Still More California

I think I found my tag line for this blog:

"We tax all the others and pass the revenue on to you."

Jon Carroll, dimbulb columnist for SFGate, "the home of the San Francisco Chronicle", penned one of the dumbest columns I've ever read, titled The Stupid Zone. Thanks for the heads-up Joe. I had no choice but to respond thus:

* * * * *

You wrote "The people who need the money the most are the people who will not be paying taxes at all...: Then you quoted Ed Quillen's sublimely libertarian notion: "If people can afford to build in Stupid Zones, let them. But let them cover their own risks." Are you immune to irony?

Change "build in Stupid Zones" to "drop out of school" or any other pet peeve of personal irresponsibility. Should the same consequence apply -- "But let them cover their own risks"? I agree with that sentiment for both irresponsible groups. Do you? The drop-outs are, of course, "the people who will not be paying taxes at all." One common consequence of personal irresponsibility is not having any money. Another is seeing your isolated, unprotected and uninsured home burn to the ground. We are, in general, responsible for the consequences of our choices.

And you really should get it right before you propose a national policy. The government only wishes it came first in matters of creditor priority. The general rule of "first in time, first in right" applies to most creditors including the IRS, presumably your whipping boy on behalf of feds in general.

Mr. Obama said during the campaign that taxes aren't about revenue, they're about fairness. That must have surprised a few tax policy wonks, but who cares about people who actually think about taxes (or creditors)? You are obviously not such a person. Will no one dare to ask "If taxes aren't about revenue, why have them at all?"

If taxes ARE about revenue, then shouldn't a rational tax policy create and collect more tax revenue than an irrational one? For instance, if lower tax rates on people who pay the most taxes will create more revenue than lower taxes on "people who will not be paying taxes at all", then isn't the former a more rational tax policy than the latter? It's a simple proposition: If you want more tax revenue to spend on the "people who need the money the most" then choose a tax policy that lends itself to increased revenue.

Your column has plenty of appeal but no merit. You also wrote "I actually have a swell plan for helping people in need." What I saw was "I have a Stupid Zone plan that I hope no one squints too hard at.

"We tax all the others and pass the revenue on to you."