I comment on this because I have been a Vermont homeowner (non-resident) for close to 30 years and am dismayed at some of our elected officials’ attitude that the federal government cannot survive on smaller budgets because of the impact on the disadvantaged of this country.
These are tough times. The economy is stalled, unemployment is high and the bottom
line is that the federal government is spending way more than it takes in.
There is no way to balance the budget unless spending is cut dramatically;
otherwise we face debts that generations of Americans will have to live with.
There is also the opportunity to grow the economy, which grows revenue, and
this is accomplished by helping corporations or the wealthy improve their
business, not by taking investment dollars out of their pockets.
Let’s look at the fair share comment which many of the democratic politicians
throw around with the media. If you look at the top 50 percent wage earners (of
which I’m a member) in the U.S. they currently pay 97.5 percent of all federal
taxes. The remaining 50 percent of the wage earners pay less than 3 percent of
taxes. Now if that is not a “fair share” then I have to ask the senator what
is? 100 percent? And, when you look at this with respect to Vermont where the
average annual income is approximately $21,000, the vast majority of Vermont
wage earners (about 66 percent) fall into the second category which means that
Vermont's contribution to the federal tax system is significantly less than
most states. Ironically, even if taxes were raised on the wealthiest
individuals in the US, the CBO has determined that this would bring in less
than about $700 million. Now this is no small amount, but when you compare this
to our national debt of $14 billion and the recent approval to increase debt by
another $2.5 billion as well as the projected debt increase under the Obama presidency
by another $10 billion, it is easy to see that taxing the “rich” will just not
get it done. So where does Senator Sanders find the other $20-plus billion to
close the budget gap?
The senator says any cuts will impact the poor and Vermont by cutting student
loans, feeding the poor and providing child care. What the senator does not
address is the unfathomable waste with our federal government. Any individual
can Google search and find stories that you would think are fantasy—programs
that buy shoes for amputees, building bridges that go nowhere and even
tremendous waste in farm subsidies, which I think would be near and dear to
Vermont residents. How about the $1.3 billion in farm subsidy checks that are
sent to urban zip codes over the past decade? What is urban? Try $1.3 million
to the urban farmers in Beverly Hills or the $54 million to Miami farmers. Even
$7 million to New York City “farmers.” Is this the untouchable dollars that
Senator Sanders is referring to when he talks about health care cuts? Hard-earned
American dollars for farm subsidies that never make it to a farming state like
Vermont?
While the decisions to make the budget balance is no easy question to answer,
the concept of raising taxes on the rich just doesn’t make sense. As a Vermont
homeowner I have also seen my local Vermont taxes increase tenfold over the
years of my home ownership. I have the honor of living in one of the areas
designated a “gold” area, thereby paying even higher taxes. Top this off with
additional non-resident taxes I pay and you begin to question the rationale of
Vermont homeownership. I support the local economy by spending time and money
in the area at local businesses. I have renovated my home and hired local help
as well, which helps the local economy. Tax me more at the federal level (or
even at the Vermont level) and it leaves that much less that I invest in the
local Vermont economy. This amounts to one less dinner out, one less ski pass
or holding off on my next home renovations. These are the dollars that support
the local economy and local jobs. To take it a step further, ask Win Smith,
owner of Sugarbush, and his perspective on paying his "fair share."
Tax him more at the federal level and I can guarantee that it leaves less for
him to invest in The Valley, an area that could not survive without a
successful ski industry or operations.
So the next time you think that the “rich” should pay more in federal taxes,
consider that these “rich” folks are many of the vacationers and second-home owners
that you bump shoulders with every day at the ski area, local hotels,
restaurants and stores. And the current definition of "rich" by the
Obama administration is anyone with a household or business income exceeding
$250,000. Have the federal government take more of this disposable income and
you will surely feel the economic impact here in The Valley.
Mike Malekoff is a happy Valley second-home owner.
