Fairness … And Other Nightmares
It seems that one man’s dream is another man’s nightmare, especially these days. For instance, recently a day does not go by without another speech by President Obama demanding that millionaires and billionaires pay their fair share (e.g., significantly higher taxes), and be subjected to some politically expedient requirement known as the “Warren Buffett Rule.” Apparently only the wealthy are not paying their “fair share." But isn’t this just a not-so-clever class warfare euphemism to be applied to anyone who has discovered that they “qualify” for the alternative minimum tax?
… which does not mean that you are either a millionaire or a billionaire.
The news is so unsettling that it has recently caused me several nightmaric episodes, the latest of which occurred two nights ago. In this latest dream, Westborough has been incorporated as a City with a powerful Mayor and City Council. Elections have replaced the historic town meeting, and a determined Mayor has just been re-elected to a second term, and he is addressing the City about the meaning and mandate of his victory, especially his “Fair Plan."
His speech begins with the pronouncement that Westborough must be transformed to look more like the rest of the Country … “Effective immediately," declares the Mayor, “everyone will pay their fair share to keep the City running.” Accordingly:
- 49% of homeowners will no longer be required to pay property taxes because the budget cannot be balanced on the backs of the people with the smallest homes.
- Rents will be frozen for the next four years because renters are obviously not wealthy enough to own a home and therefore, in fairness, need public assistance. It’s only fair that landlords share like everyone else.
- Residences currently assessed in the top 10% of all Westborough homes will receive a rate increase of 50% since these homeowners are obviously over-consuming their fair share of the City’s resources, and can readily afford to pay their fairer share. Most probably welcome the opportunity.
- Property owners not taxed at the highest rate, but who have no children either in the Westborough Public Schools or in College, will be upwardly assessed by 10%, since they do not have the gravity-defying escalating cost of college expenses looming, and can afford to pay more. Fair, after all, is just fair, unless, of course, they are among the 49% small homeowners who will pay no taxes, because, as already noted, that would be unfair.
- Taxes on Commercial properties will also be increased by 25% under the Elizabeth Warren Rule, because their profits are clearly the direct result of their selfish use of roads, education, and public services that have been provided for them and made their success possible. It’s only fair that businesses share the wealth gained because of the work of others.
From the pit of the auditorium comes a question: “Mayor, isn’t it immoral to present a spending plan of $120M when the City’s 2013 budget is $95M? Even after your fairness plan is implemented the budget will not be balanced because the added taxes from the few will not offset the elimination of tax revenues from the many. That seems unfair and poor fiscal management. And, isn’t it also unfair to risk lowering the credit rating of the entire City by accumulating debt that cannot be repaid?"
The Mayor’s response was quick and condescending, “How can you even put a price tag on fairness? After all, fair is fair, and what is unfair about that”?
At this point I woke up in a cold sweat convinced I was in a circuitous loop in a Dr. Seuss book. Two days later I am still trying to figure out if this was just a dream or a real nightmare.
Tell me it isn’t so.
Kim
8:31 am on Saturday, April 14, 2012
It's a real nightmare, Jim! In an effort to change the dialogue, the game of class warfare and 'fairness' is in full swing. Even the POTUS admits that Buffet rule will not make a dent in our debt or deficit but yet he still parades out CEOs & their secretaries in publicity stunts. Fairness, war on women, racism, etc... divide & conquer is really the game they are playing because the conversation cannot be about the failures of this administration's policies.
Jim Hatherley
11:38 am on Saturday, April 14, 2012
Thanks for your note, Kim, although I am dismayed that you are confirming my nightmare. I was actually hoping for a Bobby Ewing moment. My question for you is whether the majority of the American people are so unsophisticated that they cannot see through the purple haze and understand what is happening to our Country - with their permission. Or, perhaps since 49% do not pay income tax, they simply don't care because free is fair, and fair is good, even if it is unfair to all the people who have to pay for all the free stuff. Of course, the problem is that when more people are getting their stuff for free they will vote for the dealer who delivers it, because that is only fair. As I said, this seems like a circuitous loop in a Dr. Seuss book.
Andy Koenigsberg
9:10 am on Sunday, April 15, 2012
" the problem is that when more people are getting their stuff for free they will vote for the dealer who delivers it"
Can anyone answer the following question?
Which politcal party had the majority in congress and held the Presidency when a new entitlement program called Medicare Part D was enacted without providing a way to pay for it?
Just sayin' . . .
Jim Hatherley
10:11 am on Sunday, April 15, 2012
Thank you, Andy. You may be "just sayin", but what exactly are you saying? Both parties have had their moments of over-spending on programs that may have been well intended when passed, but unsustainable now. We are where we are, and we must determine what we want this Country to be going forward. Where we are is for a Party to want a small "class" of people to pay their "fair share". Is this really fair? Is this what you see for yourself, your children and your grandchildren? If so, you're good. Just sayin'.
Andy Koenigsberg
5:47 pm on Sunday, April 15, 2012
Jim - that is exactly what I am saying - that both parties bear responsibility for this mess but you seem not to ever mention the GOP - I am just reminding you that you should be.
Mike
9:43 am on Sunday, April 15, 2012
Property tax based on individual residence size is idiotic to begin with. An elderly couple living in a huge victorian which they purchased for $20k forty years ago does not consume more town services than a family of six with four children in school, living in a small cape, purchased last year for $400K.
Fairness based on percentages is equally idiotic. If someone pays $1M in taxes and an average taxpayer pays $10K in Federal taxes, that means the person paying $1M paid 100 times more than the average guy. What is fair, 400 times more? These are the same people making large donations to foundations and charities that are earning some of these tax deductions.
Yes everyone should pay their fair share, but it's about time people started appreciating the people paying the big tax bills, because that is fair. Yes some people abuse the system but there are far many that do pay their fair share which is much more than I pay, and I thank them.
Jim Hatherley
10:07 am on Sunday, April 15, 2012
Mike, thanks for your comment. So, if paying taxes bases on the size of a house or a percentage of your income are idiotic, what would you recommend? Is it fair that 49% pay zero if they benefit from what others are funding? Your last sentence is interesting in light of last week's blogs "connecting the frogs." Do you think that people who get their stuff for free from the government may be silently grateful for all the free stuff, but still vote for the pols who are continuing their delivery? Can we really have this both ways before the whole system collapses?
Mike
11:29 am on Sunday, April 15, 2012
What does the size of your house have to do with the services you consume from the town? It should be occupancy based. I don't think paying income based on percentage is wrong, I think the argument that someone paying 100 times more isn't paying enough than the person complaining is idiotic. Perhaps not idiotic, maybe ungrateful is a better word.
The discussion of how much one pays isn't as important as how much the government spends. We can debate payments all day, we'll just continue to get new consumer taxes. The government will always aggressively go after the money, we should spend more time on how they spend it.
Jim Hatherley
5:23 pm on Sunday, April 15, 2012
Bravo, Mike. Let me first note that the property tax issue was presented metaphorically and satirically to make a point. Class warfare is not the American way, at least not as long as we expect our Country to be aspirational vs. utopian (where everybody has the same, no matter how much they contributed to what they have - which, now that I think of it is not fair, don't you agree)? Everyone has to have financial skin in the game, lest they feel entitled to "free stuff" or place little or no value on what they get because they did not pay for it. That is decidedly unfair to those paying the freight. On your larger point, I agree that government spending is clearly the issue. Using my example, were you to spend $120,000 each year when your income was $95,000, in fewer than 4 years your debt would be greater than your income - a situation from which you would never recover - unless you chose to declare bankruptcy and stick the public with your unpaid debt, and that most definitely is not fair at all. The bottom line is clear - "fairness" is not as great as some would like you to believe.
Jim Hatherley
7:12 pm on Sunday, April 15, 2012
Andy, fair point, and after all fair is fair, and if I am going to wrote a credible blog then I have to be "reasonably" fair about what I say. I have taken a few shots at the Republicans in prior blogs because it is fair to say that they have misappropriated and misspent billions of dollars too (although to a lesser extent than the current incumbent who has broken all records for fiscal insanity - which is only fair to add in my opinion). All of this means to me that all of us must stop voting rotely (e.g., "Once a Democrat/Republican, always ...) and begin actively reconsidering our values and what we can afford as a Nation, and how we plan to leave the Country we inherited to our children. As I mentioned in the blog entitled, "Searching For JFK", Democrat values of his era have changed - they are now largely found in the Republican Party. And, parenthetically, I would think that Ronald Reagan would be disappointed at the excessive spending of George W. Bush. So, thank you for noting that fairness is a two way street. But, we are where we are and an election is coming and we must make a choice. Are we on the right track or not? That's a fair question, yes?