Nearly Half of Americans Aren't Paying Income Taxes: Bad But Maybe Not in the Way You Suppose

It has recently exploded all over the internet that nearly half of American households do not pay income taxes.  There are enough deductions and credits for families making around $50,000 and less to avoid the income tax completely, though they still are paying federal payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, and others.

While some see this as a broken tax system, I see it as a broken economy.  While some gripe that half of Americans aren't pulling their weight, I see it as nearly half of Americans are not making enough money to pay income taxes.  They live below the line where we have decided that a person is only making enough to cover basic expenses and should not bear the weight of income taxes on top of it.  Instead of trying to figure out how to get those people to start paying income taxes at their current salary, lets instead focus on how to get these people making enough money to be able to afford taxes after their basic needs are met.

If we want to broaden the tax base, and I agree that that should be one of our goals, we need to narrow the gap of income inequality.  We are more free as a nation, and have increased agency as individuals, when the wealth and income gap is narrow.  That is perhaps part of why the Lord said, "For if ye are not equal in earthly things ye cannot be equal in obtaining heavenly things."  Here is a site, called Business Insider, with all the charts you will ever need to help understand just how serious an issue this is.  Here is an example:

Earth Day and Consumption

I think the most important thing we can do to be good stewards over the Earth is to consume less.  This year we hit the seven billion mark in world population and the numbers will grow to nine billion in the next few decades before leveling off.  This means overwhelming stress on our environments, which we can mitigate by being wise stewards over the Earth.  Here are some prophet warning against over-consumption:

Jacob 2: 11-13

And now behold, my brethren, this is the word which I declare unto you, that many of you have begun to search for gold, and for silver, and for all manner of precious ores, in the which this land, which is a land of promise unto you and to your seed, doth abound most plentifully.  And the hand of providence hath smiled upon you most pleasingly, that you have obtained many riches; and because some of you have obtained more abundantly than that of your brethren ye are lifted up in the pride of your hearts, and wear stiff necks and high heads because of the costliness of your apparel, and persecute your brethren because ye suppose that ye are better than they.

D&C 49: 19-21

For, behold, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and that which cometh of the earth, is ordained for the use of man for food and for raiment, and that he might have in abundance.  But it is not given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin.  And wo be unto man that sheddeth blood or that wasteth flesh and hath no need.

 D&C 59: 18-20

Yea, all things which come of the earth, in the season thereof, are made for the benefit and the use of man, both to please the eye and to gladden the heart;  Yea, for food and for raiment, for taste and for smell, to strengthen the body and to enliven the soul.  And it pleaseth God that he hath given all these things unto man; for unto this end were they made to be used, with judgment, not to excess, neither by extortion.

Pres. Monson, in "Duty Calls" from the November 1996 Ensign, wrote, "We live in a world of waste. Too often our natural resources are squandered. We live in a world of want. Some enjoy the lap of luxury, yet others stare starvation in the face. Food, shelter, clothing, and love are not found by all.  Unrelieved suffering, unnecessary illness, and premature death stalk too many."

Elder Nelson, "The Creation" from the May 2000 Ensign, wrote, "Jesus is the Christ and Creator! He is
Lord over all the earth. As beneficiaries of the divine Creation, what shall we do? We should care for the earth, be wise stewards over it, and preserve it for future generations."

Finally (for now), Elder Maxwell in his book A Wonderful Flood of Light, wrote, "True disciples . . . would be consistent environmentalists – caring both about maintaining the spiritual health of a marriage and preserving a rain forest; caring about preserving the nutrient capacity of a family as well as providing a healthy supply of air and water."

There are many other such exhortations from prophets throughout time which warn against over-consumption.  The detrimental consequences (or perhaps the driving forces) of this sin are pride, inequality, and harm to the Earth itself, which Enoch taught us has a Spirit and is a living thing.

You may not want to call yourself an environmentalist, and you may not agree with all the goals and methods environmentalists use, but you can be a good steward over the Earth by consuming less.  Drive less, use fewer electronics, use less water, eat more locally grown fruits and vegetables and less meat, grow a garden, buy second-hand items, don't concern yourself with name brands and ephemeral trends.  In short, live more simply.  Happy Earth Day.

* I should give credit to Craig Galli who has done a lot of work regarding Mormonism and Environmentalism.

Uh oh, here we go again...

...Who will be next to put forth a LDS political philosophy? This guy:

http://www.latterdayliberty.com

I will be straightforwards and call this bunk. I really don't care what sort of politics people propose; I fundamentally oppose any argument for/against any political system based on scripture and/or the Gospel. All of these arguments squeeze a subject as large as the universe itself into something the size of an elephant (or donkey, or eagle, or whatever). The Gospel is far larger, far more organic, and far more contradictory (if you only examine the surface, much like the rest of the natural world) than any one political theory can reasonably contain. All of them -- from Liberalism to Conservatism to Anarchy to Theocracy fail to really represent the Gospel in all of its power and glory.

Until the time comes when Christ himself reigns, we are stuck with imperfect people making imperfect decisions. And that's just within the Church; outside of the Church we must deal with the cultural mishmash that is the modern world. Politics in such a world are, by definition and of necessity, boisterous and rowdy and messy. People are strikingly different, so finding common ground can be a difficult business. In America we've managed to eke out an uneasy but largely peaceful existence by sheer force of will to move forward despite huge differences. All reformers must come face-to-face with this reality if they get so lucky as to attain positions of leadership. The current "Tea Party" types are learning this the hard way, the survival of their movement will depend far more on their ability to pave roads and take out the trash than their quest to defund Planned Parenthood or forcing the U.S. to default on its financial obligations. They are a perfect example of the imperfect people with whom we have to work. And, because they've won elections, those of us who think they're crazy have to work with them. We have to put up with their birtherism and looniness because at some point in time they will vote on bills. With the current composition of the House, and the Republican primary climate (witness the meteorotic rise (and let me be the first to predict the fall) of Donald Trump's political ambitions), they wield undue leverage. I hate it. But I live with it because that's the price of admission for living in our Democracy. And I love our system; all its messiness notwithstanding we are somehow able to hold this crazy ship together and move forwards. That, to me, is a modern miracle that is every bit as complex and contradictory as nature (and the Gospel), and well worth our time to understand and appreciate.

Health Care and the Budget

On the one hand I tip my hat to Republican Paul Ryan for actually submitting a proposal for the federal budget which addresses some of the important issues that are looming.  On the other hand he did a really bad job.  So it's a mixed bag.

The fundamental problem is that he puts fiscal responsibility squarely on the backs of the poor and elderly, mostly by slashing Medicare and Medicaid and lowering taxes on the rich.  Nor does his plan address "defense" spending, which is a subject we've addressed before here.

We pretty much exhausted the health care debate here last year, but it bears mentioning once again that there is a very good argument that a single payer system would do more to solve our entitlement-budget problems than anything else.  A single-payer system would save costs in a few of ways.  First, you would immediately slash most of the administrative overhead that is currently a massive drag on the system.  Second, you remove the perverse profit motive that skews the system and leads to appalling results.  Third, by covering everyone the risks are spread evenly and fairly amongst all Americans and the uninsured can no longer crash the party without paying in.  Fourth, since everyone is covered preventive care is universally available.  Fifth, bankruptcies as a result of medical emergencies no longer exist.

There are other points, and counterpoints, but that gives a pretty good idea of where health care savings might come from in a single payers system.

The United States currently pays more per capita for health care than developed countries which have a single payer system, without the benefits of actually better health.  We should have no problem studying those systems and creating one that works for us.  I understand that there trade-offs for universal health care, but none I'm not willing to pay.

A single payer health care system is a nice, elegant way of both fixing the broken health care system and taking a huge step towards fixing the federal budget.

Speedy and Public Trial by Jury

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, from The Economist

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed."  -- 6th Amendment

This seems pretty straightforward, right?  I believe the historical impetus for this addition to the Bill of Rights was the fact that kings and rulers were accusing the people of crimes and convicting them without a trial by jury, without witnesses, without due process of law, essentially without any safeguards or protections whatsoever against corruption and unchecked power.  The founders wisely ensured that if government has the ability to deprive a person of property, freedom, or life (which it does) then the Constitution should require that the government has to submit to certain safeguards against the abuse of that power.  I believe those on both the political right and left can feel good about that.

Of course, America isn't alone in guaranteeing a public jury trial for criminals.  Other countries have such requirements, and stick to them even in cases of terrorist attacks, as Glenn Greenwald outlined:

People in capitals all over the world have hosted trials of high-level terrorist suspects using their normal justice system.  They didn't allow fear to drive them to build island-prisons or create special commissions to depart from their rules of justice.  Spain held an open trial in Madrid for the individuals accused of that country's 2004 train bombings.  The British put those accused of perpetrating the London subway bombings on trial right in their normal courthouse in London.  Indonesia gave public trials using standard court procedures to the individuals who bombed a nightclub in Bali.  India used a Mumbai courtroom to try the sole surviving terrorist who participated in the 2008 massacre of hundreds of residents.  In Argentina, the Israelis captured Adolf Eichmann, one of the most notorious Nazi war criminals, and brought him to Jerusalem to stand trial for his crimes.

But not in America.  In America we are stricken with fear that our criminal justice system is suddenly inadequate and that the safeguards found in the Constitution regarding trials of criminals, which have served us well for a couple hundred years, fall short.  So we have a Democratic administration, which is daily showing itself to be nothing like liberal as to civil liberties, reversing its promise to close Guantanamo Bay and hold criminal trials for Khalid Sheik Mohammad and the 9/11 plotters.  Instead, the administration has decided to hold military tribunals (straight news story here) and eschew our time-tested criminal court system.  Tribunals without a jury, behind closed doors, in a different country.

We are allowing, some even demanding, that the government brush aside the important Constitutional safeguards against abuse for merely political considerations.  We are also setting up a system where different classes of criminals receive different levels of Constitutional protection.  All out of fear, and all backed by "liberal" Pres. Obama.  I like the guy, but his record on civil liberties is appalling.

March Madness

March was a crazy month:

1) For the 3^rd time in history, no number one ranked team made it to the Final Four, and my fourth favorite team from Utah played well. Props to Jimmer for the award.

2) Former lobbyists rush back to Washington to get jobs working for the people they used to proposition, and coincidentally work on legislation that benefits their former employers.

3) Wisconsin eliminated collective bargaining for public employees. New Jersey teachers' health benefits become the target of the latest anti-whatever campaign.

4) The rebellion in Libya escalated to a full on war.

5) Japan endured an earthquake, a tsunami, and nuclear fallout.

I didn't list the above in any particular order of significance or impact, and there are definitely a number of additional events that could be added to my short list. One of these items also squirms out of the frozen tundra of Michigan politics – an emergency manager bill. This one completely baffles me.

From what I understand, the bill (already passed by the state senate and house) gives the governor the power to declare "financial emergency" in a school district, or even in a town. In doing so he would then appoint an emergency manager empowered "to fire local elected officials, break contracts, seize and sell assets, and eliminate services." Imagine that, an appointed henchman can walk into some district and go carte blanche on the place.

It gets better. Apparently the bill provides for no public oversight or input – not only was an amendment proposing monthly public updates voted down, but all action by the Manager is omitted from public overturn. Oh, and there is no cap on the financial compensation given to the Manager for his/her service. I find it ironic that an overseer, brought in for the express purpose of correcting financial misappropriation is exempt from personal budget.

Like Jacob S., every time I start to get on the State's rights train, something like this pops up and terrifies me. How can a state legislator pass a law like this without having a vote by the public?