Taxes are funny, innit? II

Deval Patrick put out his budget proposals, and the people are taking out their frustrations over the details of said proposals on their politicians.

Namely: the increase of the income tax from 5.25% to 6.25%; the reduction of state sales tax to 4.5%, to which sodas, snacks, and water bottles will be included; the increase of cigarette taxes to $3.51, and other things.  On the positive side, the personal exemption may go up to $8,800 - but only if you earn less than $37,000.

A few back-of-the-envelope calculations: If you're buying a pack of $6 generic cigarettes and the new excise tax is $3.51, that sports an effective tax rate of 58.5%, even before the sales tax is applied.  If you're buying $50 of snacks and a case of 24 cans of soda at $8, the new tax will rake in $2.25 for the snacks and $0.36 for the soda, plus another $0.60 for deposit.  That means an additional $3.21 tacked onto the bill.  If you earn $40,000 a year, you pay an extra $400 per year, or $8 per paycheck.

Deval Patrick knows that he's a lame duck and is very smart to use ignorance to his advantage. He knows the real money to be taken is where no one will take a second to question why and calculate how much.  He also knows the taxes he's raising are on the poor and lower middle classes who have little, if any, influence on how these taxes will be distributed - it might sound great that the monies are going to transit and education, but often they go to the general fund so they can be spent on pork and perks.  They're the same people who will hang on every promise but in the end get whacked in the face, time and again, because they aren't savvy enough to differentiate between good taxes (that are put out front and benefit everyone) and bad taxes (that can be hidden and manipulated to the whim of the politician).

Furthermore, these extra taxes beyond the income tax are designed to be regressive, and will come from the disposable income of the poor and lower middle class.  The snack and soda taxes alone will be a harsh regressive tax, and coupled with yearly fare hikes, the urban areas (and not the suburbs, who sustain most of the commuter rail fare hikes) will financing a huge chunk of shiny new buses and trains, while also having bus and train services reduced or cut.  On top of it, no one, not even the poorest, will avoid the 6.25% income tax (and no one knows if they'll offer an alternate, higher income tax for those who want to pay more - the 5.85% tax has generated so little revenue anyway).

Voters re-elected Patrick with passion.  Now they're seeing their passion repaid with a massive shakedown on their wallets.  Now the voters are certainly rekindling that same passion - by giving politicians a huge earful about how they'll vote for the other guy if this budget passes.

Taxes are funny, innit?

For the many people who were shocked, shocked that their paychecks were reduced, it was because the Social Security tax that was temporarily reduced to 4.2% from 2011-2013 was rightfully restored to the original 6.2% rate. 

I say "rightfully restored" because Congress let the temporary rate expire - and it was a bipartisan effort.  Not that 6.2% is a nice, cheap rate - it's better than the 39.6% plus a few surcharges signed into law along with the permanent Bush tax rates - but the reduction was to get people to spend more money in their paychecks, yet it went to paying for higher food and fuel prices.  (See also Making Work Pay, which credited people $400-$800 but also expired, replaced by the 4.2% temporary rate.)

Taxes are funny.  People will whine about an increase in taxes, but will still buy cigarettes, which carry a effective tax rate of 40-65%, will purchase beer at 11 cents per gallon excise tax, liquor at $4.05 per gallon excise tax, not recycle their cans and reclaim their nickel per can/bottle, and not look at their phone bills and be on the hook for 12-13% in more taxes.  Yet, when they're told that they can reduce or defer their taxes, either by decreasing the amounts they withhold in their paychecks or by deferring their income to a 401(k) program, they're too busy watching TV or letting the media narrate what's going on through the lens of a gossip columnist with a mighty big axe to grind.

Of course, there will be masochists taxpayers willing to pay even more.  Let them.  Let them endorse their paychecks directly to Uncle Sam if it makes them giddy.  It's a fool's errand, however, to force others to pay more just because you think they have deep pockets and must do it for the "common good."  When the money runs out from these folks, it's the "common good" who has to fork over their savings.  Soon enough, Margaret Thatcher's axiom of "eventually [running] out of other people's money" comes true.

Our thirst for exploitation TV

Andrea Peyser's fantastic column in regards to the disgusting six year old child participating in beauty pageants hits a hard nerve.

I have two nieces.  To their tremendous credit, they have zero interest in participating in things like that.  They want to be kids, not some hardcore pervert's fantasy.  My sister-in-law and my brother keep them rooted to reality.

Watching shows that exploit stereotypes, celebrities, and above all children has its parent in the Jerry Springer show.  When the Jerry Springer show brought in every base stereotype into the mainstream, a lot of ears perked up.  So did Maury Povich.  So did many other shows, raking in the cash on every fight, every "Jerry, Jerry, Jerry" and every "You're not the father."

The Osbournes brought in celebrity exploitation, thanks to Ozzy's doddering speech and call outs to "Sharon."  They beget the equally odious Kardashians.  Producers love rolling in the money when Gene Simmons and Shannon Tweed get married, get into fights, and all of the bleeps.

Now it's children and pageant/dance shows that have really solidified gross exploitative TV.  It's not enough for children as young as three to look like painted trollops; it's ratings and advertising gold for the mother/trainer to blow up like a Parris Island drill instructor.

All because viewers have allowed degrading TV shows like this.  We've not just become desensitized to gross violence and hedonistic sexual activities, but watching hicks, ghetto trash and other people do stupid stuff makes people feel better.  Sure, you're two months back on rent and the collectors are calling you every two hours, but hey, at least I'm better than the people on TV, right?

No.  It's not right.  Not even close.

The best resolution is to make these shows so unappealing to watch that people will flock from the shows in droves...the Cousin Oliver syndrome writ large.  Make viewers squirm in total discomfort, outrage them to the point where they call the network and threaten to boycott every advertiser on the show, and soon enough, the series finale will wind down and the show will be relegated to the dustbin of history.  Once people wipe their eyes and see that vile and disgusting shows that exploit minorities, celebrities, children, and racial and sexual stereotypes only enrichen networks, they too will demand them off the networks.  If the fear of God doesn't work, the threat of losing advertisers and their juicy revenue vaporizing does.  The message to producers and networks will then become broadcast exploitation shows at your own financial peril.

Perhaps two decades from now, that six year old eating mayonnaise from a jar will become a better, wiser young woman and a spokesperson against child exploitation in particular and exploitation in general.