Middle Class Part 5: Paying to Live for Free

Now- Get: See, I get it. It boils down to, and I realized this quite some time ago, that the only way to get paid a lot of money for the work you do is:
1) to either learn, or be born with, an ability that not too many people have, and that people will pay to see, or to use, etc. (be able to hit a baseball thrown at 95 miles per hour, or dream up a computer software structure such as Windows that most of the country uses);
2) or work harder than most others to develop a physical or mental ability not otherwise granted to you naturally by fate;
3) be lucky or beautiful if you are not infused with talent or determination;
4) or fool people into believing you can run a multi-million dollar corporation and then accept a buyout after having proven that you don’t know the first damned thing about running a corporation.

So, the reason my kids don’t have a prayer in the world of attending a good college which will help them get a good job, that will allow them a decent living, and help them toward the social and economic goal of becoming more significant is because I am one ignorant, unmotivated, uncoordinated, talentless bastard! I get it.

This is our country: We live in a country where we are free to do plenty of things we want to do. We do, in fact, pay to live here, through various forms of taxation. And I choose that alternative rather than to live for free in Africa. I welcome being taxed as long as it is fair, and as long as it is proportional with the tax exacted from other income classes. And what I mean by fair is figuring out how much money the top 1-10% of people are accumulating and seeing how much they are taxed or otherwise giving back to the community or to charity. Because even if they are in a higher tax bracket, I wonder that the richest 5% need that many homes, vehicles, vacations, jewels, servants, etc. Dolts will tell you they earned it and many of them have, and people not even in that group will support their being able to keep all of it, but no one needs that many THINGS and I'm not a socialist for stating that very obvious point. Everyone who is not in the richest 5% shakes their head in disgust wondering at what point the richest people in the country might finally be satisfied that all their desires can be met. To everyone else, the uber-rich, and their lifestyles are instinctually disgusting.

A monopoly on class: Before making this into a class war from the get-go, I wonder that the government needs to be grabbing as much of our money as they are, including the money that many of the rich have earned by working at least as hard as anyone else- starting businesses, working long hours, late hours, overnight hours, risking their own money in the pursuit of a better life- the ultimate in capitalism. For whoever risks most should achieve most, as long as the risk is legal and fair, and doesn’t harm any but one’s competitors in the process, and as long as the victor does not create a monopoly situation, where too often the consumer has to pay more for less- whether that comes at the hands of a cable or phone company, or a chain of grocery stores that only sell one kind of canned corn and can charge more for it.

A proof pilgrimmage: In order to find out if we are over-taxed, or if we (the middle class) are overtaxed proportional to our income level compared to the upper class I have to do some research. I am in the middle of it and before beginning I had to determine if I would rather teach a blind pig how to detassle a field of corn, or do some google searching to find out where our money goes. As I remember my two days spent detassling at $3.65 an hour when I was 15, walking home with a severe sunburn and a rash between my thighs- I figured I would see how good I was at hunting down some numbers. I am probably about as qualified to start upon this long adventure as I am to teach a creature who likes to roll around in the mud any farm duties. At any rate, I typed: “where does our tax money go” into the Google search bar and was on my way. You might say this is a pilgrimmage that won’t end with any degree of satisfaction in my finding proof- at least not the kind that is believed, trusted, or welcomed by those that stand to lose the most- presented by a guy like me. They'll lose nothing to be sure, for even were I to prove my point and find millions who agree with me, nothing will change. Who am I? Well, you have to start somewhere- George Will (political and social theologian), Ken Burns (historical documentarian) and the like, are busy with other panaramic subject matter, though not as allegedly inherently fraudulent as the US government's insatiable need for tax money.

Government Intake: From an April 10, 2005 David Wallechinsky parade.com article. I learned that the government spent $2.5 trillion in 2005, at least that is what they took in. According to him, that money is collected in the following manner- income taxes- $894 billion, payroll taxes and related receipts- $774 billion and corporate income taxes- $226 billion. Along with that, the government borrows $427 billion (which is what continues to make the national debt grow, along with the interest accrued). Incidentally, an April 15, 2007 msnbc.com article written by John W. Schoen indicates that the federal government must keep track of where $2.7 trillion goes- so it seems that they get an extra 100- billion every year (as Wallechinsky in 2005 indicated the feds had $2.5 trillion to spend). Hopefully, I’m understanding the difference between $2.7 and $2.5 trillion (a difference of $200 billion?) I’m not used to dealing with numbers over a few thousand dollars.

Government outlays: Wallechinsky writes that three-fourths of the federal budget goes to four areas- the military ($527 billion), health-care (Medicare and Medicaid and other social programs- $721 billion), interest on the national debt ($321 billion) and Social Security ($519 billion). I could get into further gradations of what makes up the $527 billion to the military- things like paying out to the FBI and CIA and aid to foreign governments like Israel and Egypt, among others, and money to social aid programs like unemployment benefits and food stamp program outlays, but I think we have enough to go on at this point. I may get back to this, but if you want a more detailed view head to: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy08/sheets/hist03z2.xls

Wallechinsky has determined that this is the governmental spending breakdown:
Medicare, Medicaid and other Major social-aid programs: 28%
Military: 21%
Social Security: 20%
Other: 19%
National Debt Interest: 12%

Bill Me: My wife does the bills and keeps track of the money at our house and I can tell you that we can have fiscal mismanagement and would have it if I were doing the bills (we pay bills on line and I once paid the electric bill thinking I was paying the gas bill). Paying bills is tough- sometimes because we don’t have enough money coming in (a problem from which the federal government is not exempt). They can’t contain themselves from spending so much- a problem a government’s citizens can’t have. Yes, there are many differences between the financial management abilities of the federal and state governments and those of its citizens- foremost among them- the citizen is responsible for spending his own money, the government, while taxation is a necessary evil, for we wouldn’t have schools, roads and law enforcement, etc. without it, spends its citizen's money and I would guess, spends it irresponsibly. It is as if we are continually being invited to a neighbor’s house (the IRS/government) for dinner when we know he is notorious for cooking mad cow disease burgers, but out of politeness, naivete and concern about being labeled a non-conformist we passively swallow what we suspect is not good for us because we do not have the almighty proof.

What I’m saying: Now, I’d rather give myself a throat culture with a lit bottle rocket than spend the 35 hours necessary doing research on exactly where the government’s money goes (down to the last cent spent on a toilet seat in the Pentagon), but I think it not out of line or argumentatively irresponsible to assume there are plenty of millions of dollars they could and should be forced to spend in areas the public might consider more economically and socially advantageous. I’m a responsible citizen, who makes triple car payments when I can, has a retirement account, a savings account, and doesn’t charge on a credit card more than I can pay off when the bill comes. I expect my government to also be fiscally responsible, and not even so much so. If they’re taking in $2.5-$2.7 trillion there is no way they can keep track of it all, and I don't expect them to. Perhaps they can even account for where every dollar goes. My problem then would be- how in the world can you justify spending that amount of money in that area, in that department (for social aid- on people abusing the welfare system, or for space and technology- for yet another telescope, when you could be paying more on the national debt or for better border control). And if you can- if every expense is dutifully, heart-wrenchingly necessary, then, AND ONLY THEN, for christ's sake, take more from the people who have the most- the richest 1-10%. Because as I've stated a few times in the last six weeks, middle class kids won't be able to afford a college education if they have to pay for it on their own- because of the increased prices of other necessary costs- (rent, vehicles, homes, mortgages, weddings, furnaces, child care). There is the thesis, the neat little bow of a point, and I will seek to continue to tie it together when the summer is more mature.

I'm spent: The government probably is being completely conscientious and responsible in deciding where our money is spent; uh . . . no, I’d sooner believe that an aardvark could kick a crystal meth habit with the assistance of a grizzly bear who ate all the people who showed up in his cave for a Viagra dependence intervention than that the government is responsibly handling our tax money.

Hiatus: I’m going on a break of an indeterminate amount of time- and not because I have been audited and found to be delinquent in paying my taxes, but only to pacify my negative number of readers. This will allow them to digest the first five installments of this topic. I’ll be spending some time with my family, doing some research, golfing, yard work, drinking, reading, and writing- for this topic will find it into a book at some point- a book no one will read . . . kind of like the contents of some blogs. I wouldn't do this much work for no reason at all. Have a good summer!

Middle Class Part 4: Rebuttal from Talk-Show Bob

Summary: I have detailed what I included, (or would have if a certain local talk-show host wasn't so hell-bent on thinking that everything should be proven instantly), over the course of a week long email exchange. And I must say, I felt a little like one of the members of Scooby-Doo's mystery solving party, attempting to prove that my hunch about there being political and economic ghosts haunting the middle class, was justifiable. For a look at how many things are difficult to prove see my column from May 2nd- due to space concerns, that is just the abridged version.

Planning: Eventually, I plan to bring in the part of the conversation that has to do with how we are taxed, where the money goes, the role of politicians, and perhaps what we should do about it? Keep in mind- I don't yet have a connection between the rising costs of goods and expected big ticket items (furnaces, vehicles, homes, etc.) where the pricing of things is up to the capitalists in any given field, and my disgust with taxation, where the state and national government sets our tax rate, but I'm working on it. The two issues combined, in my opinion, will over-burden the coming generations of the middle class in such a way that they will not be able to compete with the rich for jobs, among other things, and we will see a widening gap between the rich and the middle class- economically. I'm letting the subject matter take me where it will, and have no strictly defined procedural approach currently in mind. In that way- you might compare me to a CEO of a large company that is paid $126 million as a buyout for having nearly run the company into the ground, while the middle class employees that make sure the day to day operations run smoothly are asked to take pay cuts. Ah, perhaps I shouldn't be so honest.

The Rebuttal in summation: Over the course of a week- his responses consisted of what appears below; I have left nothing out and that is an important point, for there was little in the way of what one might call- a compelling argument to begin with. The text that is in parenthesis, is my comment now, basically what I've already touched on in my argument with some sarcasm thrown in. This is the equivalent in print of what many talk-show hosts will do if they disagree with you. Keep in mind- this is a local talk-show host who is fairly well-versed in political discussions- who has interviewed bankers, economists, historians, and politicians, if this were an idiot-savant who stood on the street corner holding a sign- "Will werk 4 food" I wouldn't have brought his toreador style of skirting the issue into the fray:

His "Points"-
1) the middle class is not shrinking or endangered; (this was never my point- it was that the income disparity between the upper and middle class will continue to grow; I continually corrected him on this point; perhaps he thought disproving a theory about the shrinking of the middle class would be easier for him);

2) “You can send me articles on medical costs all day”- (I was not aware that I had been so remiss in stating my point- all five of the links I sent had to do with the rising costs of college tuition; a kitten unleashed in JoAnn Fabrics that has never seen a ball of yarn in its life has more focus);

3) told me I “couldn’t prove my point,” “couldn’t prove it,” “can’t prove it,” “you haven’t proven it” about 15 times; (he is very intent on putting someone on the defensive, so much so that he offered not one shred of information disproving any of my assertions; he said that he could disprove them, and I wonder how that is any different than me not being able to prove them. Truth be told, I will attempt to approach the beloved proof, but keep in mind, on certain subjects, such as war, how tax money should be spent, scientific issues, sports, religion, history, philosophy, how to discipline a child, whether you should subscribe to online pornography, (man, I need an editor), there is a complete grey area where opinions reside that cannot ultimately, finally, and unceasingly be proven. If all of these topics could be proven- we wouldn’t have much to talk about would we? And we would have little use for talk-show hosts. I must admit- I have figured him for a cross-breed- yeah, that typical Ostrich-Parrot mix. It is a little known combination referred to as either the Ostrot or the Parrich. This strange bird has the behavioral trait of burying their head in the sand when they are afraid of anyone digging around them for the truth and still has the speaking ability to say things like: “caw, caw, prove it, prove it;” see, it wouldn’t be able to hear the proof because its head would be buried in the sand- those of the Ostrich species are said to do things like that);

4) he mentioned that a dumb poodle could out-debate me- (I neglected to remind him that I was making an analogy- with the pit bull comment- and didn’t ask him if he thought poodles could speak. Also, you may need to be the judge on who is winning the argument);

5) wrote that he has interviewed bankers and economists who told him to ask people attempting to advance an opinion like mine to prove it (I inquired into what economic class a banker and an economist might normally be fitted into- he made no answer; anyone care to wager a guess?)

6) mocked my reasons for not calling, and told me I didn’t have the balls to call in to debate. (This was the first response to my initial email and then he feigned being offended that I began a personal attack. Huh, I wonder why I would have done that. I don’t know, of the debates I have seen, usually you are allowed to make your case, before a moderator, under guidelines that allow all the debatees relatively equal time. The flow of a debate isn’t usually dictated by an unreasonable conservative who thinks that everything worth discussing should be provable; incidentally, I thought about putting him on the defensive by telling him I was lucky to have survived testicular cancer, but decided against it);

7) mocked that I “talked” to people about how real, frustrated middle class people are doing in life financially. (I didn’t get the chance to remind him that he is a TALK-show host. I was not aware that you could major in pomposity, minor in proof hypocrisy [demanding it while never providing it] and dismiss real exchanges people have with one another about the state of affairs in this country in favor of the accredited and apparently certified radio variety where private citizens are only allowed to speak when they agree with the host. How much is a bachelor’s degree in communications from Brown college? In fifteen years, my kids probably won't be able to go there either; Brown college is where many of our fine, quick-trigger-fingered talk show hosts matriculate in order to adopt their narcissistic radio personalities);

8) after I brought up all of the big-ticket items from my letter (e) from my previous column, he says that not all the prices are going up- how about big screen televisions, cell phones, toasters (I asked him- "when was the last time you financed a toaster?" Didn’t get an answer on that one either);

9) stated that economists do not measure the size of an income class according to the potential costs of any good, or service. (no, you designate an income class based on how much NET money they have coming into the home- anyone who measures it any differently is as naive as a red-necked Alabaman virgin on prom night when the guy goes to the trouble of borrowing his cousin/father's Chevy Cavalier hoping to get lucky in the trunk. Hey, hey, hey, this is a family blog- I was talking about the trunk of a car. This naivete is not restricted to goof-balls like me, but apparently to those in the business of defining political and economic terms- and I don't care if Adam Smith* defines an economic class based on gross income, the size of house they live in, what they do for a living, how many opposable thumbs their sheep have, or how much they earn from their profession. It should be defined by their net income relative to what part of the nation they live in. This may be as controversial a viewpoint as any in this series of columns so far, as the learned economists would look upon the idea of circumventing their economic monarchy of powers in the area of providing all things fiscal with definitions as sacrilege . . . tough friggin' hop! If I leave the house with 100% of my clothes on and return with 25-33% of them gone (because the metaphorical tax bracket has physically stripped them away), I may feel as if I was taken advantage of . . . I'd also feel fairly guilty about subjecting the neighbors to such a sight);

10) Asked me, “based on pre tax income, prove your point.” (Oh boy, that is the problem, I’m not basing it on pre tax income- because the whole thing revolves around goods and services becoming more expensive so that the middle class has to finance them for a longer period of time- which I think everyone will agree is more expensive. See, because the longer you are paying on it- because of the interest, which you always have to pay on first when you take out a loan or finance something, the more expensive everything is going to be).
And why would I base my argument on pre-tax income? The only money that counts is what we have left after the government takes it. You don’t ask a hungry man if his stomach is full, or if he enjoyed his meal after you have pretended to give him food. If the experts in the economic field are basing everything on pre-tax income levels then this initially, and perhaps purposefully distorts the numbers for people trying to ask questions I’m asking, and to what end, to keep the public in the dark perhaps? Shocking!

11) I listen to him once a week- to listen to, sometimes point on, sometimes misguided, opinions about politics and current events. A month or so after the exchange was over Bob admitted on the air, perhaps without this topic in mind, that he didn't finance anything anymore. Now, how does a middle class person do that, unless they are a petless, childless, vegan with no idea what is on cable television, walks to work, lives in a cave, has no wants or needs and perhaps was immaculately conceived. See, because then he wouldn't have to buy food and supplies for a domesticated animal, pay for the food, care, clothing, entertainment, marriage and education of an offspring, wouldn't own a television, have a car payment, a house payment, have home repair issues, property taxes, and wouldn't have to bury his parents- well, at least one of them, for the other would likely be immortal.

Any remote possibility this guy would get your vote if there were an election held on the basis of this debate? Wow!

___________________
*Adam Smith wrote what is still considered a masterpiece in the area of political economy- the short title of which is- The Wealth of Nations.