|
Tax Dances
These days we hear frequently that there's not enough money to invest in public education, in a fair health care system, in public transportation, in preventing disease, in child care, even in protecting our ports.
There's not enough money in some neighborhoods for basic services, like prompt response to fires.
There's not enough money to maintain adequately what previous generations generously left to us, such as libraries, parks, bridges and municipal buildings.
We the People — through our elected government — are letting things slide, even with the knowledge that a vibrant economy demands public investment in our collective future.
Many Americans are struggling with medical bills, college expenses and school fees while still paying for food, housing, fuel, insurance and local taxes.
Most of us can't save enough for future needs, even at a time when company retirement benefits are at risk or nonexistent.
And the more public services slide, the more pressure people feel to come up with additional money, such as for private tutoring to enhance their children's ability to get into college.
And how does our Republican-led government tackle these issues?
While fighting a disastrous war, mismanaging public funds and burdening future generations with a staggering national debt, its priorities are to cut taxes on the super-rich, leaving even less money for public services.
During campaigns, you'll hear Republican talk about "compassionate conservatism" and leaving "no child behind." You'll hear bragging about the jobs they'll create and how cutting taxes will boost everyone's standard of
living. You'll see a focus on the most divisive topics, on which people of good will differ, rather than on issues that affect everyone's well-being.
But when the election is over, what is the priority of the Republican party?
Answer: Cutting taxes on those who aren't struggling at all.
You may recall that within a year of President Bush's taking office, with a Republican-controlled Congress providing enthusiastic votes, the rich were given huge tax cuts, phased in over several years.
One of the ways to mask the unfairness of the cuts was to make the disproportionate benefits to the wealthy less obvious at the time. The cut for middle-income Americans, initially around $400, is planned to rise to about
$800 by 2010. But for the average super-rich, the cut will go from an initial $3,000 to $85,000 in 2010.
The Republican tax law of 2001 provides for the repeal of the estate tax in 2010. Estate taxes are levied on wealth transferred from one generation to the next. (Unless you're very wealthy, your estate is already exempt.)
According to one estimate, Vice President Cheney's estate would save $13 million or more if he died in 2010.
Even before the federal government began taxing estates in 1917, it was considered one of the fairest ways to raise revenue in a democracy.
That's because justice calls for taxes to take into account one's ability to pay. The super-rich, whose ability to pay is unquestionable, are already receiving enormous income tax cuts. Those of modest means are getting
small cuts but paying much more in government fees and local taxes at the same time their cost of living (food, shelter, transportation) is increasing.
Republican President Theodore Roosevelt advocated an estate tax in 1907, to the horror of fellow Republicans.
Some wealthy Americans are in favor of preserving the estate tax, for the sake of our nation's health. Bill Gates Sr. (father of the richest man on earth) says: "People who have the good fortune, the skill, the luck to
become wealthy in our country simply have a debt ... to the source of their opportunity. That is why so many of us feel that this is not only an appropriate tax, it strikes me as about the fairest of all."
Billionaire Warren Buffett said last month: "It's a very equitable tax. It's in keeping with the idea of equality of opportunity in this country, not giving incredible head starts to certain people who were very selective
about the womb from which they emerged."
Among the curious provisions in the 2001 legislation is a stipulation that the estate tax will spring back to its original levels in 2011 after being abolished in 2010.
But last month, the Republican-controlled House voted to make permanent huge cuts in the estate tax. According to one estimate, those cuts would cost our government $279 billion in revenue over the next decade.
So far the Republican-controlled Senate hasn't gone along because of vigorous Democratic opposition and a few nervous Republicans. Watch carefully!
Catherine Bayliss is chair of the Gloucester Democratic City Committee and a member of the Democratic State Committee. |
Gloucester
