MORRIS: These taxing times test my patience

Greg Morris
December 18, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

MorrisAre you tired of all the tax trash talk? The rich are getting richer on the backs of the poor. Tax cuts benefit the wealthiest Americans. I plugged “tax cuts for the rich” into Google and got back 10,900,000 results in 0.23 second.

This whole attitude, fanned daily by the national media, has been bothering me for years. But I always buck up and try to ignore the chatter. If you have big taxes to pay, that must mean you are making good money. Taxes serve the greater good. Be sure to share your good fortune with those less fortunate. The need is so great. I believe these things with all my heart.

But, frankly, I’ve had just about enough talk about how wealthy people need to step up to the plate and give more, more and then some more. They need to give their fair share. This message comes at a time when, according to the Tax Policy Center, in 2009, 47 percent of Americans paid no federal income tax. I do understand most of the people who don’t pay federal income tax pay a lot of other taxes—Social Security, Medicare, state and local income taxes, sales taxes, gasoline taxes and the list continues.

However, the people who do pay federal income taxes also pay all these other taxes. If 47 percent pay zero federal tax, then 53 percent pay 100 percent of the tab. It’s the same situation we’re in with health care, where those who do pay for services pay a much higher rate to make up for all those who don’t pay for services. Somebody’s got to pay.

There are many other tax inequities. Did I mention the estate tax yet? Where is the justification for taking money that has already been taxed as it is passed on to family members? And, let’s make sure that tax is 55 percent or higher! The alternative minimum tax is basically a tax thrown in at the end of a tax return that says, “You make too much money so we’re going to take more of it.”

What about the issue of how to define who is rich? That is in the eye of the beholder and policymaker. There is quite a gray area on the lower end of the so-called wealthy spectrum. In many cases, a “rich” family is a few short months away from financial disaster if a well-paying job is lost. I assure you they don’t feel rich.

I want to make an important point about taxes. If I really thought a tax increase would dig us out of the debt mess, I would be willing to contribute more. If, for example, over the next 10 years, my “debt reduction assessment” were $15,000 a year more than I’m paying now and with everyone’s participation we’d get back to even in that time, I would be one of the first to endorse the plan. I want to help end the madness and provide a more secure future for my family and for everyone in America.

But, how do you trust a government that never has enough money whether the federal income tax rates are 92 percent or 28 percent? Both parties say we have to reduce the debt, yet the latest tax-cut deal is projected to cost almost $900 billion. The other story of the day is the Senate spending bill, a 1,900-plus-page document outlining over a trillion dollars in spending, which includes $8 billion in earmarks and pork projects. Were these politicians not paying attention in the election last month or do they just not care? Maybe they figure this is one of their last chances to get some of their pet projects funded. Many of them are leaving office soon, anyway. The bottom line is, the only thing I trust about this current Congress and administration is that they will come back at us for more and more to fund their spending addiction.

I do believe the tax code needs a total overhaul. Whether the plan is a flat tax, fair tax, flatter tax or fairer tax, I don’t know. But the time is ripe for change. In the meantime, if the powers in Washington would just stop the insane, out-of-control spending, we wouldn’t need higher taxes, no matter what plan we use.•


Morris is publisher of IBJ. His column appears every other week. To comment on this column, send e-mail to gmorris@ibj.com.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  2. If you only knew....

  3. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

  4. The facts contained in your post make your position so much more credible than those based on sheer emotion. Thanks for enlightening us.

  5. Please consider a couple of economic realities: First, retail is more consolidated now than it was when malls like this were built. There used to be many department stores. Now, in essence, there is one--Macy's. Right off, you've eliminated the need for multiple anchor stores in malls. And in-line retailers have consolidated or folded or have stopped building new stores because so much of their business is now online. The Limited, for example, Next, malls are closing all over the country, even some of the former gems are now derelict.Times change. And finally, as the income level of any particular area declines, so do the retail offerings. Sad, but true.