Taxes Are Not Always A Bad Thing

What does it mean to be rich? Does having a million dollars make you rich? Are you rich if you make over $250,000 in one year? Is Joe-the-Plumber's $250,000 worth any less than Joe-the-Lawyer's $250,000 because the former wore a blue collar?

Our culture has an interesting relationship with wealth. We want wealth, most individuals deny that they have it, and the litmus test for "rich" is "making much more than I make."

I am rich. I counted myself rich when I could go to the grocery store and not tally up the cost of my peas and carrots before I got into the check-out line. I sleep on a real mattress, under an intact roof, and I can afford healthful foods. Many in the world dream about this kind of luxury. Yet I do not even come close to the threshold of any American political bar for monetary wealth.

What does that mean for those who do meet that bar, yet cry out for tax breaks? What does that mean for us who eat three times each day and sleep in a cozy bed, but still call ourselves poor? Perhaps it has been too long since we have had to return that loaf of whole grain bread in favor of the 99-cent loaf. Or no loaf at all. Perhaps it has been too long since we have shivered at night for lack of heat or blankets. Perhaps it has been too long since we have counted our blessings and realized the abundance in which we live.

The taxes on Joe-the-Plumber's $250,000 (and property) bought me my first-grade textbooks when my family was on food stamps after my parents' divorce. We were not on food stamps for long, but I do not feel guilty that Joe may have had to drink less-expensive champagne that year so that I could have a sandwich for dinner. Taxes are not always a bad thing. I like to think that a portion of my taxes now are buying some child a textbook and a turkey sandwich.

It is human nature to always want more. As soon as we earn more, we tend to inflate our lifestyles to create our new, more costly norm. Somehow, since our spending keeps up with our incomes, we forget how much we have. We forget how much we waste.

It is time to remember. It is time to realize that just because we have gotten used to our luxuries, that has not transformed them into necessities. It is time to realize that we are the rich, not just those who make more than we do. As we face economic uncertainties, it is time to remember that, yes, we will have to make sacrifices to help those less fortunate. And that's OK.

Comments

[RightWingMarine]

I agree taxes are a neccasary evil but I contend that most taxes are just evil and not neccasary. During WWI we started a wool subsidy to ensure we had wool for military uniforms. That war is over and we don't make military uniforms out of wool anymore, do we really need that subsidy? Sugar planters in Florida don't want to have to compete with a world market so our sugar protection raises the prices we pay for sugar a few cents a pound. Not much to you and me but plenty to candy makers, Do we need to prop up one industry (sugar farmers) by making things harder on another industy (candy makers)?

If it is wrong to reach into someone's pocket and take their money from them with the threat of force so that it can be spent on someone the thief feels is more deserving, why is it less wrong when the government reaches into someone's pocket with the threat of force to take your money to give to someone a bureaucrat feels is more deserving.

[Bhumane]

Great article! Well thought out!
I don't mind paying taxes to people who need the money, but I really mind having to pay extra taxes to bail out greedy corporations!

[SandraL]

I also consider myself to be "well off" even though by today's standards, I make a little less than 50,000 dollars a year. I can also shop for groceries and pick up a few luxuries like a big hunk of parmesan cheese. But, I paid about 14,000 dollars in state and federal taxes. That money goes to troops, transportation, education, cancer research, keeping up my local museums, rightly recognizing heroes in public parks with statues, the beautification of my city, bike trails, garbage pick up, heat and air conditioning in public places, the list goes on. I would GLADLY give more of my earned income if I knew that my health care was free, my education was free and aided by grants or scholarships for higher education, that my city was making efforts to be more green, if my country is doing much needed work towards solving our global warming issues, I'm all for paying my fair share. Why arent other people who make more than me and can actually afford to take their 2 week vacation from work willing to pay more? Wealthy people can AFFORD to pay more, and they should. That' s not socialist, that is unequivocally American. We all need to do our part, not just the middle class which is hurting right now.

[Willow712]

I agree SandraL, I make around 32,000 a year, a single person. I could be very comfortable on less if my medical care was satisfactory, education was paid for, my town was putting in a wind tower, and children could get school supplies and reduced lunches. My little town takes more in taxes every year, so there are no fees for school children and the pool is free in the summer for kids. I would willingly pay more for research in to disease, childcare for those who need it, and increases in WIC. There is a point in wealth where one has "enough", any more wealth than this is excess. what is the point in living if you cannot help a neighbor?

[dreamsmasher]

Ever since the debate people have been pointing to "Joe the plumber" as an example of taxes, yet none of you are realizing what the actual issue is.
Joe the plumber and John McCain were not saying that he (Joe) would personally make $250,000.00 a year, the real issue is that Obama stated that taxes would be raised on individuals AND businesses making more than 250K, THATS THE ISSUE! The BUSINESS that "Joe the plumber" wants to buy is perfectly capable of grossing more than 250K a year and by Obama's policy he (Joe) and millions of other small businesses will have their taxes raised. When this day comes these businesses will be forced to lay off employees and/or close their doors for good.
I'm sure that a majority of the people posting on this site work for small businesses and within two years after Obama's tax plan goes into effect, twenty five percent of us will be laid off due to these higher taxes. Obama's plan does not promote building or growing a business it actually does the opposite, when the lay-offs begin there will be many more people added to the welfare system in this country and soon afterwards taxes will be raised again because there will be more money going out than coming in and no new jobs being created.

[Muse42]

The 250K bar is not a gross income, it is the PROFIT. The amount that goes on a form 1040 does not reflect a business's gross receipts.

I don't know the specifics on partnerships or joint ventures, but a sole proprietorship files a Schedule C, on which it deducts all of its expenses before having that magic number that goes onto a 1040. Expenses deductible on the Schedule C include: advertising, car/truck expenses, commissions and fees, contract labor, depletion, depreciation, EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PROGRAMS, insurance, mortgage, legal/professional services, office expenses, PENSION AND PROFIT SHARING PLANS, rent or lease on any business property, repairs and maintenance, supplies, taxes and licenses, meals/travel/entertainment, utilities, WAGES, and other expenses.

Only if, after all these expenses are paid, the business still nets more than 250K would Obama's tax plan have any affect. If the business owner really wanted to avoid higher taxes, they should pay higher wages or give better benefits, and keep their PROFITS under 250K.

[MissDaisy]

Thanks for the clear explanation about small businesses, the 250K bar e.t.c.
Since the last debates I've been wondering about all this. Paying higher wages to employees and giving them better benefits sounds like a win-win situation!

[RueDee]

Robbin' the 'hood: Mccain's spreading the wealth is the same as Bush's redistribution. Take from the poor and middle class and give to the rich. So just pick your spreader.

[SFRose]

Anyone who doesn't like paying taxes should try living in a country without services. It's so ridiculous to let Republicans frame the argument like having government protection is bad. Taxes pay the police, the military, etc. What part of that do Republicans hate? They are the party that blew Clinton's surplus.
They are the party that ruined California when Reagan sent it from #1 to the bottom of national school standards. They are the party of Rove-Gingrich, divide and conquer, deregulation and high crimes.
Dems commit misdemeanors, but it's always the Republicans who feloniously assault the Constitution. Palin's another crook. McCain is a fake, bragging about being a maverick and ethics so no one will look at his totally screwed up record of corruption and lies. Adios, GOP, and don't let the White House door hit you on the way OUT~

[MsDebate]

Right on...

[mike16053]

The problem is with WHO is in charge of doling out the tax money!
If you trust Obama or any other politician to hand out the money to more worthy causes than you could then why don't you write him a personal check every month?

[SFRose]

"...then why don't you write him a personal check..." is the usual nonsense, like when NeoCons used to say "America, Love It or Leave It" just because they disapproved of another citizen's Constitutionally protected exercise of his own First Amendment right.

Why do the ones who think they speak for the Constitution always get it backwards? We don't need to write Obama a personal check, we're going to kick the Nazis out of America's House and restore democracy, and put the budget back in the hands of sane American patriots. Even you will benefit.

[Tien]

Some of the most generous, charitable people I know are very conservative rich folks. They tend to give to their churches. They don't trust the federal government to spend their hard-and-wisely earned money.

That being said, there are some things that I think require more than a local-scale effort, like health care reform and climate change policy. It may be uncomfortable to send a check to the federal government for these large scale efforts in the same way that its difficult to invest in long term solutions that don't have instantaneous results.

Some conservatives like to claim a monopoly on patriotism. Isn't it patriotic to believe in the possibilities of our government? Yes, there is a staggering amount of inefficiency in federal institutions, but it worries me that Palin can score points by advocating widespread cynicism about what government can do (her line about "unless you're happy about how the government does anything lately"). I guess she didn't want to discuss the massive mismanagement of the current administration. Still, the message is, don't trust your government to do anything, patriots.

[Scarabus]

Paying fair taxes is potentially a good thing. It's a bad thing only when the taxes are unfairly imposed or when their proceeds are venally, foolishly, or incompetently imposed. To pay fair taxes for the public good is a patriotic duty. Pardon the cliche, but there really is no free lunch.

And there are no free schools, police and fire protection, roads and highways, guarding of our borders, protecting us from dangerous food or toys or whatever, bombs....not to mention regulating recklessly greedy plutocrats. Etc.

Paying taxes is rational, patriotic, and good. Wasting taxes on phenomena like immoral wars waged mostly to enrich Big Oil--that's wrong. Maxing out our nation's credit card, without making citizens aware of what's happening--that's wrong.