Tax Day: Who Is Carrying All the Bricks?

Posted on April 15, 2009
Filed Under The State |

Think of all the American households as being represented by 100 people and the entire federal tax burden represented by 100 bricks.

60 of the people are each carrying ½ of a brick;
19 of the people are each carrying 2 bricks;

20 people aren’t carrying anything;

1 person is carrying 39 bricks.

Most people think that the one person with the 39 bricks should be carrying more. Most people think he isn’t carrying his “fair share”.

In 2006, the top 20% of American households paid 86% of individual taxes. But, somehow, that isn’t seen as a “fair” enough share.

If there is no limit to this “fairness”, then the 80% can continue to vote to take more and more money from the 20%. Eventually, they could take it all. When that happens and more money is wanted, then I suppose it would have to be the 60% voting to take it all from the 40%. After that…who knows? Maybe it becomes a free-for-all.

Interesting times.

Margaret Thatcher once stated: “Socialism works until you run out of other people’s money.”

When do you just call it theft?

Comments

21 Responses to “Tax Day: Who Is Carrying All the Bricks?”

  1. Bob on April 16th, 2009 8:07 am

    Your description seems to provide more than 100 bricks?

    60 @ ½ of a brick = 30
    19 @ 2 bricks = 38
    20 @ none = 0
    1 @ 39 bricks = 39

    Total = 107?

  2. ed on April 16th, 2009 10:50 am

    Of course your simple example is good to illustrate a potential injustice. However if the bricks are used to pave a road that 60 people rarely use, 19 people occasionally use, 1 person constantly uses, and 20 people never use, it might be an injustice that the 60 have to carry as much as 1/2 a brick.

  3. fro on April 16th, 2009 11:59 am

    wait - so you would rather tax the lower class more? it seems like the brick example clearly describes how the wealthy upper class shoulders the greatest tax burden. how is this wrong?

  4. Kelly on April 16th, 2009 2:01 pm

    Ed-can you cite a real life example of some benfit the government provides that only the wealthy are using?

    Fro-I think the point is that everyone is tired of paying taxes and having tax rates go up. As to how it’s wrong for the weakthy to shoulder the greatest tax burden, it hurts the economy when wealthy people have to pay taxes rather than employ people.

  5. Janet on April 16th, 2009 2:19 pm

    Render under Caesar…

    Whatever you do to the least of my brothers…

    I would rather my tax dollars go to feed, clothe and house the poor than to purchase one more hummer.

  6. ed on April 16th, 2009 4:06 pm

    Kelly– That’s easy:

    Many general aviation airports. Specifically I believe there’s one a little east of Colorado Springs with a runway funded at least partially with a government grant.

    Public roads with the only destination being exclusive neighborhoods. There are many of these in Colorado, and it’s easy to distinguish these from the privately maintained roads: they’re the ones without the gates and “stay out” signs. Can the poor drive on them? If they can afford a car and want to get to a place to turn around.

    A chap by the name of Bill Gates Sr. once gave a good defense of a graduated tax structure. His main point was this: the rich generally became rich in part due an infrastructure developed or maintained by the government (roads, communication networks), and should pay a higher portion of their income to maintain and improve this infrastructure.

  7. Steve on April 16th, 2009 4:22 pm

    Taxes should be fair. Taxing the rich a higher percentage, just because they are successful, is discriminatory. They should definitely pay more, but not a higher percentage.

    According to the IRS:
    - The top 1% of wage earners pay more than 39% of the income tax.
    - The top 5% pay more than 59%
    - The top 10% pay more than 70%
    - The top 25% pay more than 85%
    - The BOTTOM 50% pay less than 3%

    I don’t think anybody has a problem paying taxes, but it should be a flat rate. Don’t penalize people for being innovative, savvy, or successful.

  8. Kevin on April 16th, 2009 4:26 pm

    @ Janet:
    Render unto Caesar?

    Also, our tax dollars per se should not be feeding the hungry. That is not the responsibility of the State. It is the Biblical responsibility of charitable Christians, who have historically done a far better job than the State, when given the chance.

    Nearly everyone who has commented has missed the point entirely. I think it is this: Since when does the State determine who is poorer and richer by taking from those who have things? Economics is (was) housed in the sphere of Labor, not the State. It is not the State’s business to dictate who has what. It is the State’s business to punish evil and condone good, and that is it. That said, I am not rich financially. I live meagerly and pay my taxes. I also volunteer because I realize it isn’t the State’s job to “do unto the least of these.” It is mine and yours. It would be moreso if we didn’t hire the government to do it for us.

  9. Matt on April 16th, 2009 5:50 pm

    Romans 13 vs 1-7

  10. Russ R. on April 16th, 2009 6:20 pm

    It is clear from the post that we are way farther along to socialism than most would admit. Doesn’t anyone here have a problem with the State’s ever increasing power and control. When it was a Republican administration many thought the Patriot Act and such were great. Now when the new administration uses the same power to label people “right wing extremist” like “pro-life supporter” and “2nd Amendment advocates”, there is squawking. If Gov’t has the power to take some, it is a small step until it can take all. Some here have not learned from History…

  11. Mark on April 16th, 2009 6:54 pm

    I think the real issue isn’t who is carrying the majority of the burden, but that the burden is an injustice to the people that have put their confidence in the leaders who create the burden. I am all for feeding the poor and widows, but, the majority of the poor are not those who cannot help support the burden such as widows and orphans. We are always made to feel guilty for being hard on the “needy”. The truth is there are “needy” that can help support the burden, but they choose to be lazy and allow the rest to care for them. Stop picking on the wealthy who have paid their fair share with not just money, but with hard work that got them where they are. Take my contribution to the federal tax system and feed the widows and orphans.

  12. James on April 17th, 2009 1:44 am

    So exactly how much tax should the single mother making $15,000 a year be paying in taxes?

    Kev–The church has historically done a TERRIBLE job with welfare… They have left people starving in the streets while they built ever bigger and more elaborate churches. Look at the history of the church every step since Jesus. They have NEVER actually provided adequately…

    Churches are commanded to fund welfare but it’s not convenient. That trip a few people from the church take every 4th Saturday to slop rice and beans for the homeless does not cut it. We have dropped the ball and rather than belly aching, we could fix this by stepping up. But when was the last time you heard a preacher step out on that limb? It’s much easier to whine and stomp your foot than to do the job entrusted to us by Jesus.

    Now, the problem with a flat tax is that it creates an ever widening gap between the wealthy and poor. The wealthy get to keep more and more money and the poor pay premiums that they can ill afford and struggle to stay afloat.

    So much more to say, but this is already way too long:) I had a preacher once tell me that whenever you feel yourself getting riled up, it’s time to do some soul searching and see what you can do within yourself to solve the problem. It’s amazing how often it works. I think we could all do with a dose of introspection here… This is our problem and it’s up to us to fix it or shut up.

  13. Doug on April 17th, 2009 2:12 am

    Well said Kevin.

    You were obviously paying attention to lesson nine (which my group viewed tonight) and have hit it on the head. Our group had a consensus of opinion that we are approaching statism at an alarming pace, if we aren’t there already.

    I would also add that not only is the Federal Government extremely inefficient at redistributing wealth but that charity should never be forced. Shame on us if we think that paying taxes fulfills our duty to serve God and build His kingdom. We should all be faithfully tithing, generously giving offerings and to charities of our choice and serving in our local churches and communities. And shame on us if we ever look to the state in place of Jehovah-jireh.

    Blessings

  14. James on April 17th, 2009 2:30 am

    Grrr… I forgot one important thing…

    The notion that the rich/corporations will spend more money or hire more people if they pay less in taxes just doesn’t hold up to reason.

    Rich people spend far less of their income by percentage than those in the middle and lower classes. They can afford what they need/want already. Giving them more money doesn’t make them spend more, it goes into the bank.

    Likewise, a business will hire the fewest people possible to make the highest profit. If they pay lower taxes, they’re not going to hire more people, they’re just going to have hire profit.

    Oh! One more thing. I mean, I might as well just get it all out on the table at once…:)

    As much as we hate welfare, it has the highest return on investment of any government stimulus to date. Food Stamps specifically have a return of $1.80 for every dollar spent as opposed to investing in infrastructure which returns about $1.12. Similarly, investing in education service jobs (23 jobs/million $), public infrastructure jobs (17 j/m$) and green jobs (16 j/m$)results in higher job creation than tax cuts (14 j/m$), military spending (11 j/m$) and gas/oil jobs (4 j/m$)…

  15. Tony on April 17th, 2009 8:36 am

    This reminds me of the modern day golden rule, the one with the gold makes the rules. In the state where I live, they have KOZ or Keystone Opportunity Zones where new companies can own property for 10 years without paying any property taxes. The original intent was to bring in new businesses and create jobs. However, after their 10 years are up, many move to another property that is also designated as a KOZ zone for another tax free 10 years. The company that moved is often be replaced by another company for another 10 tax free years on the same property, thus leaving the increased burden of supporting the local municipalities, school districts and counties to the average home owner. Who is carrying the bricks?

  16. Curtis on April 17th, 2009 8:41 am

    Dr. Del,

    Twang!
    Congratulations, you have successfully struck a tender nerve.
    Maybe a quick review of tours 9 through 12 of,The Truth Project is in order for some who have responded.
    Maybe, just maybe, having this nerve twanged is uncomfortable because it hits us at the base of our spine causing a sudden need to stand-up.
    Maybe, just maybe, someday I will have the pleasure of shaking your hand and thanking you personally for twanging nerves, in every direction of the compass, and causing simpleminded sheep to become wise wolves in a world of predators.

  17. Janet on April 17th, 2009 10:31 am

    Del: When you teach from your personal experiences and your religious convictions, you are inspired and inspiring. Your posts concernings the Grand Canyon were thought provoking; your post about the Pinewood Derby was charming and emphasized the importance of family; your posts before Easter provided me with a prospective on Jesus’ separation from God about which I had not reflected before.

    When you preach from a political position as with this post, “Who is Carrying All the Bricks?” I fear that it is more like the noisy gong or clanging symbol; in my view, you are a much bigger person than this post represents.

    All tax policy allocates wealth; decisions on how taxes are spent determine who is fed and clothed and housed, whether mentally-ill peoples are protected from themselves and others, whether addicts receive treatment and become productive members of society.

    I suspect that you and I would not share many common beliefs about the role of government in our society, nor the role of our trusted servants in positions of power in government, but I am inspired to be a better person by your jottings, and I would hate to think that your writings and your followers’ blog posts would be reduced to political blather (on both sides of the argument).

  18. Mike on April 17th, 2009 11:37 am

    Amen to Kevin!

    And Del, we should have been calling it theft a long time ago! Since when is it the responsibility of the state to plan my retirement,ie. “social-security” ? Irresponsible people have elected an irresponsible goverment that rewards irresponsibility!! It’s about as un-American as it gets!! I have been paying into “social-security” for a long time. Who gets the money if my wife and I die young er middle-aged? Shouldn’t the state be paying me interest on my hard-earned money? Again we see the pattern here - take from the responsible to care for the irresponsible!

    Del, you are often saying that we should always be attractively winsome. But what is happening in our goverment and culture concerning the sphere of the state is sheer madness. O for a statesmen to clearly state what the people need to hear instead of what they want to hear!! I would find that attractive but many would not. What say you?

    God’s Spirit rest upon you!

  19. KAP on April 18th, 2009 1:42 pm

    Welfare money should be taxed at the same rate as the highest tax bracket. That would lend “fairness” to both ends of the scale. (If you really want to be “fair”)

  20. Leonard on April 19th, 2009 6:04 pm

    The part of this discussion that is missing is how many bricks does each person have that they can contribute to the common needs of society. As the old saying goes “you can’t get blood out of a turnip”. What is the level of sacrifice for the brick each person is contributing.
    A possible false assumptions:
    Did those who acquired wealth get it by honesty and hard work. (Whose hard work?)
    I would disagree that a majority of the wealthy are worth the salaries and bonus’ and perks they get. Look at what the highly paid and powerful have done. Current economic situation tells a different story, manipulation, unquenchable thirst for money and power.

  21. Marlene on April 20th, 2009 12:11 pm

    It is sad to hear so many malign the wealthy as if by being wealthy their sole goal is to pile up treasure here on earth. My husband runs a small business and so the income generated is taxed as personal income. We pay many multiples of our take home income in taxes each year. Not only that, the way the government taxes small businesses isn’t even based on what they make–it’s on what they are projected to make based on their previous year’s income. It seems illegal to me that they can tax businesses on what they THINK they’ll make.

    Some people asked whose hard work goes into people making the money. My husband is up before 5am everyday and comes home after 5:30 at night. He checks on things on Saturdays. He has a number always before him on his desk–the number of guys, their wives, and their children whose lives he’s responsible for supporting with his business. He takes that VERY seriously. Most small business owners do–and most people are employed by small businesses. People have taken the injustices committed by a few of the largest companies and have begun blaming all business owners of injustice. How sad it has all become. We give to so many charities and our church but now the government is going to give us less of a tax break for that too.

    Another thing people don’t realize is that as the government increases the tax burden on what they consider the wealthy, prices will have to go up on the services they provide through their businesses so that they can continue to pay their employees and provide insurance, etc. It doesn’t all go into the bank or cars or whatever other luxury items people think it does. It mostly goes back into maintaining and growing the business so that the business can continue to compete and support itself. I would ask those who equate wealth with greed and evil to go and talk to some of the small business owners in their own communities to try to get a truer perspective.

    Thank you, Del, for making us think.