Why not raise taxes?

I think that there's no reason that the government can't raise a whole bunch of money by raising taxes. The trick is to know what to raise taxes on. Here's my list of proposals for things that I would raise taxes on and feel no qualms of regret whatsoever for doing so.

1. Cigarettes/Tobacco products. Slap another $1/pack onto these things. They're a luxury item, i.e. nobody NEEDS cigarettes, so this tax only affects those who choose to include themselves. They're bad for you, so not being able to afford them anymore would actually improve someone's health. Why not? It's more controversial, but I'd entertain arguments about a similar tax on alcohol...

2. Gasoline. My dad made a good point when I brought this up, which was that a raise in gas prices affects everyone, because all of the products that you buy are moved around in planes, trains, and automobiles (and boats!) which use petroleum based fuel, so the increase will eventually get tacked onto the consumer products at the end of the line.
That said, I still say raise taxes on gas. The proof that gas is still "affordable" is that people keep buying gas guzzling SUV's. It's simple economics, really. It needs to get to the point where people are rioting in the streets and actually taking public transportation or buying fuel efficient vehicles for change to happen... and change needs to happen. Maybe pressure would come from big businesses, too, if it's hurting their bottom line. What if we used the money raised by these taxes to fund alternative energy research? Or we could wait until we're out of oil... which leads me to...

3. Vehicles. The Licensing Fees for vehicles could be restructured to reward fuel efficient vehicles. We could limit this to passenger vehicles to alleviate the added cost to consumer products (we'd have to work carefully on the definition of a "passenger vehicle" to avoid "company car" loopholes...). This money could go toward alternative fuel research, too... or to public transportation. I don't mind if Amtrak doesn't pay for itself, if taxes on fuel and gas-guzzling vehicles pays for it instead.

4. Jewelry. Again, a luxury item. The only place where I start to feel a little bit bad for people is when I think of a poor guy saving up to buy an engagement ring for his fiancee... (although the whole notion of a diamond engagement ring was artificially invented by the diamond market headed by deBeers, and the price of diamonds is artificially controlled by deBeers, which has a monopoly in the trade that is illegal under US law, which is why no executives of the company ever travel to the US... they could be arrested). Other than that questionable "necessary" use for diamonds, jewelry is a non-necessity. So how about imposing an additional 2% tax on individual jewelry items which cost more than $1,000? We could even use this money for foreign aid, in particular for countries devastated by civil war and oppressive tyranny fueled and financed by the diamond trade. We could even give a tax break on non-conflict gems... how's that for incentive?

5. Restructure payroll taxes. Right now, you pay payroll taxes into the Social Security fund on the first $88,000 you make in a year. Anything above that is payroll tax free (well, kind of. There's no upper limit on Medicare tax). So, what if we get rid of the upper limit and instead institute a lower limit? What if the FIRST $12,000 you make was payroll tax free, and there was no upper limit? The only people who would end up paying more under this system would be those who make more than $100,000/year. Doesn't it make more sense to give a tax break to people who make less than $100,000/year than to those who make more? And doesn't it stand to reason that if it's a "burden" for people to pay taxes on income over $100,000, it's an unbearable burden for people who make less than $15,000? I mean, really, they can hardly afford to pay any taxes at all. It just makes sense.

6. No new taxes! The government loses billions of dollars each year in uncollected taxes. What if we invested 10% of that lost money in giving the IRS more resources to collect from tax cheats (many of which are large corporations or wealthy individuals who misuse loop-holes and/or create complicated paper-trails to hide taxable income and assetts) and we get 50%, or 25%, or even 15% of it back... isn't that worth the investment? If we just work harder on collecting the "old" taxes, we won't need new taxes! I mean, we could totally forget my first five suggestions and get almost the same amount of income by focusing on the taxes already owed.

So, what do you think? Who could disagree with these modest proposals? To start with, the tobacco industry, oil industry, auto-makers, ummm... I guess people into jewelry and the fugitive executives who run deBeers, people who make over $100,000/year, and any individuals or corporations who are currently saving money by not paying the taxes they actually owe. That would probably turn out to be a small number of people with a whole lot of money and political clout. No wonder nobody's willing to take them on.

-"It's not the money... it's all the stuff..."

WWJB?

Craig Wong is the Executive Director of GUM, Inc. It's a non-profit started by our church, and it runs the tutoring program I volunteer for as well as the summer youth internship program which sets neighborhood youth up with paid internships in local businesses. I was a job coach for that program last summer.

Anyway, Craig went to a conference somewhere sometime last year (I know, I know, I can't remember the specifics) and came back with a pin that read "WWJB?" Being who he is, he waited until somebody asked him what it meant. "Who Would Jesus Bomb?" was his reply, and I can tell you that many an interesting conversation was sparked by this twist on what's become a tired cliche (I don't know how to do accents in this program. If you do, please let me know! Then I can write in Spanish!).

So, the next time you're sitting around and discussing politics with a group of Christians, try throwing that question out. You're sure to get some kind of response!

-"Yes, but the... whole point of the doomsday machine... is lost... if you keep it a secret!"

Accountability for All!

Hey, everyone,

This is a short essay I did for KQED, which is the local NPR affiliate up here in SF. It is a succinct version of my rant on merit based pay, even though it was recorded over a year ago. Some things just don't change...

- "50 million dollars! Who you think you got, Chelsea Clinton?"

Poor down, middle class to go

Remember when John Edwards talked about "Two Americas," and the Republicans (notably the Bush-ies) accused him of engaging in "class warfare"?

Well, we all knew that class warfare pitted rich against poor, but it was unclear where the middle class fit in.
Now we know.

The new bankruptcy legislation passed by the Senate and applauded by the President is a direct shot at the middle class. Under this new legislation, it is harder for people to file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, which would erase many of their debts. Many of these people will be forced into Chapter 13 bankruptcy, which requires them to continue repaying their debts under a strutctured payment plan.

So what? If they owe, shouldn't they pay? The Republican patrons of this bill focused on the small number of filers (less than 5% by one account) who use bankruptcy as a shield to avoid obligations that they are able to meet or brought upon themselves by reckless disregard for the consequences of their actions (e.g. gambling debt). They failed to mention that more than 60% of people who file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy are people (most WITH health insurance) who have a debt primarily made up of medical bills for unexpected illnesses or injury which their insurance only covered partly. Many of them have lost their jobs through no fault of their own and, thanks to our marvelous economy, have been unable to get new jobs... and new health care.

But, what difference does it make? If they really can't pay, then they won't pay, even if their debt isn't wiped out. What's in it for the businesses trying to collect? What's in it for them is houses and cars. Under the old system, people could shield their homes from being "liquidated" into assets to pay off their unpayable debt. Now, it's easier for banks or other lenders to seize property if debts aren't repaid. So, if you fall unexpectedly ill after you lose your job through no fault of your own (by the way, don't worry about this if you are the CEO of a large company... when they lose their jobs because of their own poor performance, they get multi-million dollar severance packages) and have to pay your medical bills out of pocket, you'd better hope that you don't get a new job. Because if you do get a new job, your health insurance won't cover your previously incurred bills, and if a judge decides that you can afford to pay $1,000 per month, you can't file for Chapter 7 and it's more likely that you'll lose your house.

Who owns a house and is going to be filing for bankruptcy? The poor? No, it's the middle classes! "Wait," you say, "Don't the rich go bankrupt, too? We hear about it all the time! They have houses." Yes, they do. They also, however, tend to have what's referred to as "business debt" as opposed to personal debt (like to a credit card company), and "suprise!", business debt isn't covered under the new law. So they can go ahead and get all of their bazillions of dollars of debt wiped out and keep their mansions and Mercedes, while the middle classes are signing over their 2 bedroom single-family-dwellings and Hyundais to the lending institutions... owned by the mansion dwellers.

As Yoda might say, "begun, the class wars have." What nobody expected was that the middle class would be so flagrantly targeted. Two Americas? How about Three?

- "Greed, for lack of a better word, is good."

Nobody cares what you do.

I teach at an inner city high school. Truancy is a huge problem, and is probably the number one reason for students failure to succeed.

Why? Well, that's a loaded question, and I know that there are myriad societal, familial, cultural, and other reasons that interact together in a complex web. One reason, however, is the one that really bothers me. It's that students are convinced that nobody cares what they do all day long. Well, not nobody: their parents (hopefully) and their teachers. And that's it. If they can avoid those two groups, nobody else is going to give them any hassle about not being in school.

"Shouldn't you be in school?" How often do kids hear that? Hardly ever in this city.
I would love to live in a society where a convenience store clerk used his posted right to refuse service to anyone to refuse to sell a soda to a 13 year old at 10:30 on Wednesday morning.
Where a kid gets hassled about not being in school at the movie theater box office, at the mall by the security guards or the clerk at the GAP, by the bus driver who drops them off at Jamba Juice, by the police officers driving by looking for more serious crime to prosecute, by average citizens who see them hanging out on the street corner.

But of course, it's the school's responsibility. Some charitable souls might even go so far as to acknowledge that parent's share some of that responsibility with the teachers. I guess that teachers can use their lunch break and prep periods to drive around town in ever-expanding spirals around the school, looking for truant kids. I mean, isn't that what we're (under) paid for?

Oh, well, someday they'll turn 18, and when some of them end up on welfare or in jail, then it will be your problem, if you pay taxes, that is. Until then, don't worry about it. Teachers are used to being underpaid to do impossible jobs with no support and then being blamed for society's ills. What's one more impossible task?

- "'One B: B-A-B-A-R.' 'That's 2.' 'Yeah, but not right next to each other, I thought that's what you meant.'"