibly kill us. So we pay.
Do "we" pay enough? Consider the context for the Bush tax cuts.* These IRS data, from 2000, show that the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 35 percent of Federal personal income taxes, while the top 10 percent pay about 65 percent of these taxes. The top quarter of taxpayers account for about 83 percent of these tax payments. The top half pay 96 percent of Federal personal income taxes, while the bottom half of tax filers account for about 4 percent of the total.
Percentiles Ranked By AGI (2000) | Adjusted Gross Income Threshold on Percentiles | Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid |
Top 1 % | $269,496 | 34.75 |
Top 5 % | $114,729 | 53.84 |
Top 10 % | $83,220 | 65.04 |
Top 25 % | $50,607 | 82.69 |
Top 50 % | $25,491 | 95.79 |
Bottom 50 % | < $25,491 | 4.21 |
The criticism of tax cuts seems to be this: People get upset when someone who is paying most of the taxes says "I shouldn't have to pay so much in taxes, because I'm paying more than my share!" Hard to say what the share is, maybe progressivity is okay. But should the top half of the income distribution really pay 95% of the taxes? And, if so, how can you criticize a tax cut that benefits "only" the rich? Of course it only benefits the rich, because only the rich pay taxes.
The truth is that liberals think, "I shouldn't have to pay so much in taxes, because I'm morally superior!" When they cheat on taxes, or ignore rules that should only apply to the little people, it's okay. Because they LOVE the little people. Even if they don't really know many of them personally.
*It is a fair question to ask about the Bush DEFICITS. Cutting taxes and then starting a war and encouraging an absolute orgy of pork barrel spending is hardly conservative. But I'm just talking about the taxes, already.
11 comments:
Your point that the electrician, like many of the "good, honest working people" dems claim they represent, is a hypocrite is well taken. But is he selfish? He was offering to pass the savings of not paying taxes on to you, the consumer. Now maybe he also saves on other expenses, such as social security and union dues, by not recording the transaction, but he is offering you a 20% savings in the process of shirking his legal/ ethical obligations.
If more people took this approach, then perhaps the system would resemble Europe, which has a high tax rate, but low adherence to the law.
These numbers avoid the obvious question: what proportion of income accrues to each grouping? If, for example, the top 1% gets 34% of the income, then paying 34% of the taxes would be entirely reasonable (and would be the case even under a pure flat tax). Now I'm pretty sure that the proportion of total income going to the top 1% is not 34%, but I'm equally sure that it's way over 1%.
Without the matching proportion-of-income numbers, the proportion-of-income-tax numbers are meaningless.
DD
Two other points....
Liberals believe that taxes, and for that matter all rules, are for other people.
Do you have any evidence to suggest that this belief is more widespread among liberals than among conservatives? Or that liberals are more apt to engage in tax evasion? It seems to me that this is a not-uncommon human trait, which in this instance you observed in a "liberal".
They WORK for their money.
This is an intriguing contrast with the general Republican platform, which is that only money you work for should be taxed.
Wages? Sure.
Investment income? Nope.
Inheritance? Nope.
If we tax things we want to discourage, and lower taxes on things we want to encourage, what does this imply about our opinion of labor?
(Which--in a further digression--leads to my favorite point about the "flat tax". Yes, a flat tax makes calculating your tax extremely simple, given your income. However, the vast complexity of the tax system largely involves what numbers you add together to get that income rather than how you then derive the tax. So a "flat tax" really has nothing to do with the complexity or simplicity of the rules and loopholes.)
DD.
Dude, I love your blog, but this statement is just stupid:
"If we resist in any way, they will beat us, and quite possibly kill us. So we pay."
Uh...no, they really won't. If they audity you, they will make you pay a fine. At worst, you will go to jail, but probably not, especially since you have lots of money and can hire a good lawyer. The guns and the beatings for tax cheats is a figment of your imagination.
Your stories about cheeseburgers and messes are much more engaging. In part because they are rooted in reality.
If they audity you, they will make you pay a fine. At worst, you will go to jail
anonymous, you are not looking far enough into the future. if you refuse or cannot afford to comply with their fines, you will be forced, at gunpoint, to go to jail. if you put up a fight, they will use their guns, not say "well let's coerce him with flowers and poetry."
i wish that were the end of the story, but this is ignoring the terrible things that happen in jail if you are complicit, some of which equate to a death sentence (prisoners have 6 times the AIDS infection rate of the population).
i might also point out that this is worse for those with limited resources as they can ill afford legal representation to have their fines reduced.
Ah, NS, you are right, but you are missing the point.
Our person "anonymous" thinks that as a rich white person, s/he has little to worry about.
But the fact is that hiring a lawyer and negotiating is not "resisting," not refusing to pay. Your property WILL be taken. Your business WILL be padlocked, and your assets confiscated.
Maybe it has to be this way; I think that is a better defense. And if anonymous were capable of logical thought, s/he might have MADE this argument: the only way we can ensure a just tax system is if everyone pays. Universal compliance, or nearly so, is necessary because people won't contribute voluntarily. It is really the Hobbesian argument: strength so great as to overawe opposition. Opposition is wasteful, and destructive.
Of course, the tax system ITSELF would have to be just.
So, the point of this post was:
1. Libertarians tend to pay their taxes, and protest the tax law.
2. Liberals tend to violate the tax law, and then pretend it's okay. They need to go further, and pretend also that there is no force to back up the tax law. Not surprisingly, they are wrong about this, as they are wrong about nearly everything else.
Do you have a cite that liberals are more likely to cheat?
I'm curious, not being a wiseguy
Dear Anonymous,
I think that your view of gub'mint enforcement is a bit optimistic. If all that was required for violating a federal tax law was a fine, I would say that's a utopia. Or to paraphase Winston, a bullet to the back of the head would be the best thing they could do.
After working for "the man" for a while now, I have seen many fed agencies in action (IRS, SEC, FEC, etc.) and think their M.O. can be illustrated with Witz's story.
The electrican tries his "tax rebate" scheme on the wrong person, say the spouse of an IRS employee. The IRS nabs him and says that they will cut him a deal if he cooperates. He agrees, and names Witz as one of the many people who participated in the rebate. The IRS knock's on Witz's door and says that they will settle his tax evasion of $25 for a $10,000 civil fine. After a bout of laughter, Witz states that he did NOT participate even though offered and even if he did he wouldn't cough up 10K to settle a $25 tax savings. The IRS says to that's their best offer and he has one week to accept.
Witz, being a man of means, goes to a tax lawyer who tells him that in his experience its a good deal and to accept immediately. After another bout of laughter by Witz, he explains that his legal fees in defending the false accusation will exceed 10K. Witz now sees that he has no choice and calls the agent to accept.
Unfortunately for Witz, while he was talking to his lawyer, the IRS has gotten other accussed participants to "cooperate". Now the IRS says that if he cooperates they will only require a 50K fine and have him plea to a felony and recommend probation. Witz is now in room 101, if he accepts and cooperates he will have to turn over all of his financial records to the IRS and allow them to investigate him throughly (as well as waive any type of priveledges- such as attorney/client). What is worse, if he accepts a plea bargain admitting to a felony he will probably lose his employment and any professional lisences. So Witz ability to ever make $ again is pretty much gone as he will have have a "record".
Witz, realizing that he is innocent and not wanting to give into gub'mint extortion, decides to fight. He hires a lawyer who, knowing the chances of success, requires a 100k retainer. The IRS, now realizing that they might have to prove this in court, tells witz that several of the defendents are now cooperating and are willing to testify that he was an active particpant and helped come up with the idea. Therefore, they are now going to tack on a conspiracy charge, which mean jail time for wits if convicted.
Witz tells them that he never participated and they can try to prove it in court. The IRS says fine, they will, and subpeona all of his financial records, emails, telephone records, etc. and seek and indictment, which they get. Witz is therefore "terminated" from his employment, he probably is forced to resign, and now has no income to pay his lawyer, who recommends that he mortgage his house to pay for his increased retainer.
Witz spends the next 5 to 10 years playing legal jijitsu with the IRS as they prepare for trial. He has plenty of time to do so, as he's unemployed, and probably spends a lot of time scanning the newspapers for his name. He has been financially ruined, and is paranoid of being convicted and going to jail, all over the offer of a $25 bribe. His fears are increased as some of the defendents who cooperated are given reduced jail terms, and instead of being sent to a club fed as promised, are sent to a medium security prison half way across the country (its on the "space available" basis).
Now as his trial approaches there are three possibilities:
1) they go to trial and he is found guilty or innocent, but in either case is ruined personally and financially,
2) he accepts a last minute plea to eliminate the possibility of losing
3) the IRS finds some bigger fish to fry and drops the case, in which case his name is never officially cleared as the IRS will retain the right to prosecute, and Witz is still without work and financially ruined.
What is the point of this illustration? Whether it's the IRS or SEC, the gub'mint has unlimted resources to prosecute its citizens, and it writes the rules for doing so. The idea that the worse it can do is apply force with guns and jackbooted agents is simply simplistic. Many lawyers in capitol city make a living defending individuals from these types of non-forceful actions, in they end they still get your property and your life, and the individual has ZERO recourse.
Interestingly enough, when I ask my friends who are in this business if anyone has ever beat them at their own game they can only think of one- Ken Lay.
Do you have a cite that liberals are more likely to cheat?
Of course he doesn't--this silly claim is entirely anecdotal.
If by "anecdotal" you mean "made up in a moment of fatuous bile."
So, on even a moment's reflection, I bet the claim itself is factually incorrect.
Here was my point, tho: liberals shouldn't cheat AT ALL. They think taxes are good. But the fact is that they think taxes ON OTHERS are good. Taxes on THEM are bad.
Conservatives tend to cheat more, I bet, but at least they are consistent. They probably think of the cheating as civil disobedience. Is that more admirable? Given that conservatives are using a civil rights argument to justify something that is in their self interest (keeping more money!), I'm not sure that works, either.
Maybe we should just forget the whole thing, since I was probably wrong. But I did enjoy the look on the guy's face. And he probably enjoyed the look on MY face when I paid the higher amount, in cash.
Post a Comment