The TEA (Taxed Enough Already) parties on April 15, and the continued outrage of the right wing about how much we are taxed disguises some very important facts. I put a number of them together from websites, articles and the like, for a talk recently, and now just want to list a few of them in a Jeopardy format. See how many questions you can answer!
ANSWER: 39.5%, the level it was when Bill Clinton left office.
QUESTION: What does President Obama propose to raise the top marginal tax rate to?
ANSWER: 35%
QUESTION: What is the top marginal tax rate now?
ANSWER: 9.1%
QUESTION: How big a bite do federal income taxes take out of the average person’s income?
OK, this is my fantasy and my goal: that everybody could answer these questions quickly and easily. In fact, they could go on to say that even when you add all the other federal levies people pay in addition to income tax, such as payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare, excise taxes for gasoline, alcohol, tobacco and other items, the combined federal tax rate for most people was 20.7%, which is less than one percent higher than the three decade year low of 19.8% reached in 2003.
(Sources: NYT, Congressional Budget Office, and USA Today)
The problem is not what we pay, which is far less than most other industrialized countries. There is a big problem in how we spend, with half of this money going to support bloody and pointless wars and a bloated military, and, because of said wars, another 20% of the federal budget going to debt service on the national debt. But paying too much tax? I don’t think so. How about inviting our anti-tax friends to this TEA party: Try Emulating Accuracy?
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Monday, June 8, 2009
Mobilizing the Nonprofit Sector
Staff and board of nonprofit organizations carry with them an image of the nonprofit sector as small, and are often amazed to learn just how big and powerful we are (or could be, if we would mobilize our power.)
The nonprofit sector in the United States has mushroomed over the past 20 years. It is now immense. There are 1.5 million organizations incorporated under the Internal Revenue Service 501c law. The total income of the sector is about $1 trillion per year; if it were a single industry, it would be our nation’s largest. The nonprofit sector employs 10% of the workforce and is, in general, an enormous economic driver.
Other counties around the world have equally, or sometimes larger, nonprofit (or NGO) sectors. In fact, worldwide, the nonprofit sector employs 4-5% of the workforce. And, there is an almost immeasurable number of volunteers whose time augments the often low pay of the staff.
Yet, little organizing is aimed at nonprofit staff. Often staff are asked to help organize their constituents, there is some organizing efforts aimed at boards and volunteers, and all of this is valuable.
But let’s look at the numbers of people are talking about if we focus organizing efforts just on a small segment of paid staff who work for nonprofits. There are almost 140 million people in the workforce in the United States. Fourteen million of these work in nonprofits. Are all of them progressive? Certainly not, and in fact, some of them work for anti-tax, anti-commons organizations, and a much larger number work for organizations that don’t take any position on commons issues. But given how few people vote, and how many local elections that determine critical tax issues are decided by a few thousand, or sometimes even a few hundred votes, those of us dedicated to making our tax system more progressive only need to reach a few hundred thousand of these staff in order to really make a difference. This addresses the idea that there is nothing we can do to change tax policy. We only need to talk to each other and we could have a profound impact.
The nonprofit sector in the United States has mushroomed over the past 20 years. It is now immense. There are 1.5 million organizations incorporated under the Internal Revenue Service 501c law. The total income of the sector is about $1 trillion per year; if it were a single industry, it would be our nation’s largest. The nonprofit sector employs 10% of the workforce and is, in general, an enormous economic driver.
Other counties around the world have equally, or sometimes larger, nonprofit (or NGO) sectors. In fact, worldwide, the nonprofit sector employs 4-5% of the workforce. And, there is an almost immeasurable number of volunteers whose time augments the often low pay of the staff.
Yet, little organizing is aimed at nonprofit staff. Often staff are asked to help organize their constituents, there is some organizing efforts aimed at boards and volunteers, and all of this is valuable.
But let’s look at the numbers of people are talking about if we focus organizing efforts just on a small segment of paid staff who work for nonprofits. There are almost 140 million people in the workforce in the United States. Fourteen million of these work in nonprofits. Are all of them progressive? Certainly not, and in fact, some of them work for anti-tax, anti-commons organizations, and a much larger number work for organizations that don’t take any position on commons issues. But given how few people vote, and how many local elections that determine critical tax issues are decided by a few thousand, or sometimes even a few hundred votes, those of us dedicated to making our tax system more progressive only need to reach a few hundred thousand of these staff in order to really make a difference. This addresses the idea that there is nothing we can do to change tax policy. We only need to talk to each other and we could have a profound impact.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Death and Taxes
For the past several weeks, I have been giving talk after talk to nonprofit staff and board members about taxes: the importance of taxes, why we should care about taxes, what we should do about taxes. I could use this as an excuse for not posting to this blog more often, but in fact, the real reason I haven’t is because I get too depressed by the reaction I get to what I say. Let me step back and say that I know, from years and years of feedback, that I am a good trainer and a good speaker. So at the risk of flattering myself, I have ruled out the idea that I am boring to listen to. But the reaction I get is what I would expect if I were utterly and completely a snoozer in the speaking department: blank stares, few questions, lots of surreptitious texting and checking Blackberries. Anything but to actually think about what we can do about taxes.
In examining my talks, the evaluations after (which are always positive, in contrast to the behavior of the participants), and from feedback from trusted and honest friends, this is my explanation:
People are trained from early childhood that death and taxes are the two inevitabilities, and there is nothing that can be done about either. OR, as one friend said, “In fact, the only thing that can be profitably done is to NOT talk about them.” Further, way more people than I had any idea of, imagine that they are incapable of understanding taxes and so just tune out rather than feel stupid. Finally, most nonprofits have way more immediate pressing problems and can’t see their way clear to taking on yet another (hopeless) cause.
Paradoxically, this explanation has cheered me up. Each element of this explanation can be addressed. And must be, unless we want to live in a country where most social services are privatized and most giant corporations are owned wholly or in part by the government.
In examining my talks, the evaluations after (which are always positive, in contrast to the behavior of the participants), and from feedback from trusted and honest friends, this is my explanation:
People are trained from early childhood that death and taxes are the two inevitabilities, and there is nothing that can be done about either. OR, as one friend said, “In fact, the only thing that can be profitably done is to NOT talk about them.” Further, way more people than I had any idea of, imagine that they are incapable of understanding taxes and so just tune out rather than feel stupid. Finally, most nonprofits have way more immediate pressing problems and can’t see their way clear to taking on yet another (hopeless) cause.
Paradoxically, this explanation has cheered me up. Each element of this explanation can be addressed. And must be, unless we want to live in a country where most social services are privatized and most giant corporations are owned wholly or in part by the government.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Fundraising for government?
Last week, the Ohio House of Representatives Finance & Appropriations Committee gave the Governor the “legal authority to create and run nonprofit corporations as a sub-unit of a state governmental department.” An article in the Akron Beacon Journal quotes a bill that would allow these nonprofits to be used to ''‘solicit financial contributions or in-kind contributions of goods to support the fulfillment of the duties and responsibilities’'' of state government.”
We’ve heard of bake sales to raise money for programs in public schools, which is disconcerting in itself, but nonprofits to raise money for government responsibilities? Read more about the United Way’s response (and other social service agencies) here.
We’ve heard of bake sales to raise money for programs in public schools, which is disconcerting in itself, but nonprofits to raise money for government responsibilities? Read more about the United Way’s response (and other social service agencies) here.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Superstitions
As I am getting ready to fly in a small 40 passenger plane from Toronto, Ontario to Albany, NY, I am more aware that today is Friday the 13th than I normally would be. This has led me to reflect on how superstitions are part of the commons, and a part that is generally not privatized. Of course, superstitions are used for private profit, as in the number and variety of horror movies built around Friday the 13th, or the sale of lucky charms, blessed water and the like that still can be found all over the world.
The superstition around Friday 13th has its roots in ancient Christianity. Friday is the day Jesus was crucified and is commonly known as Good Friday. The term “Good Friday” is actually a variation on the original which was “God’s Friday,” much like ‘goodbye’ is a shortened version of ‘God be with you.’ Friday is also supposed to be the day Eve gave Adam the apple from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. In theology this is referred to as “the fall” although as feminist and liberation theologians often point out, it allowed us to “fall” into adulthood and assume responsibility for our actions by having the knowledge to understand their consequences.
The superstition around the number thirteen also has roots in Christianity, since Judas Iscariot was supposedly the 13th person to sit down at the Last Supper before he betrayed Jesus to the authorities. The number of hotels and office buildings that skip the 13th floor and go from 12 to 14 speaks volumes to how this superstition is still in play. According to SNOPES, there are people who are actually very afraid of the #13, and particularly of Friday 13th. These conditions have names: triskaidekaphobia is fear the number 13, and paraskevidekatriaphobia is fear of Friday the 13th.
Superstitions don’t start out that way: they start out as ideas people hold to be true. People who originally believed that putting a hat on the bed could cause someone to die were probably taking precautions against the spread of disease. It is harder to find a logical root in the belief that breaking a mirror causes seven years of bad luck or that blowing out all your candles at once on your birthday cake grants you a wish, but there probably is some experience that gave rise to these beliefs. Later these truths fade into superstitions, which are sort like half beliefs. We don’t think it is true, but maybe it is, so observe the custom. Later even the custom is forgotten.
I wonder what beliefs we have now which in years to come will be seen as superstitions. Belief that the market will regulate itself is fading fast. We can only hope the superstition that a powerful nation must have a large military will fade altogether. Or perhaps even the belief that America must be a powerful nation.
In this current economic turmoil, while we still fight a war in two countries and supply arms to mercenaries all over the world, perhaps Friday the 13th is a good day, a Good Friday, to think about what we truths we actually hold to be self-evident and what truths should fade to superstition and fade away altogether.
The superstition around Friday 13th has its roots in ancient Christianity. Friday is the day Jesus was crucified and is commonly known as Good Friday. The term “Good Friday” is actually a variation on the original which was “God’s Friday,” much like ‘goodbye’ is a shortened version of ‘God be with you.’ Friday is also supposed to be the day Eve gave Adam the apple from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. In theology this is referred to as “the fall” although as feminist and liberation theologians often point out, it allowed us to “fall” into adulthood and assume responsibility for our actions by having the knowledge to understand their consequences.
The superstition around the number thirteen also has roots in Christianity, since Judas Iscariot was supposedly the 13th person to sit down at the Last Supper before he betrayed Jesus to the authorities. The number of hotels and office buildings that skip the 13th floor and go from 12 to 14 speaks volumes to how this superstition is still in play. According to SNOPES, there are people who are actually very afraid of the #13, and particularly of Friday 13th. These conditions have names: triskaidekaphobia is fear the number 13, and paraskevidekatriaphobia is fear of Friday the 13th.
Superstitions don’t start out that way: they start out as ideas people hold to be true. People who originally believed that putting a hat on the bed could cause someone to die were probably taking precautions against the spread of disease. It is harder to find a logical root in the belief that breaking a mirror causes seven years of bad luck or that blowing out all your candles at once on your birthday cake grants you a wish, but there probably is some experience that gave rise to these beliefs. Later these truths fade into superstitions, which are sort like half beliefs. We don’t think it is true, but maybe it is, so observe the custom. Later even the custom is forgotten.
I wonder what beliefs we have now which in years to come will be seen as superstitions. Belief that the market will regulate itself is fading fast. We can only hope the superstition that a powerful nation must have a large military will fade altogether. Or perhaps even the belief that America must be a powerful nation.
In this current economic turmoil, while we still fight a war in two countries and supply arms to mercenaries all over the world, perhaps Friday the 13th is a good day, a Good Friday, to think about what we truths we actually hold to be self-evident and what truths should fade to superstition and fade away altogether.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Tax Me - I'm Yours!
Dear Readers:
Because this is a blog about the commons, it doesn’t make sense for me to be the only writer so from time to time I am going to ask friends and colleagues to post something here. The following post is from a friend in Toronto, Rob Howarth. Rob wrote in response to his own government’s unwillingness to raise taxes, a familiar and depressing story for all of us in the USA. Rob is a “commoner” and our bond was forged a couple of years ago when he created a website called “I love taxes.”
People seem to have a new-found fervour for collective solutions to collective woes. They want their governments to step in and take the heat off a massive market meltdown. Stimulus now! Spend more public money, the sooner the better! The curious thing is that no one seems willing to pay for this spree. Everyone hates paying taxes, and seems to imagine they can pay less and less of them and still have public spending grow. A combination of massive spending increases and significant tax cuts are central to both the Canadian and U.S. economic stimulus packages. Surely this will go down as the biggest attempt at a free lunch ever conjured up (except perhaps the brilliance of building our societies on non-renewable fossil fuel foundations).
I have noticed that conservative watchers of these ballooning deficits are warning that deficit spending today simply means deferring our taxes ‘till tomorrow. We are setting ourselves up for massive tax increases down the road. They say this as if it is a bad thing. I say, bring ‘em on! The sooner the better.
I have wanted to pay more taxes for some time now, but the conservative winds of the last twenty years have thwarted my desires. Tax cut aficionados continue even now to tell us that money in people’s pockets is, in every instance, preferable to paying taxes. It is always preferable, but unfortunately just for solving individual needs. Once a group of individuals decide they need to do something together, like build a hospital, or school, or affordable housing, or collect the garbage – they will need to invent systems to do so. And also a way to pay for it fairly. I think we refer to these systems today as government and taxes. They are not perfect systems, and they are in constant need of reform and vigilance so that they reflect people’s collective desires, and not just the will of the powerful. But the alternative of providing all of these collective good via the private market is not looking like such a great idea these days.
So I still say, what’s so funny about peace, love and a progressive tax system? If we had been paying more taxes all along much pain could be avoided today. We might even have chosen to strengthen our healthcare, green our energy sources, invest in community infrastructure, roads, cultural, educational and other public assets on an ongoing basis – not just when the banks have to get out of the kitchen.
Instead of a free lunch, let’s follow John Lennon’s advice and “free our minds instead”. I’m starting with jettisoning the fiction that we can all take care of each other, and be taken care of, without contributing much along the way. And I’m printing up buttons that say: Tax me – I’m Yours!
Rob Howarth is the part-time coordinator of an association of thirty nonprofit agencies located in neighbourhoods across Toronto, called (fittingly enough) the Toronto Neighbourhood Centres. This involves working on shared issues of concern related to community change (e.g. the racialization and spacialization of poverty in our city), and the role of local organizations that strive to support communities through service-provision and community-building work. He started at university training as an architect, which was fun, but realized he did not warm to the professionalization of that realm. He reflects that he is often involved in creating an "architecture of dissent". He lives in Toronto.
Because this is a blog about the commons, it doesn’t make sense for me to be the only writer so from time to time I am going to ask friends and colleagues to post something here. The following post is from a friend in Toronto, Rob Howarth. Rob wrote in response to his own government’s unwillingness to raise taxes, a familiar and depressing story for all of us in the USA. Rob is a “commoner” and our bond was forged a couple of years ago when he created a website called “I love taxes.”
People seem to have a new-found fervour for collective solutions to collective woes. They want their governments to step in and take the heat off a massive market meltdown. Stimulus now! Spend more public money, the sooner the better! The curious thing is that no one seems willing to pay for this spree. Everyone hates paying taxes, and seems to imagine they can pay less and less of them and still have public spending grow. A combination of massive spending increases and significant tax cuts are central to both the Canadian and U.S. economic stimulus packages. Surely this will go down as the biggest attempt at a free lunch ever conjured up (except perhaps the brilliance of building our societies on non-renewable fossil fuel foundations).
I have noticed that conservative watchers of these ballooning deficits are warning that deficit spending today simply means deferring our taxes ‘till tomorrow. We are setting ourselves up for massive tax increases down the road. They say this as if it is a bad thing. I say, bring ‘em on! The sooner the better.
I have wanted to pay more taxes for some time now, but the conservative winds of the last twenty years have thwarted my desires. Tax cut aficionados continue even now to tell us that money in people’s pockets is, in every instance, preferable to paying taxes. It is always preferable, but unfortunately just for solving individual needs. Once a group of individuals decide they need to do something together, like build a hospital, or school, or affordable housing, or collect the garbage – they will need to invent systems to do so. And also a way to pay for it fairly. I think we refer to these systems today as government and taxes. They are not perfect systems, and they are in constant need of reform and vigilance so that they reflect people’s collective desires, and not just the will of the powerful. But the alternative of providing all of these collective good via the private market is not looking like such a great idea these days.
So I still say, what’s so funny about peace, love and a progressive tax system? If we had been paying more taxes all along much pain could be avoided today. We might even have chosen to strengthen our healthcare, green our energy sources, invest in community infrastructure, roads, cultural, educational and other public assets on an ongoing basis – not just when the banks have to get out of the kitchen.
Instead of a free lunch, let’s follow John Lennon’s advice and “free our minds instead”. I’m starting with jettisoning the fiction that we can all take care of each other, and be taken care of, without contributing much along the way. And I’m printing up buttons that say: Tax me – I’m Yours!
Rob Howarth is the part-time coordinator of an association of thirty nonprofit agencies located in neighbourhoods across Toronto, called (fittingly enough) the Toronto Neighbourhood Centres. This involves working on shared issues of concern related to community change (e.g. the racialization and spacialization of poverty in our city), and the role of local organizations that strive to support communities through service-provision and community-building work. He started at university training as an architect, which was fun, but realized he did not warm to the professionalization of that realm. He reflects that he is often involved in creating an "architecture of dissent". He lives in Toronto.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
This Land is Your Land
On the day before the Inauguration, there was an extraordinary concert at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, DC. Headlined by Bruce Springsteen, Beyonce and Bono, along with 16 other artists, by all accounts it was joyous and fun, as well as uplifting. I got to hear “This Land is Your Land” with Pete Seeger and Bruce Springsteen in the lead, and I cried all the way through it. Seeger has an amazing presence and it seemed he was almost levitating with happiness as he sang. “This land is your land” is, in part at least, about the commons and the struggle for public land over private property. The song itself is in the public domain and we don’t have to pay royalties to sing it (yet).
The concert was free and open to the public which I thought was a lovely and amazing beginning of this new administration. I wasn’t at the concert because I was on the other side of the country, at my home in Berkeley, CA. My neighbor, who has followed my commons commentary from the beginning, came outside to tell me that she and her partner were trying to listen to the concert and kept going back and forth between CNN and MSNBC, only to be frustrated by the fact that someone was always talking with the performers in the background. Finally, Wolf Blitzer (a commentator on MSNBC) said that they were getting a lot of complaining e-mails about how they were covering the concert. He then explained that HBO had EXCLUSIVE rights to the concert and so they couldn’t broadcast it directly. My neighbor was outraged. “Don’t you think this is a commons issue?” she said. “This should have been on public television.” Indeed, I had to agree. The concert was not free to any public that could not get to it. You had to have not only cable, but the more expensive cable packages that include HBO. We shook our heads and went back inside.
Later in the day another friend came over. He said, “Did you hear the concert?”
“No, I don’t have cable” I said, half sad and half righteous.
“HBO let NPR Radio broadcast the concert,” he said. “I listened to it on my drive back from the mountains.”
So the concert was available to the public, through public radio, just not through public television or other regular television stations. This friend also follows commons issues pretty closely. I asked him if he thought it was outrageous that HBO had exclusive rights to broadcast it, and he pointed out that probably they couldn’t have had such a great line-up without HBO sponsorship fees. “Do you think the government should pay for pre-inauguration concerts?” he asked. “That seems a little too much to expect in this economy.”
Perhaps he is right. Yet I think it would be a sign of the success of this administration if someday these kind of concerts were broadcast on all public airwaves, paid for by taxes saved by not being at war.
The concert was free and open to the public which I thought was a lovely and amazing beginning of this new administration. I wasn’t at the concert because I was on the other side of the country, at my home in Berkeley, CA. My neighbor, who has followed my commons commentary from the beginning, came outside to tell me that she and her partner were trying to listen to the concert and kept going back and forth between CNN and MSNBC, only to be frustrated by the fact that someone was always talking with the performers in the background. Finally, Wolf Blitzer (a commentator on MSNBC) said that they were getting a lot of complaining e-mails about how they were covering the concert. He then explained that HBO had EXCLUSIVE rights to the concert and so they couldn’t broadcast it directly. My neighbor was outraged. “Don’t you think this is a commons issue?” she said. “This should have been on public television.” Indeed, I had to agree. The concert was not free to any public that could not get to it. You had to have not only cable, but the more expensive cable packages that include HBO. We shook our heads and went back inside.
Later in the day another friend came over. He said, “Did you hear the concert?”
“No, I don’t have cable” I said, half sad and half righteous.
“HBO let NPR Radio broadcast the concert,” he said. “I listened to it on my drive back from the mountains.”
So the concert was available to the public, through public radio, just not through public television or other regular television stations. This friend also follows commons issues pretty closely. I asked him if he thought it was outrageous that HBO had exclusive rights to broadcast it, and he pointed out that probably they couldn’t have had such a great line-up without HBO sponsorship fees. “Do you think the government should pay for pre-inauguration concerts?” he asked. “That seems a little too much to expect in this economy.”
Perhaps he is right. Yet I think it would be a sign of the success of this administration if someday these kind of concerts were broadcast on all public airwaves, paid for by taxes saved by not being at war.
As Guthrie wrote in the last verse of “This Land is Your Land”:We are still wondering, but we have hope.
In the squares of the city - In the shadow of the steeple
Near the relief office - I see my people
And some are grumblin' and some are wonderin'
If this land's still made for you and me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
