I apologize for the very long post, but I thought it was relevant to the topic and wanted to pass on an experience I had earlier this morning.
I just came back from the grocery store, and somehow, someway, while I was there, I got drawn into this conversation while waiting in line at the deli.
The woman working at the deli (I assumed she was a woman; nowadays, God only knows. Sorry if I misgendered you; whoever or whatever you are) was engaged in a conversation with a customer.
I assume they know each other, as I can't imagine this conversation they were having just cropped up out of the blue, organically. They were discussing taxing the rich and I just can't imagine that's a topic that the deli woman, man, thing, or being(?) has with every customer.
At one point, she looks at me and asks, "What do you think?"
I politely tried to remove myself from the situation by saying, "Look, I just want to get some lunch meat and be on my way."
Then she said something along the lines of, "You know, this effects you too, right? How can you not care about it?"
That's when I said, "Oh yeah, I get it but I just know for certain that you're not going to like my answer. So I'm politely trying to stay out of your conversation."
She said something like, "So you think the rich shouldn't be taxed more in order to pay their fair share?"
I responded, "It's funny you should use those words, as I just saw an article the other day that included a video of Cori Bush being asked what the definition of "fair" is."So I'll ask you the same question: what percentage of tax on the rich is "fair"?
She did almost the exact same thing that Bush did. She himmed and hawed, stuttered, and eventually spit out something about how they should pay more than "we" do.
When I pointed out that they actually do, she clapped back, saying that "obviously" it isn't enough and that "obviously" needs to be more.
Then she kinda scoffed, a kinda smirk-laugh, as if to imply I'm an idiot for not seeing, not knowing, something so "obvious.".
I said, "I notice that you didn't answer the question. You just said "more." So I'll ask again, What percentage of tax on the rich is "fair"?" And just to be an asshole, I added, "And I won't even ask you to define "rich."
She seemed perturbed at being asked to define herself and ended up blurting out, "I don't know, fifty percent."
I said, "I don't want to put words in your mouth, so, just to make sure I'm clear, you believe that people making over a specific amount, whatever that specific amount is, should be taxed at a 50% rate. And that would then be determined to be "fair."
She replied something along the lines of, "I don't know if that's the correct amount, but it needs to be at least that much, maybe more."
I don't know why, but at this point, I tried to use logic. I know better. Attempting to explain things logically to individuals who don’t grasp logic is futile.
But I said, "So if a group of people who make substantially less than you do believe that you should be paying more in taxes, then you'd agree with them, correct?"
Immediately, she clapped back. "I'm not the problem! I'm not rich."
I said, "Well, we're right back to where I said to you that I wasn't going to ask you to define "rich" because, as you see, that opens up a whole other side to this argument."
"Regardless of that hurdle, let me explain, at least in part, why your idea doesn't work."
I went on to say something like, "I don't have the exact figures; I'd have to look them up. But I'm going to be in the ballpark. I'm sure you have a phone, and you can Google all of this to verify things."
I then started to explain that the top 1% of U.S. taxpayers already pay approximately 40% of all income taxes collected.
I said, "Using your own figure of 50%, if we were to tax every person in the U.S. making over one million dollars, we'd reduce the deficit by something like 1%." I again told her the figures might not be exact, but they are very close.
She said, "Well, then we obviously (there's that word again) need to tax them at more than 50%." Again, I got the scoff, smirk, or laugh to re-emphasize just how stupid I am for not seeing this glaring flaw.
I went back to trying to use logic, hoping it would somehow "click" with her.
This grocery store happens to be a Kroger, and they have gas pumps at this store. I asked her what the price of gas was at this store. She said she wasn't sure, but it's something like $2.88. I asked if she gets her gas at the store where she works, and she said no, that she gets it at the Racetrac on her way home because it's cheaper.
I used that to segue into the following:
I said that's the exact thinking that "the rich" use as well.
If a "rich man" who owns a company is getting taxed to death, then he's going to take that corporation and license it overseas somewhere to avoid the higher tax.
She complained, "That's just wrong," and it shouldn't be allowed.
I pointed out to her that she does the exact same thing, and I find it interesting that it's wrong in one instance but not the other.
I said, "I'm not picking on you, and remember, you asked me to join this conversation, not just once but twice."
I said, "I need to get going, but just one more thing that I hope will help you see things more clearly. If you somehow force those companies to remain here, they will not absorb that tax increase themselves; they'll simply pass it on to you and me in the form of higher prices for their products."
She whined that this too isn't "fair" and needs to be addressed.
I replied, "So let's say you're looking to buy something that you "want" but don't necessarily "need." Something like another big screen TV, or a new couch, or whatever, but the price is too high, what do you do?"
She said she "obviously" wouldn't buy the item.
I replied that's part of the problem.
"The tax increase you wish to impose on the "rich" man doesn't truly impact him as much as it does others. That tax didn't hurt him; it hurt the employees who make those things. If there's no demand because the item costs too much, then those people get laid off. If there's no demand, then the rich man doesn't place orders for all the components needed to make the item, and the people who make those components also get laid off, and so on right down the line."
I said the worst part of it all is that once you decide that an increase in the tax rate is the solution, where does it end?
If "X" doesn't quell the problem, then do we try "X" plus? And if THAT doesn't work, do we then try "X" plus, plus?
I thanked her for engaging in the conversation, told her that I needed to get going and kept shaking my head the whole way home.
I figured I'd share and see what y'all think I could have done different/better.
Interested in hearing your thoughts.
