Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedShould Connecticut raise taxes on the rich?
Results so far:
| Yes | 55% | 46 votes | Total: 84 votes | |
| No | 45% | 38 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to Favorites
Should the State raise taxes on the rich? What's the alternative? Should the State raise taxes on the poor? That would be like using a sponge to soak up water out of a dry lake bed. Should we raise taxes on the unemployed and call it a deferred wealth tax? This week's debate question is the kind that drives debaters silly. Resolved: that a scar is more beneficial than a beauty spot to the development of one's character?
This is Connecticut's dilemma. Well it is the government's dilemma as well as that of every state in the Union. Who should be taxed in order to raise the funds necessary for government to function? Corporate entities ought to be taxed to the full extent of the laws, surely; they operate under as many loopholes as lawyers can discover or construct legally, often with the help of government, because they are not people.
And the wealthy are those people who can afford to luxuriate even as they rightfully leave it to their accountants to legally shelter as much of their wealth as possible. And we hasten to add that the wealthy, through charitable trusts, often dispose of the wealth on behalf of people everywhere.
While some argue, as some have, that taxing the wealthy is often counterproductive. The wealthy take their wealth with them when they move out of state to another state, less likely to overtax them unfairly in their mind's eye, as well as in their pocketbooks.
Some would undoubtedly move for spite or for some justification worthy of their ability to make money. But most would stay out of a sense of permanency in the State of Connecticut as well as a sense of fairness and obligation, altogether noble reasoning.
But all of this is nonsense because taxing the wealthy is only fair, as they are the only ones making money on the work of those who labor to make the goods or engage in the service sectors. In our society we have been convinced and continue to be swamped by the argument that were it not for the rich or the small business man, there wouldn't be jobs sustained and created here or anywhere else.
That is why these arguments favoring the rich, supporting the position that only by the grace of wealth does the rest of humankind increases from the great many jobs, benefits and services that wealth through capitalism underwrites and sustains.
The middle class is fast declining in numbers where they once rubbed elbows with those with more capital at the clubs or lorded over those who had too little to join the club. With a shrinking middle class country club membership, there is a somewhat frightening dawning for many that the work of those business entrepreneurs and owners who collectively sought the shrinking of a power base union oriented middle class by slowly strangling their rights to unionization, as unbefitting a strong working class for cutting into their profits.
Soon we will find ourselves without a middle class but with an underclass unable to progress toward those middle class goals that provided the real wealth that was the United States of America.
These concocted wars between capital and those who work to grow back their unions, on the grounds that unions are anti wealth making and anti small business, are a sham to keep unions demoralized and to portray them as out of main stream America. These are the same people who tell you that if governmen taxes the rich, government will destroy wealth in America, the kingpin that keeps America's economy humming.
So, yes, tax the rich. Know that as government does so, the rich will seek legal protection for their assets outside the country. Will it be the American Dream denied or Wealth protected? These are serious questions and not ones that many in Congress or State government are eager to tackle because of the way government functions.
All politicians know to whom they are beholden. Not even my state representative or congressman pays attention to my queries or comments regarding my concerns. The latter wants to know up front if I reside in his district before he addresses me. And the former delegates it to his aide who hasn't got a clue or finds my question too difficult.
Learn more about this author, Gerard Coulombe.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
In April, Connecticut Democrats proposed a state budget which included a $3.3 billion dollar tax increase on couples making more than $500,000, in an attempt to close the state's budget deficit. In June, they lowered this to $2.8 billion, because of resistance from the Republican Governor. Despite making some concessions to the Governor, the Democrats have had no success in getting their tax increase passed.
One thing the Democrats appear to have not have seriously considered is cutting spending. Increasing taxes during a recession is always unwise, because it takes wealth from the private sector and gives it to government. The government does not produce wealth or add to the economy, it simply takes a portion of whatever is produced.
In a recession such as our current one, where there is a smaller pie because of high unemployment and reduced lending, the worst approach to economic success is increasing the government's slice. Instead, they should reduce taxes or cut spending, leaving more money in the private sector for job creation and capital investment.
Additionally, the wealthy should not be specifically targeted for tax increases. As much as many people dislike hearing it, the wealthy are already those contributing most to our economy. Many of the rich being targeted own small to medium size businesses, employing many other Connecticut citizens. They are rich because their businesses are successful, and with that success their employees benefit, as well as those consumers who use their products or services.
Yet the reward for providing employment and valued products or services is in fact a penalty. Being a successful business owner is penalized, and the more heavily penalized, the more likely that these rich leaders will leave the state for a more tax friendly environment, taking with them their business and increasing unemployment. This can be seen in much of the North-Eastern United States today, with many businesses leaving to go South or West, seeking a state which will not penalize success so heavily.
Finally, taxing a certain segment of the population significantly more than the rest is simply unfair. I commonly hear people say that taxing the rich is justified, 'because they can afford it'. I question who is able to make such a judgment. Perhaps the government should simply determine what everyone can comfortably live on (I propose $150,000 annually for a single individual), and then take any amount which they earn on top of that.
This would satisfy the 'they can afford it' argument easily. My argument against my own proposal is that the government has no right to do so, just as they have no right to disproportionately tax one segment of the population more than another. If the tables were turned, and we were arguing that the poor should be taxed more heavily for some reason (they often don't end up paying the government income tax anyways), who would agree with the proposal? I doubt any would.
Learn more about this author, Sam Patterson.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Politics, News & Issues (Other)
- Should the federal government give assistance to American auto makers?
- Should there be a time limit on collecting reparations?
- Should the state of Connecticut tax plastic bags at the grocery store?
- Is the Mexican Mafia a threat to the United States?
- Should mines be subject to stricter safety standards and more rigorous inspections?
- Is the Fairness Doctrine a muzzle to silence conservatives?
