The Washington Post has an article entitled, “Senate GOP tax bill hurts the poor more than originally thought, CBO finds.” It increases the burden on those with incomes of less than $30,000 in 2019, those with incomes of less than $40,000 in 2021, and those with incomes of less than $75,000 in 2027. Those making over $100k tend to do better and, of course, those with incomes of more than $1 million per year are making out like bandits.
Senator Hatch complains that the burden on a lot of these people is just in the form of increased health care costs, so it doesn’t really count. If you squint and turn your head just right, poor people are actually better off. As Win Moses, former lawmaker out of Fort Wayne, put it:
Tax cuts for the highest incomes by taking health care away from the lowest incomes is not fair or good for America. And we’ve proven several times that “Trickle Down” economics doesn’t get to the working middle class.
I always get grief from my conservative friends when I say stuff like this, but reducing wealth disparities in the country isn’t just a matter of bleeding-heart, feel-good liberal mumbo jumbo like fairness and equality. Concentration of large amounts of wealth in a few hands distorts markets and democratic processes. The system can tolerate — even thrives under — certain amounts of inequality. It creates incentives that fuel the economy. But, beyond a certain point, things start to break down.
Conservatives like their own appeals to “fairness” to promote tax restructuring for this. Assuming, usually without saying, that money acquired is the same thing as money earned, they’ll say it’s unfair for money to be taken from the people who have it and given to people who don’t have it. But, I find appeals to fairness used on behalf of the wealthy about as persuasive as appeals to fairness on behalf of the poor. I’ll not shed a tear if Paris Hilton or Donald Trump, Jr. make less so that the poorest among us can get that nagging cough looked at without having to skip a mortgage payment.
Ultimately, I’m more of a utilitarian, I guess. How much wealth disparity do we need in the system to maintain the incentives that fuel the economic engine? What kind of a baseline standard of living do we need to provide the poor to minimize civil unrest, reduce crime, and — as best we can — promote a healthy, productive, broadly educated populace instilled with the kind of civic virtues that make our communities good places to live? In short, for me, it’s not so much about fairness as about striking a balance that’s as functional as possible. This new tax law isn’t it.
How much suffering does a government have to impose before people stand up to it? This is the same question that Joseph Stieglitz suggested in hi now famous article in Vanity Fair about the 1%: The top 1 percent have the best houses, the best educations, the best doctors, and the best lifestyles, but there is one thing that money doesn’t seem to have bought: an understanding that their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live. Throughout history, this is something that the top 1 percent eventually do learn. Too late.
Stuart – It depends on how long people can be convinced to vote against their own economic self-interests. People who want to make America what “it used to be” never seem to ask for the tax rates that were in effect back then…
My view is that most Americans wouldn’t vote against their economic self-interests if those in power were not so skilled in distracting them with issues such as gay marriage, gun ownership, and abortion. Issues are fabricated, exaggerated or distorted to keep the money flowing to the top while everyone else fights amongst themselves.
The concept of “enlightened self interest,” a most utilitarian concept, has disappeared from the lexicon of the top 1%. In an economy that is often said to be 70% consumer driven, “enlightened self interest” requires a large consumer middle class. It is true that we live in a global market, but Americans do not manufacture the simple consumer goods that the newly middle class Indians and Chinese wish to buy.
The regressive nature of this tax cut is unbounded. And yet many of the trump base fail to see that it is a tax increase for many of them and the lost revenue will necessitate cuts in the entitlement programs that many survive off of.
But many Americans see the unfairness in the plan and oppose it. And polls do not show extremely strong support among any large swath of Americans. So why would the republicans bet all of their credibility on this bill? I see it as the last, best “hope” for what the top .01%ers demand and the Ayn Randian cohort of the party would like to see. Large wealthy donor see this as a watershed moment. Give us this big wet kiss or we end the donations. And the Ryans of this world want to return America to the 19th century.
The republicans know that trump will sink them, either in 2018, 2020, or both. The best they could hope for is a quick impeachment after the 2018 election and the appointment of Pence, a former law school classmate and one of the least qualified people to hold that office.
I believe letters and calls are worth making to Senators. This bill is not a sure thing. And sinking it could put the Democrats back into the congressional majority.
Todd Young. Now there is another interesting specimen who seems immune to letters that plead for him to do the right thing. Oops. It will definitely be the “right” thing.
If the rest of the country turns like Virgina recently did, the elections could be a bloodbath, but for some reason neither Trump nor the far right could see that if you want to keep your job, you need to make at least some effort to benefit the common good.