Taxes

I came to New York City when I was four. I spent the next seven years living in a flat in Gravesend. Perhaps the most aptly named neighborhood in the city, Gravesend is as weary and empty as its name suggests. I don’t remember much about those days besides that the winters were cold; sharing a room, my sister and I would sleep in winter coats because the heater was broken.

Columbia’s administration and the University’s graduate students have not always been on the same side when it comes to certain issues. Recently, however, there has been a development that should unite everyone in the Columbia community: opposition to the radical tax plan being pushed by President Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress.

In the days of this troubling economy, state governments have to do anything they can to make their budgets work. In NY state's most recent efforts, they've decided to collect from their, er, largest demographic: fat people! more The state has decided to start taxing soda by the ounce, an effort they hope will both reduce consumption of soda, and increase revenues. The proposed tax is one cent per once, which doesn't really sound like much, but apparently New York drinks somewhere around one hundred billion ounces of soda a year, which is enough to fund some pretty significant projects throughout the state. What's next, a cupcake tax?! [NY Daily News]

We all know that obesity is bad for you—bad enough, apparently, that Gov. David Paterson has decided to spend his waning days in office as your personal trainer. The fight to institute a state-wide sales tax on soda had been brought to Morningside Heights—and the interwebs!more According to State Health Commissioner Richard Daines:

April, of course, means taxes, and the New York Times' Bucks blog listed all 50 institutions the Obamas donated to in 2009. And looky here: Columbia is nowhere to be found—even after Obama had an extra $1.4 million in Nobel Prize money to distribute. (And yes, he donated it all.) We know that last year he did in fact give us some love. At least we can take comfort in the fact that Princeton (Michelle's alma mater) and Harvard (where both Obamas went to law school) didn't receive a dime either.

Ever since the Reagan Revolution of the 1980s, the term "liberal" has steadily lost its popularity in the lexicon of the American left, becoming replaced by the more positively connoted word, "progressive." At Columbia, we see many different kinds of progressives, ranging from the moderate members of the College Democrats to the radical leftists of Students for a Democratic Society. Given that progressivism seems to be such a powerful force on Columbia's campus, one naturally has to wonder: what is it that unites these disparate chains of political thought? If you ask someone who self-identifies as left-leaning, he or she will probably tell you that progressives believe in social justice, non-violence, civil rights, and environmental stewardship. However, I want to explore the philosophical underpinnings of progressivism—how progressives see society and the individual's relation to it. Sadly, i is only after looking at progressivism in this new light that we are able to see its more insidious roots and dangerous conceits. At the heart of progressive thought is the idea that the government exists as a powerful force for social and economic change. This notion was upheld by Teddy Roosevelt's original progressive movement and obviously plays a major role in President Barack Obama's policy ideas. Thus, it is only natural to begin our discussion of progressivism with an examination of the institution that allows it to exist. Max Weber famously defined the state as the entity that maintains a monopoly over the legitimate use of force in a given territory. This point, while seemingly abstract, is in fact one of the clearest explications to date of the role that government plays in society. While the government may have broken its original Lockean bounds of providing for the common defense and enforcing property rights, Weber's definition still holds true. Understanding the government in these most basic terms, we can now begin to look at progressivism in a new light. Fundamentally, the progressive ideology is one based on the use (or threat) of violence by the state against its own people. I realize that many moderate readers will likely be taken aback by this assertion, but I challenge them to temporarily put aside their pre-existing beliefs and to follow my logic for the next few hundred words. The sad (but true) fact of the matter is that there are scarcely any progressive economic policies that can be enacted without the use of government force, or threat thereof. If you remain unconvinced, just consider for a moment if taxation were voluntary—which it seemingly is for Obama cabinet nominees. Who would pay, and how would the welfare state support itself? In my opinion, what makes progressivism so dangerous is the nobility of its causes. When taken in the abstract, for instance, there are few who would disparage the importance of progressive priorities such as health care and education. The difference between progressives and conservatives, however, is that progressives consider these issues to be matters of "social justice," thereby necessitating government provision. Politically, we often see progressive policies gain more traction because it is easier to create massive deficit-financed entitlement programs than to ask people to make spending sacrifices in their own lives. This makes intuitive sense since whatever money the government borrows needs to be paid back by future generations. Therefore, we can almost think of the government as a hidden financing mechanism for American households. Yet, while progressive policies might seem attractive—since they allow Americans to collectively finance social programs via low interest government debt—they ultimately require people to pay a much higher cost: their own freedom. That is, every time we expand the government's mandate, we effectively socialize private rights, especially those pertaining to property. At this point, we can return to Weber's definition of the government as a coercive entity, and see how it is applied to the progressive agenda. If we lived in a society where taxation was equal, the use of government to provide various services might be beneficial since the link between spending and taxes would be clear to everyone. The problem, however, is that because of the progressive tax system in America, the wealthiest 10 percent of people pay 70 percent of taxes. Combining this fact with democracy yields a situation in which the majority votes to spend the minority's money. Ultimately, these two factors—unequal taxation and the progressives' desire to expand government—will inevitably lead to a new form of serfdom as the majority of Americans continuously vote to use the power of the government to extract more wealth from the minority. Eventually, the productive elements of our society will be taxed out of existence, leaving us with a government that has unprecedented power and an economy with no ability to grow—all in the name of progressivism. While many readers may see my words as little more than libertarian scare tactics, I challenge them to think seriously about the philosophical implications of left-wing government policies. The famed economist Friedrich Hayek once wrote, "If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion." His words, I believe, still hold true today. Although progressivism may offer some very attractive short-term gains, we must always consider where it leads, and what it costs. Jon Hollander is a Columbia College junior majoring in economics. Reasonably Right runs alternate Thursdays. opinion@columbiaspectator.com

Like many other indicators of decreased consumption during the recession, water use has dropped in New York City over the past year. To compensate for falling revenue, city officials have proposed charging more for water use. Specifically, citing a decline in usage as well as the need to protect purity standards and maintain facilities, the Water Board has suggested a 14 percent rate price increase over the next few years. Unlike most public services, the city and state do not fund the water supply, leaving users to bear the costs. The New York City Department of Environmental Protection, in conjunction with the Water Board, oversees the upkeep of filters and tunnels, it and enforces quality standards. This generally requires a per-family fee of between $500 and $1,000 per year. But with many households struggling financially, some politicians are coming out against the rate increase. "It's going to be harder for many people," said Sarah Morgridge, a spokesperson for City Council member Robert Jackson, who represents West Harlem. "Water is a necessity. If you're a poor family in Washington Heights with 10 people sharing an apartment, you are paying the same rate, which means a greater proportion of income for them, as others." In addition, higher prices for such a basic item as water may have political implications in a municipal election year dominated by economic concerns. New York City Comptroller William Thompson, a Democrat who hopes to capitalize on frustration with the city's budget crisis as he campaigns against Mayor Michael Bloomberg, testified before the Water Board in April and called for the Department of Environmental Protection to cut its operating budget. Thompson also suggested that federal stimulus money be used to cover costs. The DEP did not return calls for comment. But such concerns may not forestall the rate hike before the City Council votes on it next month. "We have a fair system," said Marc Lavorgna, a spokesperson for Mayor Bloomberg. "You are paying for what you get. But we have to make up revenue right now because consumption has dropped. We don't have any desire to raise any rate but we need a good product." Lavorgna added that a deficit would force the Water Board to cut back on its projects, such as the construction of a third North-South tunnel that would enable the city to receive more water from upstate New York. The two other tunnels are widely seen as old and corroded. But locals still object to a water rate increase, particularly as the Metropolitan Transportation Authority prepares to raise fares and numerous city agencies, including the MTA, scale back on services. "The economy has made life difficult for everyone," said Meltem, a Teachers College student who declined to provide her last name. "It is very difficult to find jobs, especially for international students. We really do not need this extra expense." Kryssy Wright, a Columbia employee who commutes from Brooklyn to her job in Lerner Hall, said she felt city officials have made New York a much less affordable place to live, and noted the irony of raising water rates for people who have cut back on water use to save money. "I just wonder how much money these agencies need to remain operational," Wright said. "They raise rates because we are conserving, after they have told us to conserve. The consumer is always going to lose."

Imagine a pedestrian is walking down Broadway on his way home from work. He encounters a beggar. He doesn't want to give his money to this beggar. He is saving up his hard-earned money to send his daughter to college. One could reasonably argue that the beggar is in more "need" of the money, but it's the pedestrian's money, and he should be able to keep it. He passes the beggar and is about to enter the grocery store to buy food for dinner. But in his way is a man with a gun. Jingling his handcuffs, the man with the gun demands that the pedestrian give him a large portion of the money in his pocket. "It's for the beggar," the gunman says. "He needs it more than you. You need to pay your fair share." The pedestrian has few good choices. He could give the money to the modern-day Robin Hood and lose a lot of the money he worked for. Or he could refuse, run away, and risk being mugged by the gunman. The pedestrian will most likely choose to give the gunman his money. But after acquiring the pedestrian's money, the gunman does not give it to the beggar right away. Instead, he keeps part of it for himself, using it to buy himself some food and toiletries. He gives the remainder to the beggar, who has no understanding where it has come from. But even worse, imagine that the pedestrian did want to give his money to the beggar, but before he could do so, the gunman interferes, saying, "I know which beggars really need the money." "But I wanted to give my money to this beggar," the pedestrian protests. "I know he'll use the money wisely on what he said he's use it for." "Shush, I know what's best," the gunman replies, as the pedestrian reluctantly hands over his money intended for the beggar. The gunman keeps part of the money, and gives some to a different beggar, whom the pedestrian does not know at all. The pedestrian walks away, disgruntled and less inclined to give away his money to those in need in the future. This anecdote might seem a little ridiculous. When was the last time you saw a gunman outside Morton Williams who demanded that you give him your money for the purpose of giving it to a beggar? But insert "government" instead of "gunman" and "taxpayer" instead of "pedestrian," and you get our modern-day tax system. Under the threat of IRS audits and jail time, the government confiscates income at the point of a gun and reallocates it as our elected officials see fit. For many politicians, the goal of this reallocation of resources is the sole purpose of wealth redistribution, to even out the pieces of the pie, often at the expense of the size of the pie. The government steps in and tries to take the rightful place of private charities because it thinks it knows best how to allocate private citizens' money. Our tax system is as absurd as a gunman forcing a pedestrian to hand over money for a beggar. Ronald Reagan once described taxation as a "daily mugging." Those words are as true today as they were in 1985. While government taxation and subsequent spending can have legitimate purposes such as national defense and a judicial system, one of them is not forcible wealth distribution. Wealth redistribution is an infringement on freedom. Burdensome taxation limits citizens' choices by interfering in voluntary transactions between individuals. Many students, though, are shielded from the effects of taxation. While some students have jobs with taxable salaries, many rely on their parents to pay for their living expenses, or they work as babysitters or dog-walkers and don't pay taxes on their income. Because of this, many students are more likely to advocate taxation for the explicit purpose of wealth redistribution. As Morningside Heights residents, we are used to seeing beggars on the streets of our neighborhood frequently asking us for money outside of local grocery stores. Some people choose to give them money out of a sense of guilt or responsibility because they think it's the right thing to do and the best way to help people. I personally don't give beggars money. I don't agree with these motivations, and I think there are better ways to help people. But if people want to give their money away to beggars, it's their right. After all, it's their money. But what if every time you cashed your paycheck from work, someone tried to mug you on your way home. Would you be more or less likely to give to a charity? How would it affect your work ethic? This is our tax system, as absurd as it may seem. Lauren Salz is a Barnard College sophomore. She is the executive director of the College Republicans, the communications coordinator of the Columbia Political Union, and the communications director of Columbia Right to Life. Check Your Premises runs alternate Wednesdays.

As stress mounts for students filing individual tax returns by the April 15 deadline, the lack of financial guidance available to University undergraduates is painfully evident. The complexity of the income-tax system, coupled with such dangers as identity theft, warrants a program to prepare students in Columbia College, the School of Engineering and Applied Science, and the School of General Studies for the financial hurdles of the real world.