A government needs revenues. So what does it do? It taxes the poor. That happens too often, says Michael Davis, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) in Dallas. “It’s politically expedient.”
The poor don’t vote in elections to the degree the middle class and the rich do. Nor do they often contribute to political campaign funds. They don’t have much money left over for that after paying for housing, food, and clothing.
And the poor squawk less over tax hikes.
One frequent way the poor get hit is additional “sin taxes” ”“ taxes placed on gambling, tobacco, and alcoholic beverages. Because the poor tend to consume more of these items per capita than do those who are better off, poorer people bear a disproportionate share of that tax burden.
This is a joke, right? We should take seriously the complaint that cigarette taxes “would transfer wealth from smokers to non-smokers”? The real problem with this sort of talk is that it treats poor people as sub-human objects, shorn of the power of choice, subject to the manipulations of social engineers rather than subject to the consequences of their own choices.
I live in the inner city, and it’s not uncommon to watch someone pay for food with a food stamp card, then pay cash for cigarettes, candy, whatever. Since I would rather see some abuse rather than have people go hungry, it doesn’t excite me too much, but, on the other hand, there’s no reason for us to be stupid about “the poor”, either. They are human beings, just like the rest of us.
Amen, #1; there but for the grace of God go I. What’s wrong with taxing chain smokers and alcoholics? They don’t care or they’d quit. Tax on gambling is just another gambling layer – and the lottery is a tax on the math-challenged.
And the people supporting this position are probably limousine liberals who “promote the poor” while taking millions of their dollars to see their bad movies. I’d like to see what the world could do if people like Barbra Streisand and Al Gore tithed!!!
Is the article right did the chief ecomonist of the conservative Tax Foundation argue for an increase in the income tax? There is nothing wrong about having the wealth of smokers transfered to pay for their increased health costs (I would favor that they paid for their health costs directly (and some do) but I realize mine is a minority view and will accept second best).
Fat tax” could save 3,200 lives each year
http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSL1254236520070712?feedType=RSS&rpc=22&sp=true
This article is unadulterated drivel. The real “poor” don’t pay any takes at all! If they happen to waste what little money they have on lottery tickets, ciragettes, etc., tough. Those who willingly subject themselves to this “stupidity tax” have no basis for complaint.
Let me lob something in to see what sort of response it gets. I was listening to a piece critiquing the Live Earth thing last weekend, and one very sensible character suggested that we should use the market to encourage environmental responsibility. Thus, instead of taxing income, wealth, the like, why not, he suggested, tax consumption and carbon production. It seemed a good idea to me, what does anyone else think?
Tax carbon production? What, we are going to be taxed depending on how many breaths we take? Would elderly be taxed more because they have exhaled more carbon over their life-span than those who are younger? That’s a non-working idea. How in the world would we measure it?
However, the [url=http://www.fairtax.org]Fair Tax[/url] idea of a national sales tax (consumption tax) to replace the income tax (would require a repeal of the 16th Amendment) does have merit. People making under a certain amount would get refunds, and over that there would be no deductions, etc. and even non-citizens would be contributing to the tax base! That’s a working idea!
After all, it’s our money not the[b]irs[/b]!
Either I was not clear enough, LibraryJim is being a little too literalistic, or a bit of both. This was not to think of human beings and their breathing, but to think in terms of their consuming. Taxes should be commensurate with the carbon footprint of the goods and services they consume — thus using the market to encourage the reduction of carbon produced.
In terms of automobile taxes, the United Kingdom is experimenting with this in a small way. We have been driving hybrids since 2003 and so it seemed a logical thing to buy another hybrid when we are back working at Ridley Hall, Cambridge. It would appear that annual vehicle taxes are now calculated on the basis of emissions produces by a car so that my road fund taxes (tag fee) will be fifteen pounds a year. If I had a small conventional engine vehicle I would be paying 125 pounds a year, and if I had a large SUV like a Range Rover I would be paying 350 rising next year to 450 pounds a year.
This seems to be a good way of using the market to encourage energy and effluent responsibility and could be extended to all sorts of other fields. Then, instead of raising income taxes and the like, these can be reduced as more and more carbon-related taxes come online.
Richard,
This [i]might[/i] be a good idea [b]IF[/b] there were any hard, concrete evidence that [i]humans[/i] are causing global warming. However, there are a multitude of respected scientists from all fields and disciplines who disagree with this theory, instead holding that the data/facts/historical evidence shows that climate change is a naturally occuring cycle. But because they have been prevented from putting forth their conclusions in peer-reviewed journals by the human cause theorists, their research has not gotten much of a chance to be included in the public square. So only one side is presented to us, and we are expected to agree to the enactment of stringent, socialistic, repressive measures without all the facts being on the table. As many of the natural cycle scientists have said, “this is politics, not science!”
Thus, I would oppose any laws based on the so-called ‘carbon footprint’ theory. Especially if those pushing for it enjoy a freer lifestyle in terms of multi-million dollar houses, private jets, etc. Let them lead by example, not legislation that exempts them.
Whether the case for climate change has been proved or not, the overwhelming evidence of the last few years has been that humanity, especially those of us in industrialized humanity, has played a role in all that is going on. And even if the case were not provide I would rather err on the side of caution.
It seems to me in terms of Christian stewardship or the planet, resources, and money, that it is wiser to tax consumption than it is to tax income.
Richard,
I disagree that the [i]’overwhelming evidence of the last few years has been that humanity, especially those of us in industrialized humanity, has played a role in all that is going on.”[/i] That just is not the case in climate change. Read Richard Lindzen or S Fred Singer or Bjorn Lomberg or David Deming for a fuller picture. I can e-mail you some websites, if you’d like, detailing the ‘other side’ of the picture.
Where we do agree is that God requires us to be good stewards of the land and the planet. And that pollution is a cause for concern (this IS where human activity plays a big role). How can we say we love our neighbor when we pollute his water?
However, this is not a good enough reason to institute a global consumption tax! Think about who would be hit hardest — the poor!
Especially in developing countries where they still need to use fossil and organic fuels for heat and cooking and energy production.
And before you say “well only the corporations will have to pay” they will pass on any exta costs to their customers in forms of higher costs. The rich (who, by the way, pay 87% of all US income taxes now) would just shrug it off and pass on the costs or find loopholes.
Fortunately, however, did you know, that the U.S. has the best air and water quality (except in places like Los Angeles) of any developed country in the world? Our technology has so improved the quality that we are better now than we were at the beginning of the cold war. We also, through forestry management and re-planting programs, more forest lands (agreed, not old growth) than when the pilgrims landed in the 1600’s. And if other countries would ALLOW us to, we could export this technology. But the nations that need it either don’t want it FROM US, or don’t want to pay to bring in the technology and personnel who can impliment it. Or they have political reasons for keeping their people as they are (poor, unenlightened, downtrodden).
Peace to you
Jim Elliott
One thing we can do:
Find missionary organizations that support helping those in developing countries to improve their life through:
*teaching better agricultural techniques
*bringing solar power systems
*helping build water purification systems
*enabling residents to become self-sufficient
*etc.
That is truly in the spirit of Jesus’ command to “love your neighbor”, not encouraging taxing people for whatever reason. That system will soon be abused for one group’s benefit, no matter how noble the intentions!