Up and Coming Weekly is a weekly publication in Fayetteville, NC and Fort Bragg, NC area offering local news, views, arts, entertainment and community event and business information.
Issue link: http://www.epageflip.net/i/924029
6 UCW JANUARY 10-16, 2018 WWW.UPANDCOMINGWEEKLY.COM I have come to a point of empathizing with wealthy Americans. In my estimation, they are being financially victimized. Much of what brought me to this conclusion appears in the thoughts that follow. e Cambridge Dictionar y defines the word victimize as such: "to treat someone in an inten- tionally unfair way." e case I make now is that wealthy Americans are financially victimized. e victimization happens in how their tax rates are determined. Consider some observations as to what drives their tax rate determination. Because it is politically beneficial, there is an effort to condition non-wealthy citizens to believe the wealthy should pay a substantial amount of their wealth in taxes. Since the wealthy are very much in the minority by way of numbers, conditioning the non-wealthy to expect, and even demand, redis- tribution of wealth brings votes to those politicians who pursue wealth redistribution. is conditioning process has several moving parts. One is that politicians, almost always Dem- ocratic, and their supporters claim great concern for people. ey look for opportunities to demonstrate that concern. e demonstration of concern is hardly ever productive for citi- zens, but simply mischaracterizes what might be a productive action by an individual or group seen as the opposition. A case in point as to how this supposed concern for people plays out was evident in Democratic op- position to the recently passed tax legislation (Tax Cuts and Jobs Act). While offering nothing by way of legislation when the American economy needs to be stimulated with jobs brought back to and created in this countr y, Democrats latched onto what they saw as a vulnerable point. e proposed Republican legislation limited the duration of the individual tax cuts but made the corporate reduc- tions permanent. Democrat after Democrat was before a microphone talking about how this was unfair to individuals, especially the middle class, and how it favored big business. Not one time did I hear a Democrat explain why Republicans took this action. It was because the Senate has what is called the Byrd Rule. is rule originated with Senator Robert Byrd, a Democrat from West Virginia. e time limit on individual tax cuts was included in the bill so it complies with Senate rules – the Byrd Rule – that legisla- tion can be passed with a simple majorit y only if it doesn't drive up the deficit 10 years after passage. Not a single Democrat was going to vote for this legislation. Consequently, Republicans made the change so that they could pass it with a simple majorit y, which they had. Democrats only told the part of the stor y that would lead the non-wealthy to think Democrats were concerned about them. Democratic actions described above also reflect another step in the conditioning process. is step is to paint Republicans as members of a part y that does what is good for the wealthy while showing no concern for the non-wealthy. Beyond pressing Democratic concern for the non-wealthy, telling only the advantageous part of the Byrd Rule situ- ation was intended to advance the "Republicans love wealthy people and don't care about the non- wealthy" narrative. Even further, conditioning the non-wealthy includes instilling dislike, if not pure hate, for the wealthy. In part, this is done by repeatedly say- ing the wealthy are not paying their fair share in taxes. An example is what President Barack Obama said, as reported by Joel Gehrke in an article titled "President Obama on the 'fiscal cliff' agreement:" "'Obviously, there is still more to do when it comes to reducing our debt,'" Obama said in the video. 'And I'm willing to do more, as long as we do it in a balanced way that doesn't put all the burden on seniors or students or middle-class families, but also asks the wealthiest Americans to contribute and pay their fair share.'" At t he bottom line, t his statement says make t he wealt hy pay and pay. The call for t he wealt hy to pay more is repeated frequent ly, but never w it h specif icit y. Sean Hannit y, host of "Hannit y" on Fox Cable News, has asked numerous propo- nents of t he wealt hy pay ing t heir fair share to name t hat fair share rate. I have never seen him get a straight answer. e effectiveness of this conditioning process is reflected in several outcomes. One is that polls show this approach to be effective. In an article titled "High-income Americans pay most income taxes, but enough to be 'fair'?" Drew Desilver, based on a Pew Research Center survey, reports: "Some six-in-ten Americans said they were both- ered a lot by the feeling that 'some wealthy people' and 'some corporations' don't pay their fair share." Nobody is able to make a fact-based argument as to what constitutes fair share, but continuously repeating the call produces the feelings reflected in that Pew survey. e Drew Desilver article makes this statement, based on a Monmouth University poll, regarding the then-developing 2017 tax legislation: "e poll, released Monday, found that 50 percent of the public believes the federal taxes they pay will go up under the Grand Old Party's proposal; 25 percent think their taxes will stay the same, and just 14 percent say their taxes will go down." I am comfortable conclud- ing these poll results were not driven by respondents examin- ing their tax situation in light of the proposed legislation. ere might be some exceptions, but most respondents had to be going on "gut instinct" condi- tioned by the process I have described to this point. e end result is that this conditioning process brings far too many non-wealthy indi- viduals to the point that they faithfully vote for those politi- cians who work this condi- tioning process with amazing acumen. My observation is that Democrats are masters of this conditioning process. Since the wealthy are vastly outnumbered by voting non-wealthy citizens, many of whom have succumbed to Democratic conditioning, tax policy results in this country are predictable. Here is the picture based on Pew Center research reported in the Desilver article: "In 2014, people with adjusted gross income, or AGI, above $250,000 paid just over half (51.6 per- cent) of all individual income taxes, though they accounted for only 2.7 percent of all returns filed, according to our analysis of preliminary IRS data. eir average tax rate (total taxes paid divided by cumulative AGI) was 25.7 percent. By contrast, peo- ple with incomes of less than $50,000 accounted for 62.3 percent of all individual returns filed, but they paid just 5.7 percent of total taxes. eir average tax rate was 4.3 percent." It appears to me a sizable number of citizens who pay little or nothing in taxes get to elect politicians who, in turn, take huge sums from the wealthy and pass benefits to those non-wealthy citizens who are conditioned to support this process. ere are at least two sources of sadness from what I have described here. One is that this looks and smells like financial victimization of the wealthy. e second is that the benefits provided to the non-wealthy normally do little or nothing by way of nurturing productive attitudes, promot- ing individual responsibilit y, allowing for and en- couraging upward mobilit y or unif ying a nation. We must find a better way. Wealthy Americans financially victimized by KARL MERRIT OPINION KARL MERRITT, Columnist. COM- MENTS? Editor@upandcomingweekly.com. 910-484-6200. Because it is politically beneficial, there is an effort to condition non-wealthy citizens to believe the wealthy should pay a substantial amount of their wealth in taxes.