You are viewing this article in the AnnArbor.com archives. For the latest breaking news and updates in Ann Arbor and the surrounding area, see MLive.com/ann-arbor
Posted on Sun, Apr 17, 2011 : 5:59 a.m.

Paying our fair share on tax day

By Guest Column

041711_roger-pohl.jpg

Rev. Roger Pohl

I remember my grandfather each year on tax day. He was an immigrant from Sweden, a blue-collar worker who made a living weather-stripping windows and doors in Chicago, making homes and offices more energy efficient. He was enthusiastic about his role in building and improving the infrastructure of America.

Grandpa would proclaim, “My proudest day every year is April 15, when I walk to the mailbox to send in my taxes! It is so wonderful to live in America with a government that repairs the roads, cleans the water, and cares about the common person!”

Now, many years later, I am the proud grandfather of three wonderful little boys. What kind of future America am I (are we) leaving for them? Declining schools? Crumbling sewer systems? Inaccessible health care? Insufficient services for the most vulnerable?

Now, as a retiree remembering what I learned from my grandfather, I know that I should have to pay the State of Michigan taxes on my pension income. In fact, I want to! And so should you.

I agree with Gov. Rick Snyder, up to a point, about the need to tax pensions. Yet I also have serious questions about the size of the governor’s accompanying business tax cuts, the scope of proposed reductions in government service, and his attempt to shield the proposed pension tax from repeal by voters.

My greatest hesitation regards Gov. Snyder’s proposed “flat tax” which is inherently unfair. A flat tax benefits the rich and penalizes the poor. For example, Gov. Snyder’s proposal to eliminate Michigan’s Earned Income Tax Credit puts an additional $856 tax burden on a family of four making $25,000. A more progressive tax would require “means testing” (better called “affluence testing”) so that those who can afford to pay more will, and those who are lower income will pay less.

I do think retiree pensions should be taxed, but only if done fairly. Watching new legislative priorities undercut support for education, health care, social services, environmental quality, and infrastructure investment, is frankly deplorable. We are witnessing (and indeed participating in!) a shrinking of our understanding of what it means to be a fair, humane, compassionate society.

The fundamental concept of a democracy centers much more in “the common good” than in “rugged individualism.” The word “politics” has two roots. One is from the Greek word “polis” meaning “city or town:” people-in-community. The other root is the Latin word ‘politicus’ meaning ‘pertaining to citizens.’ Politics is not something someone does to us, but rather the art and practice of self-governance. Politics is how we make decisions regarding our lives and future in this society. In Lansing and in Washington, too many policy proposals sacrifice the common good to self-serving interests.

I know that AARP, of which I am a member, advocates against taxing retirees’ pensions. And I know that the political right, of which I am not a member, shouts “Get the government off our backs!” I disagree with both positions.

The government is us: We the people. I refuse to kick-the-can of responsibility further down the road so that my grandsons have to rescue a society in even deeper crisis.

A major challenge in the last third of each of our lives is to choose “generativity” -- being concerned for future generations, rather than “self-absorption” -- looking out just for ourselves. The old dodge is to say, “Well, it’s going to be up to the younger future generation to clean up this mess.” Baloney! That’s an abdication of our responsibility. Young and old, rich and poor, we’re in this together. That’s what my grandfather knew.

So, retirees and everyone, smile on April 18 when you pay your taxes! Think about your children and grandchildren. Be proud if you’re doing your fair share, and be glad if that might mean doing even more.

A United Church of Christ minister, Roger N. Pohl was formerly director of the Ecumenical Center and International Residence, Ann Arbor. He lives in Ypsilanti.

Comments

braggslaw

Mon, Apr 18, 2011 : 1:20 a.m.

no problem paying taxes but I do not want to be lectured by someone who works for a non-profit that does not pay taxes

mferg56

Mon, Apr 18, 2011 : 12:33 a.m.

Will Warner: "But when we read past the preamble, and into the body of the Constitution itself, we find a document that defines a government of limit powers. Furthermore, the rock/paper/scissors balance of jealousies in the construction of the federal government suggests that its authors were at best suspicious of government. When we get to the Bill of Rights, we find an explicit list of the things that the government may not do to you, suggesting that the founders were more than suspicious and actually fearful of government. May we not infer, therefore, that the founders concluded that the promotion of the General Welfare and especially the securing of the Blessings of Liberty were best achieved by a government of limited powers?" Question: Which of the Amendments we call the Bill of Rights (which, while clearly important, were tacked on AFTER the Constitution was written) limit the government's powers of taxation? Seems to me those powers are clearly spelled out in the very beginning of the Constitution, specifically Article 1, Section 8: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the COMMON DEFENCE AND GENERAL WELFARE [emphasis mine] of the United States..." Sounds pretty clear to me, the founding fathers expected the government to collect taxes and spend a portion of it on the General Welfare of it's people.

Will Warner

Mon, Apr 18, 2011 : 3:33 a.m.

I was responding to your "and as far as that right-wing mantra about the founding fathers being for very limited government," and not so much to the taxation question. If you point out that this thread is mostly about taxation, I'd have to say you got me there. Oddly, when you emphasis WE THE PEOPLE, you are kind of making the point of the poster you were criticizing. His main point was that the government derives its authority from the people. And I would say that in the American context "we the people" means "we the collection of individuals who are the citizens of this country."

Jay Thomas

Sun, Apr 17, 2011 : 11:04 p.m.

I dream of the day when the Obamas, Pohls, and others will tell us EXACTLY what our "fair share" is. However I know that it is only a dream, for if they did and received that amount, then how could they make future spending promises to get elected?

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Sun, Apr 17, 2011 : 11:29 p.m.

. . . and I'm dreaming of the day when you don't have to be told what your fair share is. Good Night and Good Luck

Diagenes

Sun, Apr 17, 2011 : 10:39 p.m.

If everyone should pay their fair share, should the poor pay something even if it is a small amount? The "rich" pay the vast majority of income taxes collected. The way it is today many people pay no Federal income tax at all. Should not everyone be required to pay something? After all we all benefit from national defense, federal highway system, ect.

Dalex64

Sun, Apr 17, 2011 : 11:04 p.m.

What's their fair share? It certainly shouldn't be more than they can afford. You would need a progressive tax system to accomplish this, and as it has always been, those who make more will pay more.

Dalex64

Sun, Apr 17, 2011 : 10:59 p.m.

Ok, the percentage is a lot higher than I thought. That's another good reason to favor deductions and exemptions over credits.

Dalex64

Sun, Apr 17, 2011 : 10:55 p.m.

The small percentage of people who pay no INCOME tax do pay other federal tax, such as federal gas tax. I believe everyone with an income also pay SS and Medicare taxes.

Hot Sam

Sun, Apr 17, 2011 : 9:58 p.m.

"""Just curious, because I don't know - is there a dollar cap on SS distributions? """ In effect. The distribution is based on what you put in over an average of years...since the deduction is capped, it caps the distribution... Though it would be possible to uncap the deduction, and cap the distribution...

Tony Livingston

Sun, Apr 17, 2011 : 9:46 p.m.

Funny. At this point, Sweden has a much higher standard of living (and higher taxes) than we do.

Dalex64

Sun, Apr 17, 2011 : 9 p.m.

I left my opinion out of that last reply. I think that a flat tax system also has to have a flat tax exemption that also applies to all people equally. Currently, it is called a standard exemption and makes room for everyone to have some tax free money for mandatory living expenses. Since it is a tax exemption, not a credit, you have to make money to take advantage of it. So, you both don't encourage people to stay home and take their hand-out, and the rich can stop complaining about having higher taxes than everyone else. On the other hand, a progressive tax system is designed to take an equal percentage of someone's disposable income, up to the current cap of 30-something percent. I don't see why SS tax has an income cap on it, either. After all, fair is fair.

Hot Sam

Sun, Apr 17, 2011 : 10:05 p.m.

Any flat or fair tax proposal I have seen has a fairly healthy deduction or pre-bate to assist low income earners and the elderly.

Dalex64

Sun, Apr 17, 2011 : 9:38 p.m.

Just curious, because I don't know - is there a dollar cap on SS distributions? It would make sense that a distribution cap would be tied to the tax cap, but I can't assume something like that.

Macabre Sunset

Sun, Apr 17, 2011 : 9:09 p.m.

Because when the SS Ponzi scheme was invented, in theory you were paying the government to maintain your own retirement plan. Good joke on the people, huh? I don't think anyone under the age of 50 imagines that SS will even still be around when we retire.

Will Warner

Sun, Apr 17, 2011 : 8:52 p.m.

@Edward R Murrow's Ghost: "Gee, that preamble sure does not suggest that the government that the founders created was limited in its powers, does it?" Ghost, I've never before heard an American assert that our government's power is unlimited who was happy to make the observation. The powers you listed look like the enumerated powers of Congress. Notice that the last one reads "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers." Why did they go to the trouble of enumerating Congress's powers and refer to them as the "foregoing powers?" Why not just write "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper to achieve the aspirations of the preamble." Further, didn't your guy Hamilton oppose the 9th Amendment saying, "Why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?" (I've got Google, too). Sounds as if he thought the powers were limited. Then there is the 10th Amendment which begins "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution…,"

Will Warner

Mon, Apr 18, 2011 : 12:26 a.m.

Ghost: 1. I apologize for assuming that Hamilton was your guy. But in any case, he was there when the preamble was penned and apparently he thought that the Constitution for which it was a preamble created a government of limited powers. As I re-read your original post, I think I can be forgiven for concluding that you were arguing otherwise. 2. The federal government can achieve though appropriate legislation the execution of its enumerated powers. I wonder why the prospect of a federal government with "VAST powers" doesn't frighten you as much as it does me. 3. The wording of DofI is even more clearly describing a society in which individual liberty is paramount. I'm fine with the concept of other rights ("among these…"), as long as they are like the ones defined by the BoR, that is, what are called "negative rights" which are various ways of establishing that people can insist on being left alone. The DofI and Constitution do not contemplate what might be called "positive rights," that is, rights TO something such as healthcare. 4. Perhaps it is with the remainder of the Constitution in mind that the preamble must be understood. 5. Ain't that the truth.

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Sun, Apr 17, 2011 : 10:24 p.m.

1) Please show me where I said Hamilton was "my guy" and/or where I said the government had "unlimited " power. Frankly, I'm a Madison man--early Madison, that is, before he realized the powerful government he had created could threaten slavery. 2) Of course the government has limits on its powers. But when conservatives talk about "limited government" they frequently view that government as having virtually no power whatsoever. Nothing could be further from the truth. As a good reading of the Constitution makes clear, the government has VAST powers, far more power than most conservatives are willing to acknowledge. But that is not the same as saying it has unlimited powers. That is silliness. 3) The 9th Amendment's origins are found in the opposition to the BoR. Many opponents of a BoR feared that if certain specific rights were enumerated, later generations would infer that there were no other rights that ought be protected. They were, of course, prescient, given conservatives' battle cry that the only rights we have are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (which used alone removes those phrases' from the context of the DofI, where the key words are "among these are"). 4) You want to "move past" the Preamble. Of course you do, because the Preamble destroys the myth of limited government. It is precisely with that Preamble in mind that the powers of the Constitution must be understood 4) The interstate commerce clause covers a lot of ground. In the modern context, in renders the 10th Amendment virtually null and void. Good Night and Good Luck

Dalex64

Sun, Apr 17, 2011 : 8:50 p.m.

The unfair part of a flat income tax isn't the percent of income it collects, it is the percentage of income after subtracting mandatory expenses, such as food and housing. For example, I think we all can agree that everyone needs to eat. I'll float out some nice, easy math numbers, such as $6,000 a year for food. That is about $115/week. Let's set a flat tax rate of 10%. For a person 1 making $20,000 a year, that is $2,000. For person 2 making $200,000, that is $20,000. After each person pays for a mandatory example minimum of $6,000 for food, the percent of income tax to remaining, or "disposable" income is: Person 1: 2,000/14,000 = 14% person 2: 18,000/194,000 = 9% In other words, person 1 has less of their money left (as a percentage of income) to spend on anything else, like housing or saving for retirement.

Dalex64

Mon, Apr 18, 2011 : 8:32 p.m.

So, what is a fair tax system?

Madhatter

Mon, Apr 18, 2011 : 2:22 p.m.

Then person 1 needs to work harder to better educate him or herself so he or she can get a better job. Person 1 needs to realize that nothing is free and success requires hard work and effort. AND if person 1 fails, then he or she should not give up, but use the failure to further better his or her life and try again. If person 1 tries hard enough, he or she can become successful like person 2. By the way, person 2 likely has big student loans that provided for his or her education. It takes a higher salary to pay off those loans. Because person 1 is likely uneducated and not holding a loan, he or she isn't burdened with thousands of dollars owed. In addition, if we continue with this new communist/socialist way of thinking, we will all become person # 1's because nobody will make an effort to better their lives.

Hot Sam

Sun, Apr 17, 2011 : 10:07 p.m.

The example misses the deduction that is part of every flat tax proposal.

Dalex64

Sun, Apr 17, 2011 : 9:40 p.m.

Oh, I also dispute that they had to work harder, especially given the opinion of many here who think a lot of other people are overpaid for the work that they do.

Dalex64

Sun, Apr 17, 2011 : 9:34 p.m.

Oh, and I'm not talking about what other people are proposing. I don't know enough about them all to give a fair representation of what they are suggesting as the one true solution to everyone's problems. A flat tax alone won't accomplish what needs to happen.

Dalex64

Sun, Apr 17, 2011 : 9:30 p.m.

With the current progressive tax system, they pay significantly more. Are you suggesting a tax system with a flat dollar assignment, or diminishing percentages?

j5

Sun, Apr 17, 2011 : 9:24 p.m.

That's nice but you are ignoring the fact that Person #2 paid 10x more taxes than Person #1 and almost certainly had to work considerably harder along the way to get it. But don't get me wrong. Almost every flat tax advocate I've ever met is already on board with the notion of having a standard universal exemption to cover a basic level of income required to survive. Your argument doesn't hold up when faced with what people are actually proposing.

Pablo

Sun, Apr 17, 2011 : 8:44 p.m.

Yes, we really do OWE (and OWN) the government, if that is how one correspondent put it. For, without government, how would the (relative) freedom we enjoy be enforced?: police. Who would make our neighborhoods safe(r) for our families, establish some reasonableness for environmental safety for ourselves and our children? And...pension income should be reportable as taxable income. Pensions, particularly fthose unded by our employers, are funded and not concurrently reported as income, nor should they be. But, when they are paid out to us -- yes, I am a retiree -- we should be reporting that and paying tax on it...that is only fair. Rev. Pohl has made some mighty good comments...caring for each other.

Salinemary

Sun, Apr 17, 2011 : 7:33 p.m.

" A more progressive tax would require "means testing" (better called "affluence testing") so that those who can afford to pay more will, and those who are lower income will pay less." Amen to that.

dotdash

Sun, Apr 17, 2011 : 7:11 p.m.

I, too, am proud to pay my taxes on tax day. I would rather live in a country that can defend itself, that feeds its poor, that educates its children, and that has infrastructure that allows commerce and travel than have a few more -- what? -- DVDs? vacations? IRAs? There are important values beyond the self and individual liberties.

Madhatter

Mon, Apr 18, 2011 : 2:14 p.m.

Those who saccrifice liberty for a little bit of security deserve neither liberty nor security.

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Sun, Apr 17, 2011 : 6:47 p.m.

"But when we read past the preamble, and into the body of the Constitution itself, we find a document that defines a government of limit powers." Really? When I read the Constitution, here are the powers I find in it granted to the national government: Declare War Raise an Army and a Navy Call up the militia Tax Regulate interstate commerce Print and coin money Engage in and ratify treaties Regulate foreign commerce Borrow money Establish post offices and post roads Establish copyright and patent laws Establish the federal court system "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof" Gee, that last one seems kind of open-ended, doesn't it? So what, specifically, is a power that the national government DOESN'T have? Article 1, Section 10, by contrast, puts very severe limits on what the states can do. And, of course, there is the preamble: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Gee, that preamble sure does not suggest that the government that the founders created was limited in its powers, does it? Good Night and Good Luck

EyeHeartA2

Mon, Apr 18, 2011 : 5:28 p.m.

"Borrow money" OK. So I take bake what I said earlier. The goverment IS good at something.

Alan Goldsmith

Sun, Apr 17, 2011 : 6:06 p.m.

I know I paid my "fair share" for The Mayor's new Urinal Water Fountain in front of the new Police-Court Building which he insults real heroes like police and firefighters. Yeah, I'm sure smiling about that and thinking about the elderly who can barely afford to keep up with their increasing City tax burden. You can put away the American flag waving my friend.

j5

Sun, Apr 17, 2011 : 5:47 p.m.

The real underlying issue that most people want to ignore is that the tax system has become just another tool for special interests on BOTH sides of the aisle. Every year when you do your taxes, the laundry list of credits, exemptions and deductions that are available are evidence enough of the political nature of the tax code. Why does it make sense that pensions are exempt where a privately funded retirement may not be? Why does it make sense that mortgage interest can be deducted but there is no consideration given to renters? Why are dividends taxed at a special rate where regular income is treated as just that? I'm sure one could spend all day pointing out various aspects of the tax code which favor one group of individuals over another. In order to really talk about what is "fair" then we need to change the discussion to implementing a tax code which is color blind in every sense of the word. We could go a long way to reduce the influence of special interest groups if we implemented a new system with no adjustments combined with a lower tax rate to arrive at the same level of revenue. Only then would we have a system which was indisputeably "fair" and didn't discriminate based on lifestyle choices. One person's dollar should be no more or less worthy of taxation than any other person's.

REBBAPRAGADA

Sun, Apr 17, 2011 : 5:33 p.m.

I paid my taxes several weeks ago, and myself and my wife have not claimed any deductions for thousands of dollars given in charitable contributions to our local Catholic Church and a few other ministries my wife regularly supports. We have given our fair share and as always we do not ask the government to reduce our tax burden when we give in the name of God. The issue is not about giving the 'fair'share in taxes. The real issue is about fairness in spending those tax dollars. I am utterly dismayed to note that this country has already spent 600 million dollars to participate in a Libyan War while the City of Detroit has served layoff notices to all of its teachers and other staff, several thousands of them. A friend of mine works for the Detroit School District as a teacher. What a shame? What a way to spend tax dollars?

REBBAPRAGADA

Mon, Apr 18, 2011 : 5:59 p.m.

The war in Libya is not a just cause. Several reports indicate that the French have initiated this crisis and have successfully dragged the British and American governments into this plan to bring about regime change in Libya taking full advantage of domestic unrest in countries like Egypt and Tunisia. This is not the perfect time for such regime change. The real humanitarian crisis is in Japan. The men, the material, and all resources must be sent to Japan to help them.

1bit

Sun, Apr 17, 2011 : 6:21 p.m.

Off topic: A laid off worker or stopping a potential massacre. I'd rather spend the money at home too where it is sorely needed, but if our military must sometimes intervene for defense of the weak then so be it. Looking at the criteria for a Just War in the catechism, this seems awfully close to meeting the requirements.

Macabre Sunset

Sun, Apr 17, 2011 : 4:25 p.m.

I think we all agree we should pay our fair share of taxes. Question being: what is fair? Some would say the "fairest" proposal is one where every person pays for the services he receives. But the tax structure is progressive. If the slope becomes too great, revenue actually declines. If we rely too much on taxing the so-called rich, then revenue varies greatly when the economy is in the tank. And then we have a situation where the government can't even fix the roads - partly because revenue is down and partly because it's too busy rewarding its own employees and former employees. Government is broken. At least Snyder is willing to make changes, unlike his predecessor.

Will Warner

Sun, Apr 17, 2011 : 4:21 p.m.

Mferg56: "And as far as that right-wing mantra about the founding fathers being for very limited government and against any form of taxation, I think the preamble to the Constitution pretty much debunks that myth: 'We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE [emphasis mine], and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.'" But when we read past the preamble, and into the body of the Constitution itself, we find a document that defines a government of limit powers. Furthermore, the rock/paper/scissors balance of jealousies in the construction of the federal government suggests that its authors were at best suspicious of government. When we get to the Bill of Rights, we find an explicit list of the things that the government may not do to you, suggesting that the founders were more than suspicious and actually fearful of government. May we not infer, therefore, that the founders concluded that the promotion of the General Welfare and especially the securing of the Blessings of Liberty were best achieved by a government of limited powers?

InsideTheHall

Sun, Apr 17, 2011 : 4:21 p.m.

And Atlas shrugged. We have lost our way.

walker101

Sun, Apr 17, 2011 : 3:35 p.m.

A more progressive tax would require "means testing" (better called "affluence testing") so that those who can afford to pay more will, and those who are lower income will pay less. Typical liberal ideology or socialist thought, because I make more money then I should have to pay more taxes, in America with a government that repairs the roads, cleans the water, and cares about the common person, but is willing to spend billions of our tax dollars yearly to help all those other countries in need without any fiscal responsibility to our country? I would be willing to pay my share and more as long is the money is keep HERE and not some third world country that would rather see is dead their religious beliefs.

snoopdog

Sun, Apr 17, 2011 : 2:33 p.m.

"Now, as a retiree remembering what I learned from my grandfather, I know that I should have to pay the State of Michigan taxes on my pension income. In fact, I want to! And so should you" Hey Roger, I wish I had a pension to look forward to but I don't as don't 82% of us in the private sector. Must be nice to be able to have a pension but of course your "United Church of Christ" can afford to pay you a pension because all of its income is not taxed a single dime. Your article seems rather hypocritical based on you asking folks to give their fair share but your church's operate tax free ? Good Day

Macabre Sunset

Sun, Apr 17, 2011 : 4:28 p.m.

This is true. Roger's personal affluence is definitely supported by the common man. Meanwhile, the roads aren't being fixed, are they?

Lamont Cranston

Sun, Apr 17, 2011 : 2:26 p.m.

The flat tax that Rev. Pohl criticizes as unfair, is actually the definition of fair. A person making twice as much pays twice as much tax. What he really means by being "fair" is he wants to redistribute income from one group to another. I am not real trusting of politicians and their own agenda taking my money to spend on their pet projects.

alternativeview99

Sun, Apr 17, 2011 : 2:17 p.m.

&quot;So, retirees and everyone, smile on April 18 when you pay your taxes! Think about your children and grandchildren. Be proud if you're doing your fair share, and be glad if that might mean doing even more.&quot; I am sorry, we simply disagree about what is &quot;fair&quot;. Whatever we have been doing, it has been allocating 90% of the income to the super rich (10% of the wealthiest in the country). That leaves only 10% for the remainder of us to argue about who is going to pay more into the government. I felt more comfortable with the 30% those 10% kept from 1950 to 1980 leaving the rest of us with about 70% to argue about.. <a href="http://www.stateofworkingamerica.org/" rel='nofollow'>http://www.stateofworkingamerica.org/</a> In any event, 50% of the wealth of this nation is now in the hands of only 5% of its population. If you feel that is &quot;fair&quot;....... see you at the polls. I just don't like the unrest that such an allocation seems to create in a society. I don't believe the middle class and poor are happy now or feel fairly treated. I don't believe having so many working people idle is healthy. It is a wasted resource. And, I think to say to someone who accepted the medical and pension benefits as payment for a job that was often LESS than what they could earn in the private sector, (that you are now going to reduce that benefit through taxes that they did not plan on).....is a bit unfair. <a href="http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/6713/" rel='nofollow'>http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/6713/</a> (If you have data and/or studies that suggest differently, I am all ears.) Oh, and if you really feel that a &quot;flat tax&quot; is fair, then by all means implement one for social security. Eliminate the cap at the top that essentially means the wealthy pay less of a percentage of their income for that tax than the middle class and poor. And, while you are at it, clean up the loopholes in our laws so that companies like GE can pay tax instead of receiving a rebate. The issue isn't whether or not there should be a minimum tax. The question is why do

BHarding

Sun, Apr 17, 2011 : 1:52 p.m.

@outdoor6709: Compassion is a cornerstone of every major religion. Aside from religion, the vast majority of civilized nations find a way to support their people with some empathy, providing food, clothing and shelter. Back to the article. I agree with clownfish. The Far-Right would like to be rid of the IRS altogether. I've lived in countries where there is essentially no enforcement for paying taxes, and that's where you see the worst of people. The wealthy getting wealthier by the second, parading their gold and expensive cars and huge houses, while the desperately poor have no books, or toilet paper in the shabby schools. The rich claim they've earned $10,000 that year while everyone knows they spend that much in a month on luxuries. Power corrupts. For the most part, someone else's hard work is making the rich man even richer.

outdoor6709

Sun, Apr 17, 2011 : 10:37 p.m.

So what is compassionate about forceable taking from someone to give to another? You are confusing good voluntary actions with forceful actions on the part of the government.

Madhatter

Sun, Apr 17, 2011 : 1:40 p.m.

Churches run homeless shelters, they enrich their members through moral support, they have schools and meeting houses they have to pay for. Why is it the church has always requested 10% of our income since biblical times, and our government is always asking for more? I would also like to add that the church is a volunteer organization, nobody is forced to pay it or participate. There's no law that mandates you pay a church or attend, but many chruches continue to stand strong and thrive.

Madhatter

Mon, Apr 18, 2011 : 2:08 p.m.

Gasoline tax pays for transportation infrastructure. Property taxes pay for law enforcement The current wars and military is not being funded, it is running up our national debt. Doesn't our government decide who gets money based upon how good their lobbyist is? How about sweetheart deals and favors? So, no that doesn't clarify it for me. I still have sales taxes, income taxes, penalty taxes, and other fees that exceed 10% of my income. Even with all the taxes and fees, the government still wants more. Can you please clarify further so I can understand what all of my money is being spent on?

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Sun, Apr 17, 2011 : 4:33 p.m.

Churches don't build and maintain transportation infrastructure. Churches are not responsible for law enforcement. Churches (not since the 1700s, anyway) do not finance the military and pay for war. The 10% tithing is voluntary, as is the manner in which the church spends that money. They can decide who is deserving of their support based on criteria not appropriate for government. Does that clarify it? Good Night and Good Luck

DonBee

Sun, Apr 17, 2011 : 2:05 p.m.

Bob - Voluntary in the US, in many countries around the world there are still Church taxes that are mandatory and collected by the state.

BernieP

Sun, Apr 17, 2011 : 1:06 p.m.

Here's an interesting report to ponder as we come to the deadline for filing of income taxes for 2010. State of Michigan Revenue Source and Distribution Report from the House Fiscal Agency of the State of Michigan <a href="http://www.house.michigan.gov/hfa/PDFs/source0610.pdf" rel='nofollow'>http://www.house.michigan.gov/hfa/PDFs/source0610.pdf</a> Enjoy !

BernieP

Sun, Apr 17, 2011 : 5:14 p.m.

I stand on those comments, no apples or oranges there, just some facts of total figures and rough calculations based on population and average income. Tax Day in the opinion piece alludes to the 18th of April... filing day for Income Taxes ( at least I don't think he means Tax Freedom Day which was about a week ago. ) So my comments are limited to Income Taxes. Michigan Income Taxes in particular. The 5.5B is the Mich Inc Tax part of that report. The much larger Federal contribution to Michigan's budget, derived from Federal Income Tax, could be included too, but that would require more information about how much revenue goes into Federal coffers from Michigan filers of Federal Income Tax and then how much comes back to fund projects governed by the State of Michigan ( which is in the report ). On a side note, my understanding is that income taxes don't fund roadway transportation infrastructure...fuel, licensing and use taxes do. Some funds from the General Fund might go into rest areas, Welcome Centers, Amtrak, port or airport maintenance though.

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Sun, Apr 17, 2011 : 4:41 p.m.

You are comparing apples to oranges. The income tax is not the only source of revenue, and you are assuming that all state services are distributed equally. They are not. Good Night and Good Luck

BernieP

Sun, Apr 17, 2011 : 2:04 p.m.

By one definition of &quot;fair&quot;, if the projection for Income Tax revenue in Michigan was $5.5B and there are roughly 9M people in the state, and each tax payer receives &quot;the same&quot; benefits from participating in the community, then arguably if a tax payer pays less than $6,000 in Michigan Income Tax, they could consider themselves lucky. By another definition of &quot;fair&quot; if that income earner earned the average of income for this state - generously $45,000 times the income tax rate of 4.35% yielding roughly $2,000 per taxpayer if you pay more, for the same services, arguably you could question how &quot;fair&quot; this was given that you've been asked to participate in making up the $3.0B shortfall ( 5.5B - 2.5B = 3.0B ). Where is Solomon and his sword when you need him?

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Sun, Apr 17, 2011 : 1:19 p.m.

It is, indeed, interesting. And your take away is . . . . ? Good Night and Good Luck

Jeff Westbrooks

Sun, Apr 17, 2011 : 1:02 p.m.

I concur with clownfish's point with one difference: Not paying your fair share of taxes (such as using legal trickery and such) should be considered unpatriotic.

outdoor6709

Sun, Apr 17, 2011 : 12:56 p.m.

Can anyone answer this question for me? Where in any religous principle does it say it is Okay for the government to take from one person and give the money to someone else? The bible has lots of passages that say it is good to help our fellow citizens in need, but where does it say it is Ok to by force (threat of jail) to take from one person to give to someone else who needs it? The flat tax is the &quot;Fair&quot; taz system. I should not be requird to spend 60-80 hours a week working at a job I love, just to give the money to someone who would prefer to take life easier.

zeeba

Mon, Apr 18, 2011 : 1:43 a.m.

I'm not sure. But I'd gladly point you to where Jesus said &quot;It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.&quot; If Jesus was here today, he'd tell the rich to &quot;suck it up and pitch in. God has made you fortunate - now repay the blessings you have been shown.&quot; And you know it. Odd how conservatives want our government to reflect so-called Christian values, but scream bloody murder when it actual does so.

sbbuilder

Sun, Apr 17, 2011 : 2:05 p.m.

outdoor6709 &quot;Rom 13:1 Obey the government, for God is the one who put it there.&quot; &quot;Rom 13:2 So those who refuse to obey the laws of the land are refusing to obey God, and punishment will follow.&quot; &quot;Rom 13:3 For the authorities do not frighten people who are doing right, but they frighten those who do wrong. So do what they say, and you will get along well.&quot; Of course, you'll have to make sure you do a contextual interpretation.

DonBee

Sun, Apr 17, 2011 : 2:01 p.m.

And most of this applied to imports and exports. SInce the King of England favored one port over another prior to and during the revolution. Duties could vary greatly from port to port.

clownfish

Sun, Apr 17, 2011 : 1:07 p.m.

What does religion have to do with government? Not all of your money goes to &quot;make life easier&quot; for someone else. I think that is part of the problem with this discussion we are having in this country. So many assume that their money is going to some mythical &quot;welfare Queen&quot;. Most of the tax money raised goes to seniors, people that have worked their whole lives and payed into the system. They built this country so many seem to have come to revile because it does not match Randian Utopia. They built the roads, dams, sewers, regulatory systems, hospitals that we use everyday. A good chunk of the rest goes to support the military and it's retirees. ( note that when speaking of &quot;overpaid government workers&quot; you must also include the military, but few connect those dots) &quot;but where does it say it is Ok to by force (threat of jail) to take from one person ...&quot;-- in the Constitution. Article I, Section. 8.The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

clownfish

Sun, Apr 17, 2011 : 12:42 p.m.

Founding Fathers and &quot;socialism&quot; 1798, law signed by John Adams CHAP. LXXVII - An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled - That from and after the first day of September next, the master or owner of every ship or vessel of the United States, arriving from a foreign port into any port of the United States, shall, before such ship or vessel shall be admitted to an entry, render to the collector a true account of the number of seamen, that shall have been employed on board such vessel since she was last entered at any port in the United States,-and shall pay to the said collector, at the rate of twenty cents per month for every seaman so employed; which sum he is hereby authorized to retain out of the wages of such seamen ------ The law required the owner or captain of every ship entering a US port to account for the number of seamen employed thereon, and to deduct from every seamen's wages twenty cents per month, to be paid into an account which would provide hospitalization as well as private medical care for injured or ill seamen. Sound familiar?

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Sun, Apr 17, 2011 : 4:16 p.m.

&quot;They had very different ideas, and compromised to get to the constitution, that is why the 'Bill of Rights' is in a set of amendments, not in the body of the constitution, among many other things.&quot; Nope. The Bill of Rights exists precisely because the delegates of some states refused to support ratification of the Constitution without the promise of a BoR. Everyone agreed that they wanted to protect individual rights. They disagreed about how best to do it. There were those who thought that the divided government they had created, one with a balance of power, meant that individual rights were protected. And there were those who thought individual rights could only be protected if they were explicitly protected. The BoR, then, was not a compromise in any meaningful way. Those who demanded a BoR as a price for their support won. They gave up nothing. Those who opposed the idea lost. They won nothing. And it should be noted that the first of those rights--the most important--says that &quot;Congress shall make no law . . . &quot;. It does not prohibit the states from such conduct, and states routinely engaged in that conduct until the 14th Amendment extended the 1st Amendment to the states and to local government. &quot;Reading a few of the books from that era, not the modern interpretations by modern authors, is a useful exercise in understanding what was going on.&quot; Golly Gee!! Can you recommend a few? I've read the Federalist Papers, The Federalist Farmer Essays, the Anti-Federalist Essays, and James Madison's account of the Constitutional Convention. What else ought I to read? Good Night and Good Luck

DonBee

Sun, Apr 17, 2011 : 1:59 p.m.

The people involved in writing the constitution and setting up the government were not of one mind. They had very different ideas, and compromised to get to the constitution, that is why the &quot;Bill of Rights&quot; is in a set of amendments, not in the body of the constitution, among many other things. A dual was fought over some of these issues. The founding fathers wanted a WEAK government that was hamstrung, so that the things that England did would not happen in the US. Reading a few of the books from that era, not the modern interpretations by modern authors, is a useful exercise in understanding what was going on. Fair warning, words used to be spelled differently and have different meanings than they do today, so get an old dictionary to go with them.

clownfish

Sun, Apr 17, 2011 : 1:14 p.m.

Not so &quot;civilized&quot; Dave. Jefferson used pamphleteers to spread dissension, attacking Adams as a &quot;monarchist&quot; and worse, without Jefferesons name being attached. Reminds me of the money behind the &quot;grass roots&quot; TP. There was also a famous duel between two members of the federal govt, not so civilized. Many of the Founders quoted by our TP friends held human beings in severe bondage, something I would consider worse than any taxation we face today and certainly not civilized. What they did do was compromise, can you imagine!! Shocking.

David Briegel

Sun, Apr 17, 2011 : 12:37 p.m.

And Heardoc wants the quality of the air to be determined by the polluters. The quality of water to be determined by the polluters and land use policies to be determined by the exploiters. He is certain that all those corporate geniuses that rent the TeaPublican party have the best interests of all our citizens foremost at the top of their goals and objectives. A noble paradise brought to you by your favorite corporation. Unregulated, untaxed and unhindered by civilization.

clownfish

Sun, Apr 17, 2011 : 12:36 p.m.

Good article!! Paying taxes should be seen as patriotic. The Government IS the people, not an alien force bent on tyrannical rule by fiat. Taxes are at a 60 year low, if anybody thinks otherwise they are fueled by propaganda. One reason we are in debt is because of the &quot;drown the government in the bathtub&quot; mentality has gotten us here. Government SHOULD act a little more like business, when there is a need for more revenue, raise prices. If we went back to the income tax we had under Reagan we would be more solvent. &quot;limited Government is the best government&quot; - the Secret Password of ENRON, AIG, Goldman Sachs, BP, Boeing and the Keating Five. How did that work for you HEARDOC?

mferg56

Sun, Apr 17, 2011 : 12:33 p.m.

&quot;The government owes us--- not the other way around.&quot; What does the government owe us? Schools to educate our children, decent roads to drive on, police, firemen, and the military to protect us, courts to provide justice, etc., etc. The problem is that most people on the right want and expect these services, but don't want to pay for them. Sorry, Heardoc, but there is no such thing as a free lunch. And as far as that right-wing mantra about the founding fathers being for very limited government and against any form of taxation, I think the preamble to the Constitution pretty much debunks that myth: &quot;We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE [emphasis mine], and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.&quot; Note that the first words are WE THE PEOPLE, not YOU, THE INDIVIDUAL... But don't worry, Heardoc, people like the good Reverend Pohl and myself will pay our taxes without whining about it, so that EVERYONE, including you folks on the right, can continue to drive on WE THE PEOPLE'S roads, send your kids to WE THE PEOPLE'S schools, be protected by WE THE PEOPLE'S police and fire depts., etc.

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Sun, Apr 17, 2011 : 4:07 p.m.

&quot;It depends on whether you are a follower of James Madison or Alexander Hamilton on what the meaning of &quot;Promote the general welfare&quot; meant to the framers of the constitution.&quot; It also depends on &quot;which&quot; James Madison you are talking about. The James Madison of 1787 who, with Hamilton and John Jay, co-authored &quot;The Federalist Papers,&quot; agreed with Hamilton. The James Madison of 1815 had come to disagree with Hamilton, almost entirely because he had come to see the threat the national government posed to slavery. He therefore came to narrowly define that government's powers. You ought to read a good bio of Madison. You might try Jack Rakove, _James Madison and the Founding of the American Republic_. Good Night and Good Luck

DonBee

Sun, Apr 17, 2011 : 1:54 p.m.

It depends on whether you are a follower of James Madison or Alexander Hamilton on what the meaning of &quot;Promote the general welfare&quot; meant to the framers of the constitution. I would suggest you go back and read the Butler decision and some of the material from these and other people who helped create the constitution before you make a blanket statement about what that clause means.

David Briegel

Sun, Apr 17, 2011 : 12:31 p.m.

&quot;blood sucking parasites&quot;. This from a man who has a regular column right here at A2.com. I think he is probably speaking not only for himself but A2.com today! And that just about sums up the not so noble philosophy of the modern TeaPublicans. No sense of community, the safety net or basic values towards their fellow man.

joe.blow

Sun, Apr 17, 2011 : 12:17 p.m.

Last time I checked, Sweden was as nice as the U.S. Also, if people are so happy to pay taxes, they should pay a little more so that poor people don't have to pay any. Then we wouldn't have to worry about taking it to the rich.

zeeba

Mon, Apr 18, 2011 : 1:35 a.m.

Given that the grandfather in question apparently arrived here over 100 years ago, I'd have to say &quot;last time I checked&quot; is not a particularly relevant observation about the Sweden Pohl's grandfather left.

Will Warner

Sun, Apr 17, 2011 : 11:50 a.m.

From above: &quot;The word 'politics' has two roots. One is from the Greek word 'polis' meaning 'city or town:' people-in-community. The other root is the Latin word 'politicus' meaning 'pertaining to citizens.'&quot; George Stephanopoulos (a man who should know his Greek) says that the word is formed from the roots &quot;poli&quot;, meaning people or populous and &quot;tics&quot;, meaning blood sucking parasites. Thanks. I'll be here all week.

1bit

Sun, Apr 17, 2011 : 11:49 a.m.

I'm not sure I understand this opinion piece. On the one hand, he is arguing about the civic nobility of shared sacrifice through taxation. On the other hand, he is arguing for continued loopholes in the taxation system.

Hot Sam

Sun, Apr 17, 2011 : 11:29 a.m.

&quot;&quot;&quot;proposed "flat tax" which is inherently unfair. A flat tax benefits the rich and penalizes the poor.&quot;&quot;&quot; Let's see...if someone makes ten times as much, and pays ten times as much in tax, that is deemed &quot;unfair&quot;?

Hot Sam

Sun, Apr 17, 2011 : 2:44 p.m.

@alternativeview99 A great point about the social security tax...why we continue to cap that is puzzling...

alternativeview99

Sun, Apr 17, 2011 : 1:44 p.m.

While some of us might argue &quot;yes&quot; because those that make more and command more of the assets of society require more &quot;services&quot; from it, we don't even have to consider that fine point. (By the way, I think there are studies on that point and if you are aware of them, please pass them along.) What we should be considering is how, through various &quot;deductions&quot; and &quot;credits&quot; the super rich don't even pay the same overall percentage tax on their income. They pay less. Again, does anyone know of any studies on this? They should be available from the government. The government does these types of analyses in preparation of talks about tax change. Oh, and what about the social security tax burden? We say the system is going bankrupt. Why not just apply the tax at the same rate to everyone without any caps? Is it fair that the rich, who participate in the system, pay less of a percentage through these caps? I understand that using a &quot;flat tax&quot; as you suggest is so fair would fix the system for some time. In any event, whatever we are doing, it is forcing us to argue about how to divide up an ever smaller portion of the pie, (now 10%) with our budget allocations while no one is talking about where the other 90% went. (Most data and studies suggest it goes to the super rich. The wealthiest 10% of our society. If you find any studies to suggest differently, I am all ears! But, here is an example of the data and studies that I am finding. <a href="http://www.stateofworkingamerica.org/" rel='nofollow'>http://www.stateofworkingamerica.org/</a> ) I guess I would feel a bit more comfortable paying a &quot;fair share&quot; if I felt others were paying a &quot;fair share&quot;. And, last time I checked, I had a vote. But, I wonder how long that will last. In Benton Harbor, I can vote but I guess my elected officials are no longer running my life.

Heardoc

Sun, Apr 17, 2011 : 11:23 a.m.

This is ridiculous. This country was founded with the notion that governments can over tax and it is the PEOPLE that run government and paying taxes was not what the founding fathers thought was something we should be forced into paying. It is only the far left that thinks that government is 'DUE' our money. This is really upside down. The government is not due ANYTHING from the citizens -- the government owes us--- not the other way around. The government does not 'own' anything. The government is not due anything from the citizenry. We ALLOW the government to do certain things -- It is the left in this country that have forgotten-- and may wish us to forget -- that limited government is the best government. A government that is starved for money is the best government. Lower taxes and the relief of regulations is what will allow our country to regain its financial footing. The idea that we somehow 'OWE' the government money is really an idea that has been brainwashed into the left mindset and is completely against the american ideals of individualism, self reliance and limited government.