If anyone believes that the anti-tax, anti-government Tea Party movement and the ultra-rich do not have an incestuous relationship, then they ought to pay more attention to the progress of the state of Washington’s initiative I-1098, the brainchild of Bill Gates Sr., father of the Microsoft founder. The initiative calls for a 5 percent state income tax for individuals earning (so to speak) $200,000 or more a year, or for couples earning $400,000 or more. Although there are a few altruistic wealthy who have contributed money in support of the measure, in general, the big money people have thrown in considerable dollars to defeat it. The Seattle Times and its publisher, Frank Blethen, have weighed in against it as well, claiming that it will "hurt business" without fully explaining how. What opponents do not mention is that the “blow” is somewhat softened by a cut in property and business taxes. Naturally, the anti-tax crowd use the generic term “taxpayers,” giving people the impression that everyone is effected by the initiative. In fact “only” 11 percent of wage earners are affected by the income tax while others will actually see some relief; I put only in quotes because it is rather surprising to learn that 1-in-9 Washingtonians “earn” $200,000 or more a year. People like to claim that the state has a bad business environment--unless, of course,they like to make money. Where are these people hiding at, anyways? Why are they being paid so much when so many are unemployed? One thing is for certain: whatever they are doing with all that money, it isn't stabilizing the economy or creating jobs.
The Tea Party people, of course, oppose the initiative, because they jump like rabbits every time the word "taxes" is mentioned. They gobble-up the propaganda of the rich like mindless chickens--without, of course, understanding the implications of taking such a position. We know that the basis behind the wealthiest Americans opposition to taxes is that they simply want to build a large stack so that when things get very bad, they will be able to buy "protection" from the evils born of their cupidity. But what about everyone else? The state of Washington has stripped over $5 billion from the state budget in the past three years, and it has been students and the poor who have born the brunt of these cuts in education, health care and other safety net programs. You ask a tea-partier who might be in that group if we need any of things, and they might stumble and bumble about prisons and police and how education shouldn't be under the control of government--unless, of course, you live in Texas; but it’s hard to get a straight answer out of them what proper taxation should be even for that.
The anti-tax mantra tells us that instead of raising taxes on the rich, we need to do away with “big government.” Currently, the right is only comfortable with declaring the Department of Education suitable for demolition; South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint (he of the slave masterish “We must break him (Obama)”) declared so on CNN recently, but then he hails from a state which blocked school desegregation into the 1970s. Further down the road, Republicans want to end Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance. It's really comes down to a philosophy of sorts. They just want enough taxes paid so that they can play armchair warrior and send someone else’s kid to die—and call it “defending our freedom.” What does this mean for the rest of us who are not the rich and well-off, without social safety nets? Everyone else must work until they drop dead, because they can’t save enough on their meager wages, and can’t afford proper health care.
This is the current reality, at least in this state: Washington has the most regressive tax system in the country, because 50 percent of state’s income comes from sales taxes. People who earn less than $20,000 pay nearly 18 percent of their income in state taxes, compared to less than three percent for the toppermost bracket. This form of taxation is insidious, because unlike direct taxes like federal income taxes, you can't find ways of not paying the tax "legally" as the rich and their tax attorneys manage to do. The rich apply far less a share of their income to the necessities of life than the lower brackets, and thus have a greater cushion. Ironically, because the greater share of cuts are in programs like education and health care, the poor who will be the hardest hit are the ones paying the highest percentage of their income to these programs. Bill Gates Sr. knows that this state with its income inequality cannot function without some form of income "redistribution," even if only in the form of maintaining the social safety net.
Opponents of a state income tax for the rich say that this will lead to a slippery slope of more taxes. But it isn't the "liberals" in the state legislature who are pushing this; the legislature has never even touched the idea of a state income tax, because of the backward nature of a populace that condones education spending that is 47th in the country, and the same kind of super-majority hamstringing that has deadlock the state of California. This is an initiative that is up to the voters to decide if they want it. The people "hurt" by the initiative are out-numbered 9-1. Thus what opponents are really afraid of is the potential for class warfare and a first move against the power of the wealthiest Americans. This is a chance for working people to stand-up and say "You've had it easy for too long, paying us slave wages just so you can live beyond your needs. We're aren't going to take this iniquity anymore. We have a right to live too."
Far away in that other Washington, Obama should stick to his guns and allow the Bush tax cuts to sunset for the richest Americans. Why the insistence on calling the sunset a "tax increase" when the cut was really only a "gift" to wealthy Republican backers? It was made temporary because of the fear that it would produce massive deficits. This isn't about politics, as some cowardly Democrats are viewing it in supporting maintaining the cuts for the wealthiest Americans, while the programs for the poor are cut. At least some of us are tired of hearing how "poor" the rich are while the rest of us slowly suffer.
No comments:
Post a Comment