With pressure on Republicans to revise the overburdened national budget, there are sure to be many items on the chopping block. However, modern politics will not allow even the most obvious of positive changes to take place without a fight.
For instance, many social care programs that should be cut or re-imagined will maintain their viability simply because of the political weight behind them. Conservatives have been forced to take a more compromising stance on some of these issues, diverting money from other parts of the budget to pay for social care programs while maintaining other prioritized aspects of national importance.
One of the more interesting ideas to be put before Congress was to divert new estate taxes to fund social care programs.
Conservative leadership is fighting the good fight when it comes to keeping new estate taxes out of budgetary talks. However, the truth is that the legislative body is divided. Is there a reality that new estate taxes will be created to fund social care programs? If this is the case, is there anything that the rank-and-file conservative cam do to divert Congress from this course of action?
The Rich and Taxes
Pew Research indicates that high income Americans pay the overwhelming majority of taxes to the government. However, they tend to pay a lower percentage of their total income as a whole. Is this fair?
If you are paying $500,000 in taxes on $5 million in income while your poorer brother pays $20,000 on $75,000 in income, who is right? It depends on your vantage point. As the law stands, all political viewpoints should be able to agree that the more business you do, the more loopholes you will be eligible for.
This presents a philosophical discussion. As a society, we must decide whether we are going to reward job creators for their ingenuity in freely applying laws on the books to themselves. Alternatively, we can spread that reward around more, but we may destroy the incentive for our job creators to employ the rest of us.
The Death Tax Explained
The “death tax,” or a tax on the estate of wealthy individuals upon the passage of that estate to heirs, is the main focus of new levies under the microscope to be used specifically to maintain social programs.
On its face, this may seem like an appropriate political move: taking money from people who do not need it any more and dispersing it among people who do.
However, liberal politicians tend to discount the fact that people are greatly inspired to leave estates to their blood heirs, not to people they do not know.
The Burden on Homeowners
Alternatively, liberal politicians have proposed raising taxes on homeowners to pay for social programs. This is basically pitting retired fathers against their working sons. Do we reduce Jack, Jr.’s ability to pay for his children in the hopes that Jack, Sr. will somehow benefit?
Again, if the benefit were able to be given directly, liberals might have a case there. The fact is, however, that Jack, Jr.’s children have their benefits reduced for the sake of Mark, Sr., James, Sr., Bill, Sr., and every other father on the block.
Should not every son care for his own father? If so, then how can this liberal policy be right for America?
The political reality is that homeowners have much more active political clout than just about any other group of Americans – they are usually the active working class making the most money in society.
It can be difficult to argue for the death tax, because the people who would be truly affected by it have already been taken from us. When faced with this political reality, it seems as though the estate tax is an inevitability at some point – if not with Trump.
If America is to continue its effort for being the most wealth-friendly nation in the world, it must be consistent. Individuals must be afforded full authority on where their assets are allocated after they die.