The Poor vs the Tax Burden

Last night I made and then deleted a post that linked to this image from Doctor Jerry Pournelle's blog. I deleted the post because I was having formatting problems with the image on the main page. It was too wide for the column and about 40% was cut off. However the post didn't go entirely unnoticed because my posts go to a few people who are close to me via e-mail as soon as they are posted.

One person seemed to think that I was attacking the poor. I started on an e-mail reply, but as it grew it seemed like it would make a better blog post. And since the person I started writing it for gets the posts via e-mail that person will still get their very own e-mail message with my reply.

The cartoon (with live figures) is not about poverty, unless you believe that 50% of the people in the United States live in poverty.

Because 50% of the country doesn't pay any net Federal income tax.

The official definition of living in poverty is being in the bottom 20% of income. This definition means that there will always be someone "in poverty" and thus protects the jobs of the government workers who exist to fight poverty.

Divide the $6 trillion (rounded off, but a real figure) spent on fighting poverty since 1965 into the number of people who have been in poverty in that time and they'd all be millionaires- Except they aren't. Someone absorbed it along the way, and used it in part to build the giant Federal empire that is the Department of Health and Human Services.

But that's a side issue. Half of the people are being taxed to buy the votes of the other half. Both major parties do it. They just argue over how far to go. It's an unstable situation that would be more or less tolerable if we were headed in the direction of a balanced budget, and if the Social Security "Trust Fund" hadn't been looted so that it exists entirely of filing cabinets full of Government IOUs. But Social Security WAS looted (again by politicians from BOTH major parties) and we're spending $5 for each $3 we take in. And half the people don't care because THEY aren't being taxed to make up the difference.

It's a cynical game that both sides play. George W. Bush, in his tax cut "for the wealthy" actually adjusted the tax brackets for everyone and removed more people from the list of people who pay net taxes than anyone in the history of the US. Bush and the Republicans in congress were the ones who moved the line from just under 42% to a bit over 49%.

To most politicians the poor mean 2 things:

1. A voting block that can be bought by promising more goodies, or by saying the other side is trying to take away the existing goodies.
2. A way to tug on the heart strings of good people who want to help the less fortunate.

George Bernard Shaw, who was hardly a raving conservative, famously said "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." Our country needs to find a way to stop robbing Peter without being beaten to death with the specter of starving Paul. Nobody wants to do that; it's a straw man created by politicians to keep us from uniting against them.