Cohousing-L Mailing List: RE: Should individual "sponsorship" be allowed of community

[Sue Pniewski (SPniewski]

Liz-
I understand your passion about the tax laws.  To some extent you are
correct.  But as I have mentioned, I was a tax lawyer for a long time, I
still am in fact, but I try to stay away now because the abuse sickens me.  
I know the common perception out there is that the rich get tax breaks and
the poor do not.  Hate to break it to you, but if you make less than 20K and
have a couple of kids, you DON'T PAY TAXES under the current laws.  The
taxes are on a sliding scale, and I pay 28.5%.  My neighbor, who makes
nearly what I do, but has 2 kids, both of whom she receives child support
for, pays no taxes, and even gets free money back, via earned income credit.
Trust me, she's living it up.  She has a nicer car, and nicer stuff than I
do.  And I do her taxes Pro Bono since she's "Low Income".  But this is just
a personal illustration of the very real dillemma.  The fact is, the bottom
tier of income, not you single , low to middle income hard workers out there
are getting bashed at 15-28% with no credits, but the lower spectrums pay no
taxes, and get a substantial amount of money that they never put in, you
did.  My Dad is in the 38% bracket, he's 65 years old, and he has little to
deduct, so he gets killed every year.  He's not rich, not even close.  But
he's not poor either, so he pays A LOT.  The rumors that the rich don't pay
but the poor do are absolutely false.  The POOR never pay.  They always get
free money back, as long as they work a little bit.  
        Many of my clients get more earned income credit than they earn all
year.  Like I said before, they giggle themselves silly at my desk that they
are getting all that free money.  It's sickening.  They totally plan how
much to work, then when they hit the peak for EIC, they quit, get
unemployment and gov't aid, food stamps, and free utilities from the
churches, and wait for that fat check for doing nothing.  We are talking
BILLIONS of dollars, and MILLIONS of people doing this.  I have had over 900
clients in the past 6 years that do this, it's legal but unethical, but
there is nothing to be done about it besides change the laws.
        You are correct in assuming that tha tax laws are a joke, but not
why you think.  There is absolutely no excuse for some people subsidizing
others, because there is just too much abuse, and it is too difficult to
police it. Flat taxes, or better yet, the European method of Value Added Tax
is a much more fair option.  That way you only pay tax when you spend money.
SO the spenders pay, and the non spenders, for whatever reason, don't.  
        You can argue forever, but it will never be fair to REQUIRE some
people to subsidize others.  Voluntary giving, even to the general fund, is
appropriate, and would be a good option, but to force subsidy via sliding
scale is just outright wrong.  You punish the ones who work the hardest, and
give equity, which can be converted to liquid assets at the time of sale, to
the ones who work or earn, for whatever reason, the least. 
        From the vehemence of the argument, I suspect the majority of the
persons who are absolutely adamant about sliding scales are the
beneficiaries of the equity.
        How about trading fees for work?  Give the option of paying X
amount, or working X amount, or going somewhere in the middle?  Just give
the work a dollor value and it can be performed in lieu of paying?  Seems
more fair that way?  Anybody seen that working?
        I am all for letting everybody contribute as they can, what I can't
abide is the ones who are oh so willing to pay less, please help the poor
downtrodden masses, but who are not willing to give to the community in
exchange for what the community is giving to them.  Everybody can contribute
in some manner.


-------------------------------------
Susan Pniewski, Esq.

-----Original Message-----
From: Elizabeth Stevenson [mailto:tamgoddess [at] comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 6:22 PM
To: cohousing-l [at] cohousing.org
Subject: Re: [C-L]_Should individual "sponsorship" be allowed of
community



Howard and Sue: I may sometimes step over the line, but it's because I feel
it is critically necessary to open people's eyes to issues they'd rather not
face. Don't mistake my passion for some unthinking emotional response.
(Sorry, Kay-I *was* harsh)

Here goes again. I can keep it up as long as you can.
> 
>> Howard, I'm struck that you assume "fair" means everyone pays the same
>> amount
> 
> Not for everything.  But for paying for a capital improvement where we
> each own, by legal deeds, an exactly equal share of the resulting asset,
> and can sell that share (along with our unit) when we leave, then yes,
> I believe we should all pay equally.  Anything else is asking some members
> to directly donate wealth to other members.  I'm not particularly fond
> of kleptocracy no matter how it's disguised.

How about disguising it as taxes that moderate-income people pay and rich
people don't? Does this get your knickers in a knot, Howard? 'Cause it
pisses me off, big time. Our government steals from me and every other
tax-paying citizen every day to pay for welfare for the rich.
> 
>> and then conclude it's inevitable that the less well off will hold
>> things up.
> 
> I never claimed inevitability.  I said it was possible, because I've
> seen it happen, here in my community.  And I asked whether other people
> thought that was a price worth paying.  Or what other options there
> might be.


_______________________________________________
Cohousing-L mailing list
Cohousing-L [at] cohousing.org  Unsubscribe  and other info:
http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L