The past week has provided two reasons for introspection: the first anniversary of the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement, and the Jewish New Year. Both deal with the weakness of the individual, and the power to which he is answerable and upon whom he depends. But they couldn't be more different.
The New Year is actually part of a longer period of repentance in which we acknowledge our many failures and seek forgiveness for them. We also express our dismay at the success of foreign nations that oppress us and mock us. We're demoralized by their success and by our own weakness and subjugation by them. That failure to comprehend the victory of the attackers is universal. It's the theodicy yielding so much religious philosophy, and it's the basis for many longer essays and books, of which “When Bad Things Happen To Good People” is probably the most famous. That's not to say that we consider ourselves “good.” Quite the opposite. We lament our own faults, which we consider the cause of our condition, and the justification for our punishment. But we ask that similar retribution be visited on those who are G-d's agents in delivering the penalty we deserve. We resent their triumphalism and mocking when we know that they, too, are far from perfect. Indeed, we consider them worse than ourselves.
But primarily it's a time of self-examination. It's a period when we think about the mistakes we've made and how we can better ourselves. We ask for G-d's forgiveness and His help in our efforts to change. And we seek condign punishment for the outside nations that would destroy us. We pray we'll be successful in achieving these goals, but we focus on seeking forgiveness for our errors and help in the difficult, but necessary, effort to improve ourselves. As Pogo Possum said, “We have met the enemy and it is us.”
The goals of OWS are less clear, so assessment of their success is more difficult. Along with additional protests about how participants were treated by the authorities, there have been increased costs to the public for police and sanitation workers, as well as disruption of the lives of those who live near demonstration sites. And as the protests spread, so did the costs and disruptions. I don't think that any meaningful legislation resulted from the complaints, despite the loud demands. But there was one major outcome – the popularization of the word “fairness.” That word seems to be shorthand for whatever will improve the condition of the middle class and the poor, with the costs borne by the rich. After all, as everyone knows, the rich (those parasites who make more than I) don't pay their fair share of taxes. And we're too rich a nation to let the poor suffer.
What's fair? According to the IRS, in 2009 – the last year for which I could locate data – the top 1% of taxpayers, with an adjusted gross income of $393,927 or higher (by the way, I don't qualify), paid 36.73% of all Federal personal income taxes, and the top 10% (income over $112,124) paid 70.47%. The lowest 50% (income less than $32,396) paid 2.25%. That doesn't include state and local taxes and payroll taxes, nor are inheritance, corporation, and capital gains taxes included, so it's difficult to determine how much of the total tax is paid by each group. It's clear, though, that those who earn more pay considerably more than those who earn less, and if the 70% paid by the top 10% in any way reflects government tax income and what it purchases, then those with incomes in excess of $112,124 (and that, of course, includes Oprah Winfrey, Derek Jeter, George Clooney, Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, and all your favorite television, sports, movie, and political heroes – and maybe you) paid more than 70% of the cost of entitlements. And they also pay most of the tax costs for defense against nations which would attack us. What would be a fairer tax burden?
And there are other criteria of fairness. However much we may resent the rich, we long to be among them. So we buy lottery tickets or gamble in other ways. And we sometimes forget to report all our earnings to the IRS. And of course fairness depends on whom it hits. When the Alternative Minimum Tax was originated, it was aimed at the “rich,” and established a minimum for them although there was no similar minimum tax for those who earned less. It was fair. At least until the rising salaries of those who had earned less now put them in the affected bracket. When they were taxed it was unfair.
Like the period of repentance, OWS also inspires self-examination. The conclusion, however, is the opposite – it's that any mistakes are those of the “rich,” who don't pay their fair share of support for everyone else. It's not my fault. I don't have to change, I don't have to improve myself – they do. I have no responsibility. When bad things happen to good people – to us – it's THEIR fault.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I know you agree, but you can leave comments anyway.