Forbes’ tax fair for heirs, but closes door for poor
17 percent taxation captures essence of American Dream
"You don’t have to bash immigrants, you don’t have to condemn
minorities, you don’t have to talk about flag factories. You can
appeal to the best instincts and be successful." – Sal Russo,
former media adviser to Steve Forbes
He’s right, you know. Appealing to the instincts of humankind
really is the key to political success. And the instincts to which
Steve Forbes appeals are definitely those of which we, the people,
should be most proud. After all, he stands for fairness, economic
equality and the American Dream.
Assuming a 17 percent flat tax, we could have an absolutely fair
tax system, and America would be the land of opportunity it was
always meant to be. A person worth millions (or in Forbes’ case,
billions), would be taxed 17 percent, and would barely feel the tax
cut, while a person earning minimum wage ($8,160 a year) would be
taxed 17 percent, also. Fair is fair, and the billionaire has
worked hard for his money. Who are we to punish him for it?
If the people in our country who fall below the poverty line,
and thus spend 30 percent of their income on shelter, have to pay
17 percent in taxes, just like Forbes, well that’s their problem.
They have not tried as hard, they have not worked, they didn’t WANT
an education. They can just go ahead and learn to squeak by on the
53 percent of their income they have left ($4,324.80 a year) for
food and living expenses. They don’t deserve an education, personal
items, transportation or clothing.
As the representative of wholesome American success, Forbes
doesn’t have to bash minorities. He believes in equality for all,
especially in the tax system. The majority of minorities who live
in poverty will appreciate his belief in equality. Even if they
won’t be able to pay for higher education or opportunities for
their children (because half of their already-small salaries will
go to taxes and housing), then, of course, they will recognize that
the American Dream comes from hard work. We can be sure they will
embrace the opportunity they have to better themselves by climbing
the wage ladder.
Forbes himself epitomizes this dream. He worked his way up from
an Ivy League university, to his daddy’s magazine, to his position
today as a publisher, worth at least $439 million, according to
Fortune Magazine. He has worked hard for daddy, and will someday be
heir to about $1.4 billion. He got his island in Fiji, his Boeing
727, his French chateau and his yacht, all from determination and
suffering through hard times (like his dad’s $5 million birthday
party in Tangiers).
Forbes should be our president, for in representing our glorious
nation he would continue for four years to appeal to the most basic
human instinct. As Steve himself once said, "Economics and values
are the same thing."
Included in Forbes’ tax plan are provisions to "scrap the
deduction for mortgage interest and charitable contributions, while
exempting all income from interest, dividends and capital gains,"
according to Time’s Nancy Gibbs ("Knock ’em flat," Jan. 29). Hence,
in appealing to good economic sense, Forbes would help our nation
realize the amount of money it wastes on community and social
services and housing for its people. He would emphasize our
country’s dedication to business and economic opportunity, and
would reward those committed to helping our economy through
business, just like Forbes himself.
Some say that under a flat tax, Forbes would gain about $200,000
a year, and damn it, the man deserves it. Trickle down works really
well, and Bill Clinton ought to realize it. Everything our country
invests in people like Forbes returns to its blue-collar citizens
in the form of jobs – as servants in his French chateau, the
magazine delivery industry and the flight attendant industry for
his jet.
Gibbs also reports that with the flat tax, the national debt
that accumulated during Reagan’s trickle-down years would increase
by between $40 billion and $182 billion, and all for the just cause
of equal taxation. We don’t need to worry about the national
deficit because we should be cutting funds to social services, like
welfare, Medicare, education and public medicine, anyway.
The recent $1.2 billion cut to L.A. public health care is the
perfect example. The brilliant idea to close mega-public medical
institutions like County USC Hospital should be replicated and
implemented throughout the nation.
After all, we should just deny health care to California’s 2.6
million uninsured; the resultant mass emergency room closings in
private hospitals, which are afraid to lose money on uninsured
emergency victims, would not affect those of us in Westwood.
Communicable diseases that go untreated couldn’t possibly make it
from South Central to UCLA. We should not continue to provide
services on such a large national deficit, as L.A. County currently
chooses to do in the face of its debt.
Vote for Forbes. You’ll be the most popular person in the Bel
Air/Brentwood/Beverly Hills area, and even as far as Orange County!
The United States would regain the equality it had at the beginning
of this century. Heck, we wouldn’t even NEED affirmative action,
and we should go ahead and cut financial aid. Economics equals
values, and our country loses its purpose when it doesn’t appeal to
our economic instinct.
Hartel is a third-year English/American studies student.
Sherry HartelComments to webmaster@db.asucla.ucla.edu