You wouldn’t know it by our elected officials, but most Americans are not super wealthy.
So it seems to go against the nature of the electorate that time and time again voters elect those who work against their best interests.
This can be said of both the state and national level.
By a large majority, Americans favor raising taxes on the wealthy to better balance the budget. And yet we continue to elect those who give outsized tax breaks to wealthy individuals and large corporations. In the last 20 years, federal taxes on the super wealthy have dropped by almost half. In Kansas, the elite have disproportionately benefited from the 2012 tax cuts, while our poor have witnessed an increase in theirs because of the elimination of tax credits for such things as food and utilities.
In addition to the tax breaks, laws have been weakened significantly to protect inherited wealth. Persuasive marketing turned the inheritance tax into a foreboding “death tax.” Now, only sums of $11 million or more can be taxed, up from $1.2 million. Allowing such wealth to go untaxed is not only costing our country billions of dollars, but also is adding another layer of protection to an already very pampered class.
AS A COUNTRY, we have recovered from the 2009 recession. But as individuals, most have not returned to their pre-recession levels of income.
So where has that money gone? It need not be said.
Politicians who claim they are “Main Street” turn down “Wall Street” almost overnight.
THE PROBLEM with a state or country trying to cut its way to prosperity — with reduced taxes and services — is that only the wealthy can adequately survive.
Most Americans depend on Medicare and Social Security to take them into their senior years. Most would like to see the minimum wage raised to be a living wage. And most appreciate the Affordable Care Act because it casts a wider net, giving many health insurance for the first time in their adult lives.
When candidates propose massive tax cuts, that can only mean government as we know it — including Social Security and Medicare — will be drastically reduced.
At the national level, at least, it appears the American public is waking up from a decades-old stupor by evidence of the lack of support for traditional candidates who endorse crippling such valuable programs.
As for Kansas, and its dearth of any credible opposition to the status quo, it appears we would rather pull the covers over our heads and ignore our state’s downward trajectory.
How refreshing, how hopeful, if we could muster our own “hell no.”
Do we dare?
— Susan Lynn
