Interview with Wilson
Wilson Smith and I had a shoot out today on What Is Goin' On. You can download it here.
Wilson takes a bit further on his post for the interview. I'm going to dissect a couple of paragraphs piece by piece:
So what does “spread the wealth” mean? I guess only time will tell, but let me tell you what I think it means. It is nothing sinister or socialistic.It may not be sinister. I'm sure it is with the best intentions. However, good intentions don't always have the intended effect.
It is, however, "socialistic" to "spread the wealth." I don't need to dig deep to debunk that.
Hundreds of thousands of people work for hundreds of companies all across America. They are good employees. They work hard. In this day and age, they are thankful for their jobs. They can’t quit their jobs, at least, not for a better job. Let’s say they make more than minimum wage, $10 an hour or $20,000 a year. Hundreds of thousands of people work for hundreds of companies all across America. They are good employees. They work hard. In this day and age, they are thankful for their jobs. They can’t quit their jobs, at least, not for a better job. Let’s say they make more than minimum wage, $10 an hour or $20,000 a year. They have 2 or 3 kids and live in a rental apartment of house. After the subprime mortgage fiasco, they will never buy a house because they will never get approved for a mortgage, because they will never save the 20% downpayment. Now, as a society, we expect them to raise good kids, productive kids, educated kids. We expect them to be good parents and to spend quality time with their families so they don’t end in a divorce. They are living from pay check to paycheck. (PLEASE NOTE: I think they would be living from paycheck to paycheck if they may 2 or 3 times as much, which is what most of us do.) By the way, if this is not a fairly accurate depiction of American families (maybe even, too rosy), someone tell me, because this is what I see everyday as a lawyer.Actually, after earned income tax credits and other tax deductions, it's very likely that they would actually receive a check from the federal government as opposed to actually paying taxes.Now this person, this family, is maxed out. Another bill, an unexpected illness, a tax increase is going to cost them a lot, maybe everything.
FEDERAL INCOME TAX PAID: I would guess no more than $1,500.00 a year.
According to the Tax Foundation, the bottom 50% of income earners, that is individuals making under $31,987, pay 3% of all taxes. Whereas the top 5%, individuals making $153,542, pay just over 60% of all income taxes.
Wealth is already being spread and Bush has done much to increase spending on social programs, non-defense discretionary spending is as high as it was during the the Johnson Administration.
And then there is the person that owns one of these companies. He is a good person, a good manager, comes to the office everyday and does his part to make the company successful. He lives well, his kids go to private school, he takes at least 2 weeks of vacation and flies across the country to resorts to show his wife and kids the good life. He has an IRA that he contributes to regularly. He has two houses. He is saving for college, the best college, for his kids. He invests conservatively in the stock market and every once in a while makes some money. His annual income is $500,000.00. Please note, this does not equal taxable income, which is generally lower.You don't raise taxes or increase the minimum unless you want more unemployment. Especially considering that fact that about 2.5% of the workforce makes minimum wage. You'd only be hurting the people you claim to help because employers would simply cut hours or layoff staff to keep labor costs down. And, increasing taxes on small businesses that make over $250k a year will cost jobs.FEDERAL INCOME TAX PAID: Let’s say $120,000.00.
Now, assume the government is $10 trillion in debt. (Contrary to popular disbelief, there is a rational basis for this assumption.)
Whose taxes should you raise? Whose minimum wage should be higher?
That businessman is successful because he has done the things necessary to be successful and taxing him, essentially putting a gun to his forehead and taking his money because after all everything government does is a the point of a gun, is nothing short of a penalizing that success.
Give both the successful man and the poorer family equal access to good schools by giving them school vouchers.
And for God's sake, cut spending across the board.
Comments
Good interview, Jason. I grew up in Montgomery and Toombs County. Wilson is a great lawyer, and in fact, some of my family has used him. He can be a tough guy in arguments, as you saw today. But one thing I like about him is he is sincere...a decent guy.
Posted by: Professor Wells | October 28, 2008 11:29 PM
Obama wants to increase taxation on small businesses to Pre-Bush levels. As someone who hopes to open a small business of her own one day, I shudder at the thought. My father lost his business under Clinton's taxation of small businesses. He didn't employ anyone, for it was a really small business, but the businesses that supplied his business suffered enough to fire workers or go under completely. My father found work quickly because the rest of the economy was relately sound, but we can't say the same today.
I can't imagine how many small businesses will go under... and we won't have as many ready positions for them to find employment.
When I read "And for God's sake, cut spending across the board." I had to laugh. AMEN, I say! Seriously, there are no fiscal conservatives anywhere these days, alas. Unless something drastic happens with the election or the economy, I don't see spending dropping.
Posted by: Prudie | October 29, 2008 10:17 AM
They are living from pay check to paycheck... By the way, if this is not a fairly accurate depiction of American families (maybe even, too rosy), someone tell me, because this is what I see everyday as a lawyer.
What's this guy being a lawyer have to do with seeing why broke people are too often stupid people? I've got news for him. A friend comes to mind that make six figures & he's broke too. Why? Because he's stupid, and I tell him to his face.
Same thing goes for the $20k/yr moron in his example.
Or is he using the same logic that a police officer would use about what they see regarding criminal activity?
Posted by: Danny | October 30, 2008 12:11 AM
How about another example of economic fairness. My brother was a state trooper making roughly 35K and my sister in law was working just short of full-time at a veterinarian making approximately $9/hour. Decision was made at that time that wife would not work once she became pregnant b/c the cost of daycare was more than she was brining in.
No longer a state trooper, brother now works in federal law enforcement making about 25K more than when he was a trooper. His new salary is more than he and his wife were making combined when he was a trooper. The amount he brings home, however, is about $300 less per month. He brings home less money, yet makes considerably more. Given the cost of daycare, it's still more economical for the sister-in-law to stay home but how is it fair that he worked his butt off to get a better job and now brings home less money while someone else makes an asinine decision to start a family of 2-3 kids making 20K a year?
It's no one else's fault that someone else cannot accept or understand what he or she can and cannot afford.
Background: Brother was a solid C student in college because much of his free time was spent working to pay for his tuition and fees. Joined the Navy upon graduation (enlisted--no college education required) so his state police application would be stronger. Excelled as a trooper for 3 years and, combined with his Navy experience, rather easily obtained his federal law enforcement position. Don't tell me you need privilege to "make it." My brother's relative success is a product of hard work, determination and sacrifices made to reach a larger goal.
Sorry, I still don't think it's fair that hard work and rising in the ranks is penalized by the current US tax code and I'm in that bracket of people who make less than $31,987 so pay only 3% of the taxes. I don't kid myself into thinking that I'm going to afford to buy a home anytime soon and I wouln'd think of starting a family until I could provide for it. It's sacrifices and sound decisions that lead to success--not government handouts, which conceivably only lead to mediocrity at best.
Posted by: Emily | October 30, 2008 03:04 PM