Pity that isn't true: Debate Issue Number 2 - Taxes

Note: This is the second of what will be a regular series of posts that feature myself against a generic Republicant both running for an unnamed federal office. The purpose of this is two-fold; one is to show you that I have no business running for political office (which has been suggested to me more than thrice) as I am unable to curtail my language to television-friendly sound bites and two, to show the Democrats of this nation just how easy it can be to refute the idiocy of the positions these morons take. Please note that this is a Generic Republican candidate I am debating, not any specific person, although the views are consistent with views espoused by candidates we've all seen and heard on television and radio this year.

Republican candidate: Tax cuts are the answer to everything. Business in this country pays a higher tax burden than in almost any other place in the world, and if that burden is reduced it creates the incentives to create more jobs. The government doesn't need more money, it needs to work with less. We have a spending problem in our government, and we need to take the money out of their hands and put it back in the hands of the American public and American business to make this country strong again.

Me: So the idea here is that we have a higher tax burden than elsewhere in the world, coupled with a spending problem in our government.

Republican: That is correct.

Me: Pity that isn't true.

Setting aside for a moment the whole incongruity of the concept that we spend too much money and take too much money in at the same time let's take a look at those two ideas separately and in reverse order. You say we have a spending problem. That's just bullshit. Allow me to break that down into terms of a single family.

A man earns $70,000 per year - who has done so for a couple of years now. Not a huge income, but not bad and certainly a livable wage - enough to keep up with the bills and feed and clothe a family. Then for whatever reason that man loses his job. It could be down-sizing, it could be that the company no longer needed his position. It could be from any number of things. What's important is that he now has no income. Sure, unemployment will kick in shortly, but that's nowhere near enough money to feed and shelter his family. If you disagree with that statement I dare you to try it.

The man goes searching for a new job, but he can't find one at the level he's used to so he takes a job that pays less, say $40,000 per year. It's not a terrible wage, but it's not what he once had. Because he was living at a lifestyle that probably included some debt - car payments, maybe a mortgage, certainly credit cards - while he now has enough money to feed and shelter his family he doesn't have enough to meet every obligation he has already incurred. There's going to be some juggling of expenses and that will work for a while, but ultimately he's going to be getting phone calls at all hours from people looking for him to honor the obligations he's already made.

He has to spend less simply because he has less than he used to, but his obligations are roughly the same. But by your definition he's got a spending problem. Bullshit. He has a revenue problem.

The Republican solution seems to be that this man should be happy with the $40,000 he now earns and adjust his lifestyle to it accordingly. I'm telling him to keep searching for a better paying job - one that pays $70,000 or even more. He must have the skills for it; he kept that last job for a few years. You've offered a solution and I'm saying there's a better one.

The programs you insist upon cutting, the austerity that you embrace, all of that is attempting to not honor obligations we've already made. To our seniors, to our poor, to our health, to the workers who are the backbone of our great nation, and to our future. You don't spend less on them unless you want them calling you at all hours of the day and night demanding that you honor agreements already made. You are setting us up to be a nation of YouTube rants, glitter bombs and out and out protests and strikes.

Republican: The money to do what you suggest simply isn't there.

Me: Sure it is; it's just in the wrong pockets, which brings me to my other point. You claim that we have a higher tax burden than elsewhere in the world - that lower taxes will stimulate growth. Again, pity that isn't true.

Tell me, given that we had huge tax cuts under President Bush the Younger, where are the jobs? Where are the jobs that this was supposed to create? They haven't been made so far by the recipients of these tax cuts, so when are they scheduled to start? Do you have a time table?

You don't. Dude, the way that rich people and rich corporations stay rich is that they don't spend any money.

Our taxes are already lower than they were under President Clinton. They're the lowest they've been since World War II. Somehow, America thrived and grew during those years when taxes were higher. Somehow we kept our schools going, manufacturing going, and innovation that was second to none all the while paying taxes that would seem to make you curl up in a little ball on the floor. Once we started cutting taxes we started having issues with some of these things. Sure, there was some waste and a few bureaucratic nightmares, and things that could be done better, but for the most part it worked well. The system in place promoted everything that makes our country and its people great. Our current tax structure is designed to promote greed, and nothing more.

Republican: You're promoting class warfare!

Me: Maybe so, but the poor and middle class didn't fire the first shots. Hell, they didn't fire the first thousand shots. But you've missed the point - somehow when taxes were higher than they are now we grew and prospered as a nation like we never had before. You seem to be saying that higher taxes or a more fair distribution of them will hinder growth that that's just a lie. American business and innovation is smarter than that; or do you not have enough faith in our abilities?

In regards to the rates themselves picture this - GE paid an effective tax rate of negative 14% in 2010. In my opinion, you're not allowed to complain about your taxes if you don't actually pay any. There is a disconnect between the effective tax rate and the actual, real world taxes paid by many of these corporations and that has to be addressed, but it won't be enough. We need to make taxes reasonable. The rich in our country have benefitted and grown because of the opportunities given them, and it's time they gave back.

Hell, taxes are as close as many of us get to demonstrating patriotism in actual tangible terms without service in either government or the military. Every last one of us has an obligation to making this a better place, and the way most of us do that is through our taxes. Let me restate that in the simplest fashion possible; paying taxes is patriotic. Paying taxes is patriotic.

Here's my thought - if you've served in the military or are currently serving in the military you're already shown your patriotism in a way most of us never will. You put your lives on the line for us and we should do a better job thanking you. So how about for those people who have served honorably and are serving honorably we eliminate the taxes they would pay on the first $100,000 of their income. Make that first $100,000 tax free. The rest of us can pick up the slack as a thank you. It won't be that hard, and I'll bet you good money that you'll see an uptick in recruitment as a result as well. Or are you against rewarding those who have served their country well?

The bottom line is this - we talk about rugged individualism and self-sustainability as good things and we should. But the same is true for the country as well as its citizens and austerity won't get the job done.