James V. Zedak – 12/30/12

This page was last updated on December 31, 2012.

Country off the tracks; James V. Zedak; Beaver County Times; December 30, 2012.

Mr. Zedak has written at least 34 letters since 2004. I critiqued eight of those letters (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here).

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

“As this country heads toward a fiscal crisis like a runaway train, it should be kept in mind that it will be a crisis that has been over a year in making thanks to a broken government representation of the will of the American citizens.”

[RWC] Do you remember when President Obama and a Democrat-majority Congress rammed Obamacare down our throats? I found no Zedak letters from that time complaining about “a broken government representation of the will of the American citizens.”

“We have a Congress that is so fractured that it is paralyzed and unable to function in a bipartisan manner. We are slowly recovering from the deepest recession since the depression and that recovery has been slowed by the fact that we live in a global economy affected by the problems overseas. Our massive debt has been contributed to by the two longest wars this country has ever faced with no dedicated financing.”

[RWC] On the topic of bipartisanship, and sticking with Obamacare as an example, do you remember it was enacted without a single Republican vote in favor? I found no Zedak letters from that time to indicate he had concern “Congress [was] … unable to function in a bipartisan manner.”

Mr. Zedak would like readers to believe “the two longest wars this country has ever faced with no dedicated financing” are responsible for our huge debt and deficits. At the time the subprime lending mess happened (the reason for the recession), the deficit had been shrinking and was “only” about $161 billion for fiscal year 2007. Besides, we’re now out of Iraq and President Obama’s estimated deficit for FY 2013 is $901 billion (probably on the low side), nearly six times the deficit for FY 2007.

“There is massive wasteful spending of taxpayer monies that isn’t being adequately addressed, which includes Medicare. We have a tax system where loopholes have given the rich and super rich the ability to pay a tax percentage less than that of the middle class working Americans. Isn’t it about time that government by the people, for the people and of the people be restored to it’s [sic] rightful place?”

[RWC] For the zillionth time, let’s go over the “loopholes have given the rich and super rich …” BS. I suspect Mr. Zedak’s definition of a “loophole” is a legal provision of the tax code he doesn’t like, probably because he believes it doesn’t benefit him personally. For example, if you didn’t like the home-mortgage interest deduction because you rent or your house is paid for, you would call it a loophole because the deduction reduces the tax liability of taxpayers who can use it. You would claim the deduction (loophole) allows some taxpayers to escape paying their “fair share” of taxes. Several years back the Tax Foundation reported, “Despite the charges of critics that the tax [RATE] cuts enacted in 2001, 2003 and 2004 favored the ‘rich,’ these cuts actually reduced the tax burden of low- and middle-income taxpayers and shifted the tax burden onto wealthier taxpayers.”

Now let’s look at the data. Based on 2010 IRS data (the most recent available), the top 25% of filers [$69,126 and higher (67.6% of total income); avg. tax rate of 15.2%] paid 87% of the total, the top 5% [$161,579 and higher (33.8% of total income); avg. tax rate of 20.6%] paid 59%, and the top 1% [$369,691 and higher (18.9% of total income); avg. tax rate of 23.4%] paid 37%. The bottom 50% [$34,338 and lower (11.7% of total income); avg. tax rate of 2.4%] paid 2.4%. Naturally, there will always be individual exceptions. Nevertheless, the data clearly shows that, for most of us, as our income increases so does our effective tax rate. Here’s something else to keep in mind; tax rates and tax dollars are not the same things. Even if a “rich” taxpayer paid a lower tax RATE than a “poor” taxpayer, he would still pay a lot more than the “poor” guy in tax DOLLARS. For example, 15% of $369,691 ($55,454) is $48,586 more (8 times more) than 20% of $34,338 ($6,868). Just because she earns more, why should Jane pay so much more than John for the same government services?