COLUMN: Hey. Mr. Taxman

From Kristopher Couch's, "Nothing But the Trush," Fall '96 From Kristopher Couch's, "Nothing But the Trush," Fall '96A flatter, fairer tax system orFrom Kristopher Couch's, "Nothing But the Trush," Fall '96A flatter, fairer tax system ormore of the same policies weFrom Kristopher Couch's, "Nothing But the Trush," Fall '96A flatter, fairer tax system ormore of the same policies wehave now? You decide. From Kristopher Couch's, "Nothing But the Trush," Fall '96A flatter, fairer tax system ormore of the same policies wehave now? You decide. Students don't pay much attention to politics, although we should. While the presidential candidates engage in games of verbal Twister on public television, most students are busy doing more important things. Discussing the latest federal tax policies? Probably not, although we should. What's an apathetic college student to do? President Clinton wants to require the rich to pay their "fair" share in taxes, while Republican presidential candidate Bob Dole wants a flatter, "fairer" tax policy. But what's "fair?" You decide. According to the 1995 census, earnings of $113,000 put you in the top five percent of earners, the people who paid over 47 percent of total taxes. While this may seem outrageous, numbers are just numbers. If taxes on the rich aren't raised, who else are we going to tax? Or so the argument goes. When you think about it, it's quite easy for a politician to say "Let's tax the rich!" Who's going to complain? And when the "rich snobs" do complain, the easy response is, "Well, you just don't have any compassion." Maybe after we decide what's "fair," we should discuss "compassion." Or more importantly, how do you demonstrate compassion? If we ask Mr. Politician on the left, compassion comes from paying your "fair" share to the government. Try to forget that Mr. Politician falls into the "rich" category on his taxes. Try to forget that Mr. Politician recently voted himself a pay raise. Try to forget that Mr. Politician is compassionate only because he pays his taxes! How much compassion does paying your taxes take, when it is required by law? One last thing you should try to forget is that when Mr. Politician raises taxes, he shows his "compassion" by his willingness to accept a higher tax rate, while simultaneously giving himself more power and money to distribute around the country as he pleases. Did you follow all of that? Mr. Politician is so much more compassionate than you, because he can be compassionate with your money. Not a bad deal. The common argument is that money is distributed unequally in this society. That's true -- only money isn't distributed, it's earned. The fallacy of this argument is that it implies that money can be distributed equally. That will only happen after the tax form asks you to list your total income and then requires you to send it all in to the government, a noble theory that unfortunately eliminates incentives to work and ultimately destroys liberty. Meanwhile, the battle cry heard from the fields of class warfare is "the rich are getting richer." Good. I shutter to think of the economic situation in this country where the rich are getting poorer. You could raise the federal income tax rate to 100 percent, and the "rich" would still get "richer;" their riches would just be in other countries. It is unfortunate when the political focus is the pocketbook of the rich, when the real question should be whether the "poor" are getting "poorer?" If the answer is yes, what can we do about it? At this point, the presidential candidates present two different philosophies. From Clinton's camp, we have a stifled economy but a large government infrastructure implemented to feed, house and provide jobs for the "poor." Contrary to popular belief, the bottom 20 percent of earners have seen their average income drop during the Bush and Clinton era. Combine the loss of income with the value of government programs and maybe the poor aren't getting poorer, but they certainly aren't getting any richer. Dole's option is a lower federal tax rate and less government intervention. In this century, the economy has grown faster every time a tax cut has been implemented. Under this plan, economic rebirth for the inner-cities will only result from a healthy economy coupled with incentives that foster inner-city enterprises. How do we keep the "poor" from becoming "poorer?" By eliminating the capital gains tax on investments and providing tax incentives for business redevelopment within the inner-city. Opponents of this idea dismiss it as "voodoo economics" or the much-dreaded "trickle-down" theory. This does not imply that the opponents believe in the little-known "trickle-up" theory. Rather, they resort to "force-down" economics. Clinton supporters have come to accept a "safer" and slower economic growth, despite the knowledge that such a policy will bring very few "poor" out into the "middle class." Is that fair? Is that compassionate? You decide.