By Orion Daley
In last night's debate ( 09/26/2008 ) between the Republican and Democrat Presidential Candidates, I believe the question was presented indirectly about raising or lowering taxes . One example was in "What programs would be cut due to the current economic crisis?"
One question I believe should have been asked first was to explain 'what is really meant by a bail out of an estimated $700 Billion by taxpayers?' I truthfully believe that this is best case for an actual $1trillion minimum, where I have a gut feel for about $4 trillion.
Does this mean that every working person's taxes will be suddenly raised by a factor of about $2500 or so dollars, so the Treasury can claim ownership of questionable Wall Street paper and then let it sit idle while hoping for the best?
Or does it mean that the Treasury is going to write some bond to finance this amount, assume that they can sell it, and then expect the taxpayer to pay it off?.
Are we also accounting for the fact that layoffs continue which means less tax payers ?
I hear the term ' Transparency and Accountability ' as well all to often without any real transparent explanations for accountability such as in the matter of bailing out Wall Street.
But then, I further question any statement about tax cuts while at the same time assuming that the taxpayer will directly or indirectly be involved in some sort of bailout, etc.
Further, when considering 'Transparency and Accountability', that the above is academic without looking at a bigger picture first.
Unless a candidate is ignorant, dishonest or indifferent toward public service, how can they actually answer any question about raising or lowering taxes without doing some real accounting first. To be honest in public service, the cost of waste, fraud and abuse in government has to be answered first before we can even consider some $700 Billion bailout.
This means that we must thoroughly understand the operational cost of government . When accounting for this, which I personally believe is about 2/3rds dysfunctional, then the answer would be that every tax payer is paying 3 times as much tax as they should already. So this does beg the question about 'how casual is government in regarding taxpayers sacrifices' in the first place?
We should keep in mind that second to dying for our country, the most patriotic duty we have is paying taxes. As it is an insult to patriotism for any government to squander the lives of its military forces, it is an insult to squander hard earned tax dollars. Currently for most workers, two (2) of every 5 days that are worked are to support our federal government already; where a 3rd day can be considered toward state, and city; and then sales taxes. For every 40 hours that we get to work, 16 of those hours we are entitled to use to support our families, pay fixed costs, apply to savings, and invest for the long term; or if required to pay other or even back taxes.
The next part of the answer requires the determination of the taxes collected as actually being Constitutional according to Amendment 16. I question if your two candidates actually have the guts to address this for the American people !
But without accounting for the above first, would a candidate actually be considered competent in serving the people ?
Would you agree, that in terms of tax issues, candidates should be scrutinized closely, as it more than likely will cost you money that most don't have or care to spare.
If a candidate claims that they will tax the rich more to pay for needed programs for all, consider are they ignorant or dishonest. And if a candidate claims that they will give tax breaks to corporations, but leave you out, it should be obvious from where they are coming from too.
Considering the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government haven't genuinely addressed our tax issues, perhaps the question should be: What is your plan for tax reform; or in other words, actually ' how to make a cost effective government ' ? For without this first, how can it competently recover Wall Street, our economy, communities and jobs ?