I almost fell out of my chair yesterday when I read that, while addressing a “free market think tank,” US Representative and Joker impersonator Michele Bachmann said something I agreed with. Fortunately, she reverted to form, finishing the almost reasonable sentence with talk about becoming blood brothers, before really making with the crazy. My shaken worldview was restored by passages like:
‘“This is slavery,” Bachmann said after claiming many Americans pay half their income to taxes. “It’s nothing more than slavery.”’
I’ve got to think the scenario she describes is at least in the area of 50% more than slavery. But hey, she’s only a member of the United States congress. I suppose I shouldn’t expect too much from a woman who’s waiting for a call from God to tell her whether or not she should run for President.
-Foley
Related Articles
30 users responded in this post
Tax bitching is so 1984.
Surely if she’s a committed Christian, that’s the only scenario in which she should run for President?
I mean, mock for her insane views on slavery, but that strikes me as a decision which makes perfect sense for anyone who has strong Christian beliefs.
50 percent? I’d be amazed if I paid more than 18 when I had steady work, and then only cuz I was making decent wages – when I worked for a college as a “wage slave” (oh shit, I called it slavery!) I bet I paid in less than 10 percent. Go fig.
Wait, who pays half their income as taxes? Professional Gamblers? Folks whose income consists only of gifts or estate payouts? I suppose it’s possible to construct a single-owner self-employed corporation so poorly that half of all income is taxed in some way, but that would take some determined bone-headedness.
The income tax, if that’s what she’s talking about, is progressive. Everyone gets the benefits of the lower percentage tiers (including the 0% tax tier). Even if she’s including all other forms of taxation there is almost no way a person could get to 50% of income taxed, unless you’re an elderly person on a fixed income (like social security only) living in a high value house in a high tax area, and even then there are probably programs that would help.
Anyway, I’ve wasted enough time on this. Just wondering, what’s the bit you agreed with? Is it a snarky “yeah, go ahead and slit your wrists” or was there something in her health care comments you felt was rational?
God called. He said don’t bother.
Joker impersonator? Did she overdose on prescription psychiatric drugs or sleep with Donnie Darko?
Too soon?
Will: No, she just has a crippling case of OCD and went a bit stir-crazy at a winter lodge somewhere.
If you sum federal and state income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, medicare, social security, estate, corporate, car taxes, toll roads, etc etc… You can make the argument that you are being taxed on approaching half your income. If you do the math badly enough and you work for the New York Post, you can make the claim that you’re paying more than 50% of your income in taxes.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/17/inew-york-posti-warns-of_n_238270.html
It’s also worth noting that while a certain percentage of your income – the first $9k or so – is untaxed because of your personal exemption and standard deduction/Sch A deduction, those deductions phase out after you break into the $150k+ income range.
But a conservative rag prints it. The conservative media runs with it. And pretty soon you’ve got every Sally Spokeswoman and Joe the Plumber claiming the government is going impoverish the nation.
Anyway, I’ve wasted enough time on this. Just wondering, what’s the bit you agreed with? Is it a snarky “yeah, go ahead and slit your wrists” or was there something in her health care comments you felt was rational?
It has to be that. Andrew’s made enough posts here for me to know that his thinking is nothing like Bachmann’s.
I should add: like any of Bachmann’s.
When I was working as a lowly office drone, I think I calculated my incomes taxed at around 20% – and I would always get a nice check back at refund time.
I’m on student loans now, so I don’t have quite the same problems, but I always thought it odd when people like me, who were making a gross of around 500 per week and being taxed down to 400 take home, would complain about their tax rates being too high.
At the end of the day, I think I could say confidently that my boss paid several times my rate, and to paraphrase Sam Seaborn, his water didn’t come out of the faucet several times hotter and the fire department didn’t respond to his calls several times faster.
I love The West Wing, but its one flaw is that it relied on the likes of Peggy Noonan to write semi-conservative points of view far too often, and even let the supposed liberals express those viewpoints.
The counterpoint to Sam’s statement there is “yeah, but you got a lot more out of a system of laws and policing and general security that said taxes provided you than the guy working a tollbooth, considering he has dick-all and you’re rich.”
I think his point in that statement was that the general services that we all take for granted as the bright side of taxes – running water, for instance – are no more or less available to him than to anyone else.
That said, I am forced to concede that the availability to me of certain benefits of the system are certainly not available to some poor fellow living elsewhere. Your point is well-taken.
And I’d say that there is an argument to be made that Sam has a skill that very few people do, but that most people could do the job of the guy working the tollbooth, at least for a while; I should know, I used to be the guy who sold tickets to the tram. Sam Seaborn has a harder job than I did, and intuitively one would think he means more to a society than I would have.
…reading back that last paragraph, I sound fairly monstrous. I should state, for the record, that no one is worth any more or less than anyone else.
Except he did, assuming he lived on the right side of the tracks. Nearly every city in the world has a property tax, and the value of the property is typically linked to the value of the municipal services.
Better schools, cleaner water, more experienced and well equipped fire departments, safer streets, airports, highways – all that shit costs money. And it’s money that flows to folks living in the more affluent neighborhoods. And it’s paid for with your tax dollars.
@Zifnab
Well, I already conceded that point, but I will happily concede it again – if I was to compare the metrics of Beverly Hills versus nearly any city in America, I’d expect Beverly Hills to edge out the competitor.
I should say that I live in an apartment, so there is an added degree of separation between my money and the property tax.
However, I don’t want to forget the broader point: my life is not substantially worse than that of a man who earns ten times what I do. I’ll never suffer for municipal services. Perhaps, at the worst, I’ll have to deal with roads that are somewhat bumpy.
Again, my situation is comparatively good, when seen through the lens of how bad it can get – but I’m still getting way more services than I would ever possibly be able to justify with my meager contributions to the public coffers.
My entire point is that I am not paying for these services as others are. I make very little now and I have always made comparatively little. The guy who is paying for the services I enjoy – the guy who lives four houses down and makes 130k – probably isn’t getting the same return on his taxes as I am on mine.
Andre, with all respect, if you’re not storming that guy’s house with 500 of your friends and guillotining him, he’s getting what he’s paying for.
…you’re not, are you?
Well, not anymore. Way to reveal the secret plan.
Zifnab–
Are you the same Zifnab who posts on Pandagon, or just another fan of Weis/Hickman books?
I’m just a guy with an English degree, so I know fuck-all about politics. All I can say is…she’s a werewolf. Look at those eyes. She has eaten long pig, my friends.
I completely disagree that the police and fire services don’t come several times faster for the wealthy than they do the impoverished. Most wealthy people are able to live in areas where the public services are better funded and are therefor better equipped and better staffed. Also there’s usually less demand for their services than areas where the nonwealthy live.
I’m in Connecticut and I bet if I and someone in North Philadelphia called the police to report the same exact crime an officer would be knocking on my door long before theirs.
And, of course, Zifnab already said it and much better than I did, to boot.
Pay more than fifty percent in taxes? Seriously?
Someone needs to learn how marginal tax rates work.
“You’re either for us or against us on this issue,”
So against it is then. These people don’t lose gracefully, do they ?
“Well, not anymore. Way to reveal the secret plan.”
@Andre, That’s OK, it wasn’t going to work anyways, due to the excellent police protection provided by taxpayer money.
The more money you have, the more you benefit from your country’s army, police etc protecting the banks that safeguard that money (or the property directly). Otherwise you’d have to start militias.
I already conceded this point twice, but three might be a lucky number: “if I was to compare the metrics of Beverly Hills versus nearly any city in America, I’d expect Beverly Hills to edge out the competitor.” I already know and acknowledge that those with money have more, at least economically, to lose, and therefore have a greater stake in having an army, or a police force, or a fire brigade, or whatever else works for this example.
But no one has attacked the point – my central one, in fact – that the rich fellow who benefits from said services is also paying my share. I enjoy benefits which I could not possibly pay for on my own, thanks to that rich fellow. I’m not certain if an equation exists for what I’m trying to say, but I pay essentially nothing and I enjoy great government services. He pays a ton and enjoys my services plus an added degree of security. Who can say which one of us is getting the best value?
snark. about believing in God. from someone who takes time out of their life to watch and blog about so you think you can dance.
*facepalm*
Andre – Not everyone earning more is doing a harder job, or is better skilled than those who earn less.
The fundamental point is that the state should serve and care for all its people. The way to look at it is that people in lower income brackets should pay less because they are able to pay less, rather than those in high places having to pay more. To help more people develop skills and abilities needed to contribute more, the state must help those with less more than those with more. Very few people get the chance to improve their lot in life dramatically, and free market capitalism, as a system, can tend towards preserving the status quo. Higher taxes on the rich is one way to avoid people getting richer purely because they’re rich.
Oh, and edc, Andrew Foley, to the best of my understanding, doesn’t blog about dancing shows. Mightygodking does, but tends not to overdo snark at things not overly deserving of it.
[Not meaning to make a deal of it or anything. Just wanted to straighten that last point.]
@Jonny
I agree with most everything you wrote, and yet still my central point is not addressed.
“Higher taxes on the rich is one way to avoid people getting richer purely because they’re rich.” Though I agree this is true, it still doesn’t quite get at my point (and had I known that so many would react as such to my point I wouldn’t have posted in the first place).
I’m not arguing on the merits of our taxation system. I’m simply arguing that it is a difficult proposition to prove, one way or another, who the greatest beneficiary is of that system.
Jonny, if I’m not mistaken you are making the point that this tax system serves to distribute funds in such a way that helps to benefit those in lower income brackets. I agree with that, but it is rather off target.
Well, Andre, I’ll take a crack at it.
Part 1 of the answer is that there’s a big difference between the absolute amount a guy pays in taxes and the comparitive percentage of weath a guy pays. The marginal rate of income taxes insures that while someone might be paying more absolute dollars they’re probably paying less if their total wealth. Also, someone at a high marginal rate probably has more than one stream of wealth besides income (equity, investments, personal property, etc.). Getting knocked down from $500 a week to $400 a week is a serious hit.
The second point is that you’re thinking about taxes (at least the way I understand you’re thinking about them from your statement) in the wrong way. Income taxes get paid into a general fund which is distributed out to various programs. It’s not that your boss is paying 90% and you’re paying 10% for a single resource you share 50-50. You and your boss are paying a percentage of your income for ALL SERVICES FOR EVERYONE. For taxes tied to particular uses, like property taxes, well, that goes to show you the inequity built into the system. Local property taxes for schools stays in the local school system (plus some of that general fund). I know, I know, you conceeded the point, but we’re not talking about Beverly Hills, CA vs. Lizard Lick, NC here, it’s different school/water/fire/ districts in the same town. So yeah, the boss has quicker emergency response time and his water is cleaner (and it might be hotter too, but that’s just because he has a better hot water heater than you).
I’m glad you feel that you’re getting a good deal from your public servants. I’m a public servant in my state and I like to think we provide extrememly good value for what we’re paid. The state has a unique position and responsibility to provide for everyone, and it costs a relatively small amount from everyone to provide for services like public safety.
John, I take your point, and it is well made. Thank you for your reply and for your service.