Oh, That is Horrible - We Must Fix It! | Loyal Opposition / LJWorld.com

Posted by Independentone October 7, 2009 at 10:05 a.m.

Oh, That is Horrible - We Must Fix It!

I noted in yesterday’s LJW a letter to the editor about our LMH. I, of course, am sympathetic to the thrust of the letter. I am going to use it to address a topic that it avoids. Who pays?

Day after day, there are articles documenting some form of human tragedy or misfortune. Day after day there is a direct or not so direct call for somebody to do something. In most cases the implied somebody is government. What is always lacking is some indication of an understanding that if government is to do something, somebody has to pay. That somebody is inevitable those of us with and income through our taxes.

In a society that already extracts close to $40K of a $100K income for taxes you would hope that those demanding more would have a suggestion as to where the resource is to be found. Should we go to 50%? Is there some group not paying a just contribution? Maybe the lower end of the income distribution should pay at least some tax?

Perhaps all future LJW articles should include some inkling of where the resources to right the documented wrong are to be obtained. What part of the existing budget should be decremented to find the resource? Whose taxes should be increased to pay for righting the wrong?

There comes a point where the society takes so much from the productive elements that the desire to be productive wanes. That happened in Britain before Mrs. Thatcher and we benefited from a large brain drain. That happened in our own District of Columbia some decades ago when many tax paying enterprises moved to another state to avoid what some considered confiscatory taxes. It is happening now in California.

There are parts of the world that well reward productive citizens and before long, if we are not more circumspect, we could be the society experiencing the drain. Maybe, you don’ think it can happen here. You would be wrong. Lawrence, because of high taxes, is in the opinion of some already experiencing a loss of jobs and a decrement in population-despite being a government enclave. When the productive people leave all the goodies we feel are so important will be lost because there will be no resources to pay for them.

Where is the tipping point? Is it in the larger interest of the society to keep pushing toward it? Should we start looking to priorities rather than new revenues? Alexis DeTouqville, the distinguished French commentator on our affairs, noted that a society where the majority of the people benefit from public largess may not long survive. Are our days numbered?

Copy and paste the link:

LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

meggers (anonymous) says…

"There are parts of the world that well reward productive citizens and before long, if we are not more circumspect, we could be the society experiencing the drain."

It depends on how you define 'productive', George. In my view, a janitor, fruit picker, waitress, bus driver, etc. earning minimum wage is actually more productive than, say, a pharmaceutical sales rep who earn upwards of $55k per year. Yet guess who can afford to purchase the health insurance they need, in order to continue to be productive?

Money does not equal productivity, just as high prices for health care do not necessarily mean higher quality care. By making this a question of the rich vs. the poor, I think you are missing the larger point.
October 7, 2009 at 11:05 a.m.
justbegintowrite (Ronda Miller) says…

I believe we need to prioritize what is important in our lives - top to bottom. I love the arts, I love creativity, but there are times when money spent on these core parts of human essence might be better spent on salvation of our helpless - children, special needs, or mentally ill.

Our mentally ill are often shipped out of our community and lose contact with family, friends, etc.

Who makes the decision of where our money goes - I guess we do when we elect our officials.

A person who earns more money than another certainly may or may not be more productive than someone who earns less. There again, who makes that decision....

Thought provoking blog per usual, George. I agree, everybody has their own list of top ten items that need to be fixed. What are yours?
October 7, 2009 at 11:36 a.m.
IndependentOne (anonymous) says…

meggers (Anonymous) says…

Hate to say this but I do agree with you. The break I was making was between those who contribute to the tax base and those who do not. As you pointed out a janitor contibutes both through the job and to the tax base.

I would have probably not used as an example a big pharm sales rep but maybe the former CEO of BofA. I bet his contribution in taxes is a smaller percentage than the janitor and I find his performance less than contributing to anything of value to the society.

As far as health care coverage. If we want it then we should have it but we all should pay for it. We should not be asking the elderly to take cuts so that that others can have insurance. I know I said reprioritize-is that the priority you stand behind. Maybe we should tax the super rich a bit more-maybe a lot more to better distribute the wealth of our society? Maybe subsidies to big business should be terminated? maybe we should not be paying comapnies to move off shore?

You are seemingly spring loaded to me being on the right.
October 7, 2009 at 1:30 p.m.
meggers (anonymous) says…

George,

I didn't mention anything about your right-leaning politics in my last post. But since you brought it up,... ;)

Seriously, I agree with a lot of what you said. To me, before we can effectively address the issue of who pays for health care, we need to address the costs- and specifically, whether or not the money paid to insurance companies and health providers is justified for the services rendered.

And then there is the moral framework. I happen to believe that access to affordable health care is a basic human right. I do not believe there should be health care cuts to the elderly under any circumstances. I do, however, believe that it's prudent for doctors and patients to discuss end-of-life wishes before a patient becomes seriously ill, so that those decisions do not have to be made under duress, leading to an often expensive, prolonged, and ultimately sad outcome.

I don't think it's acceptable to allow anyone to go uninsured, whether they are contributing to the tax base or not. It's a matter of priority and it's really no different than having non-taxpaying citizens send their children to public school, drive on public roads, or visit public parks.

We might not like the choices other people make and we especially don't like paying more for others' bad decisions, but in the end, there is really no fair or humane way to do anything over than to provide coverage for everyone. For example, even though the disabled usually don't contribute as much to the tax base, I think most everyone (with the exception of a couple of libertarian posters on here) would agree that it's acceptable for their tax money to contribute to coverage and services for the disabled. It gets a bit trickier, though, when we start talking about someone who was laid off from the only manufacturing plant in a small town, or a single mother without transportation or funds to pay a babysitter. To pick and choose who gets coverage would be akin to Sarah's death panels(which occur by proxy with the private insurance industry, anyway).

I'm open to all of the ideas you mentioned for paying for reform, with the exception of cutting services to the elderly (and I know you weren't advocating that). I also think we can look at other areas of the federal budget and shrink or minimize allocatons based on need and priority. The irony about all of the teeth gnashing about the cost of health care reform, though, is that Iraq has cost our nation over three trillion dollars so far, and many of the legislators complaining the loudest about the costs of health care reform repeatedly gave Bush a blank check even when the war was being waged ineffectively.

Given that, I can't help but think that a lot of the outrage we are hearing stems more from a moral (that not all people deserve health care) and political (we need Obama to fail)difference with the Obama administration, rather than a position of fiscal responsibility.
October 7, 2009 at 2:23 p.m.
IndependentOne (anonymous) says…

meggers (Anonymous) says…

In my off time of being a right wing fanatic, I have lobbied before the Kansas Legislature to counter the cut taxes initiatives that are so popular (TABOR and the like).

I attended a symposium with a number of other groups concerned that the next legislative session may be bleak in deed when it comes to human needs.

One interesting factoid from a very responsible study group at the meeting is the very deep-seated repulsion felt by a large majority of sampled groups (liberal/conservative/independent) of the term "fair”. That term tends to be interpreted as giving money to people who are perceived to not deserve it.

While I agree with most of what you wrote, I tend to be in that majority. People who can work should. Anecdotally I know of unskilled entry-level couples who have found work here in Lawrence. The work is there if you are reliable, productive, cooperative, and so on. People who have income or could have income should use it to buy insurance and not expensive cars/cell phones/beer/etc. Once that is the case I am more than willing to help - within a reasonable level that leaves me some of what I worked hard to get.

There is statistical evidence that young people with responsible incomes forgo available insurance and then go the emergency room route if it catches up with them.

Again, the point of my post was that you cannot take too much from the productive element of our society (read employed) or you will get a backlash. It does not matter how benevolent the intention. Whether you like that backlash or not, if it becomes the majority there will be consequences.
October 8, 2009 at 10:59 a.m.
RoeDapple (anonymous) says…

Combine your 40% income tax with your real estate, personal property, sales, fuel, utility, alcohol, tobacco, rubber products, etc. taxes and you will find that 57% to 59% is more realistic. If it wasn't for the tariff on tea we could have a party..

x-(
October 8, 2009 at 11:28 a.m.
jumpin_catfish (anonymous) says…

Sadly, the whiners are winning and the taxpayer will continue to get hosed. A tax revolt is in order. I'm sure after posting this the government will be begin to monitor my actions more closely, so bite me big brother!!
October 8, 2009 at 11:47 a.m.
Newell_Post (anonymous) says…

meggers:

A pharmaceutical sales rep making $55K per year would be complete loser. Those folks can make a lot of money.
October 8, 2009 at 12:07 p.m.
fishcat (anonymous) says…

I remember an internet thing called 'If taxes were like beer', and if you haven't seen it, please do so.
The problem is giving the government a freedom to do as they see fit with a huge percentage of the American economy. I just- as we all have short memories- want to remind everyone what the gov't did to the auto industry with the cash for clunkers debacle. Only look at the projections that were given for the anticipated length of the program, it was supposed to last through October. The hangover still persists, and it did not help the domestic automakers one bit.
Let the feds work to reform and make liquid existing programs, such as Medicare and Social Security to show the public that they can be trusted before we pass "Some kind of health care bill" as was stated at a meeting of Douglas County Democrats.
October 8, 2009 at 1:05 p.m.
IndependentOne (anonymous) says…

RoeDapple (Anonymous) says…

The 40K is the total take at 100K income level. Fed Income tax is about 24% (give or take as it is tailored to type of income, deductions, etc.). Marginal rate is about 33%.

While I bitch about the flat marginal rates above about $200 K, the 39% number for fed income tax is approached as the taxable income level goes skyward.

Our friend Rush and the like who live (in his case lived) in high tax states may apprqach a 60% level as their income gets high (given they can not hide it in capital gains).
October 8, 2009 at 5:51 p.m.
IndependentOne (anonymous) says…

I would like to discuss that big pharm rep.

Just about all big industries have such reps. They are all well paid. They really have a role. The pharm rep helps the medical community in keeping up to date. It really is the provider’s job to fact check what he/she is told to determine if what is being sold has merit.

Our federal and state employees are inundated with reps. I bet we could find a "traffic light" rep loose in Lawrence City. Again, how the information is used is the key. We should not blame the reps - they are just sales people. If there is excessive use of unnecessary medications, it is not their fault.

Not sure there should be tax deductions to the busineses for what they do - but it is loosely a cost of doing business.

I used the equivalents in my job in the military- they helped keep me current. I, of course, did not buy their particular product - but it was important to be aware of it (The staffs in Congress certainly will be (including the latest pharm item)).
October 8, 2009 at 6:04 p.m.
IndependentOne (anonymous) says…

Be nice if we could. Remember that elected officials of both parties in safe districts are primarily motivated by delivering goods and services to their constituents. The difference between parties tends to be who gets them.

Cost conscious elected officials tend to come from swing districts – like Mr. Moore.

There are an awful lot of safe districts as both parties gerrymander state districts to make them safe.

The matter is fundamental. Do not be misled by red state Kansas- in my experience we are an anomaly.
October 8, 2009 at 6:13 p.m.
puddleglum (anonymous) says…

good blog, george.
but lets not forget the people making $1,000,000+ and writing off almost all of it on humvees and other 'business expenses' then they end up paying about what a $50,000/year person pays. This is where a lot of tax money is disappearing to.
Also, we don't need roads, schools, police, armies, fire fighters, health insurance, or any other 'socialist' crap.
eveybody for themselves.
the dwarves are for the dwarves!
October 8, 2009 at 6:27 p.m.
IndependentOne (anonymous) says…

puddleglum (Anonymous) says…

You know I am getting a little old to fight my own fires and chase my own criminals.

Sure wish everyone wanted to do away with armies. However, if you do away with them and the other guy doesn't - well you have a problem. Maybe you can buy them off - like the Romans tried until they come to take it all

Our tax system does have a lot of injustices. My neighbor was given a car by his company. I had to buy my own. I paid taxes on mine. He didn't. And so on and on and on and on. People can be greedy and demand that others sacrifice fo fulfill their needs. History from the beginning is full of such tales.

However--- we do have a right to band together and use government to aid our common needs.

Have you joined AFP yet?
October 8, 2009 at 8:01 p.m.