Tag Archives: taxes

Political Rants

Sharing the wealth.

I should start this post with the standard disclaimer that I am not an economist. Inasmuch as this is a nominally free country, at present, I am going to opine on one of the central issues in the Democratic primary debate – the idea of instituting a wealth tax. Advocated in some form by both Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, taxing wealth is not a new idea by any means. Chris Hayes’s recent conversation with Gabriel Zucman gives a really good overview of the question, so if you want to hear someone knowledgeable discuss the merits of instituting a wealth tax in the United States, by all means give that a listen. For now, here’s my once-over-lightly. right in time for the holiday season.

First, while this idea is remarkably popular, there is a lot of howling on the part of articulate opinion over it. If I were to guess, I would say that the reason may be simply that virtually everyone you see on television has some magnitude of wealth in the form of stocks, property, etc. in excess of what Warren or Sanders would deem taxable in their proposals. The reasons they typically give, though, are the standard capitalist tropes about stifling innovation, misdirecting funds to inefficient government programs, etc., etc. There is honestly no credible evidence to substantiate this claim, but even if some version of it were true, the revenue generated by such a tax would be more than worth the cost of inspiring some caution on the part of the billionaire class. Also, I think it’s important to fully understand what being a billionaire means. Having billions of dollars is not merely being wealthy; billions are about power, and I don’t mean purchasing power. I think there’s a strong argument to be made for putting a cap on wealth simply to constrain unaccountable power and influence on the part of billionaires, but that’s another conversation.

Bernie: just tell them they'll pay less property taxes. Piece of cake.

Zucman, a recognized authority on income and wealth inequality, points out that in America we already have a form of wealth tax, and it’s one that most potential readers of this blog (or any other blog, for that matter) are directly affected by: property taxes. For decades, home ownership has represented far and away the principal form of wealth held by ordinary (i.e. non-rich) people in the United States. I suspect it’s no accident that homes are taxed in a remarkably regressive way – specifically, not indexed to income in any way. Also, as Zucman points out, the property taxes we pay (either directly or indirectly as renters) are at the same level regardless of whether the owner holds a mortgage or not. So you may have less than 40% equity in your home, shell out half of your income on your mortgage, but still pay taxes on the full assessed value of that property. (I don’t know about other states, but here in New York, you can roll your taxes into your mortgage payment for added convenience. How thoughtful!)

A true wealth tax, on the other hand, would consider all forms of wealth, not just this narrow category that disproportionately impacts workers. It would be progressive – the less you own or earn, the less you pay – and a hell of a lot more fair than our current property tax system. So don’t buy the hype, people. As with our health care system, we are already doing it … we’re just doing it wrong.

luv u,

jp

Political Rants

The utility of experts.

I haven’t been following the Democratic primary contest very much on this blog, as it receives so much coverage elsewhere it seems massively redundant for me to comment on it as well. When it becomes a substantive policy discussion, however, it certainly warrants comment. When Elizabeth Warren released the explanatory document on her version of Medicare for All (M4A), it was greeted with derision by supporters of the more “moderate” candidates. Morning Joe, of course, rolled out their resident fiscal policy expert Steve Rattner, who deployed a series of charts and graphs that demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt the very thing that the recent George Mason University study made clear: health care in America is expensive.

Be afraid. Be VERY afraid.

Rattner used a pie chart to show what portions of total health care cost would be picked up by M4A, then a line graph to illustrate how much higher federal spending would be if such a plan were implemented. He was attempting to make the point that the federal government would have to spend a third again as much as it currently does, and that …. shudder …. that’s a lot! What of course neither he nor his Morning Joe colleagues mentioned was that this money is being spent by us anyway … and that the current result is more than 80 million people uninsured or under-insured, half a million medical bankruptcies a year, and assorted other disasters. In other words, the current system is a massively costly failure.

M4A, on the other hand, would cover everyone. It would eliminate much of the cost to families and individuals, and decouple health care from employment. There would be no more medical bankruptcies, and (icing on the cake) it would cost less than what we’re currently collectively spending. With the right funding plan, it would cost individuals below a certain income level less than what they’re paying now. We can disagree over how that will play out, but M4A is the only way to ensure that health care is a right, not a privilege. When I hear the middling candidates so beloved of Morning Joe complain about single payer, it reminds me that none of them ever had to deal with inadequate health coverage. I have, and it’s a massive pain in the ass. Even the so-called good plans that people supposedly love so much are massively complicated and involve all kinds of hidden expenses.

This fight for M4A won’t be easy. We need to be ready for it.

luv u,

jp

Usual Rubbish

Fighting gravity.

Shore it up, boys. Let’s keep the roof on this thing. Sure, it used to be the floor, but when something’s keeping the rain off your head, it’s a roof. Unless it’s a hood … or an umbrella. Never mind.

Hey, well, here we are again, man. Trying to keep a broken home together. I don’t mean that daddy left and ain’t coming back (even though that’s roughly true); I mean we’re fixing a hole where the rain came in … and it’s the size of the freaking roof. We’re borrowing wood from the floor to shore up the roof. We’re borrowing planks from the south wall to block up the gaping hole in the north wall. This is like the fabled Ship of Theseus. This isn’t a home … it’s a philosophical paradox! Is it the same potting shed as when we moved here? Only your logic professor can say for certain.

Sure, sometimes the demands of home ownership (or home occupancy) keep us from our real work, the work we were put here to do. And that’s a good thing. I don’t feel like filling potholes today. And when the hell is this town going to invest in a pothole killer, for crying out loud? What do I refrain from paying my taxes for, eh? I mean, what is my lack of money buying? (Perhaps Lincoln can tell me.) Well, as you can see, this is distracting, and it is keeping us from the important job of producing more Big Green songs and sending them out into the cybersphere, where they can begin lives of their own and toil in silent obscurity.

See what I mean, Lincoln? We need this.

That’s not to say that we haven’t been writing songs. No, that’s still happening with some regularity. It’s the part about fixing the songs in some moderately sophisticated way to an electronic medium that will allow them to be conveyed to other people’s ears at a time of their choosing. That thing we haven’t been doing a lot of. Hell, we’re just getting to the point of mixing the group of songs we started at the beginning of the year. Now if that isn’t slow, I don’t know what slow is. Though I do know it’s not as fast as fast. That’s just logic, my friends. Ship of Theseus stuff. Look it up.

Anyway, back to the hammer and nails. (We took those out of the floorboards, too.)