A man wears a pin that reads “I’m Rich, I Can Afford To Pay My Taxes” during a Tax Day protest on April 15, 2017, in Cambridge, Mass. (Scott Eisen | Getty Images)
Like the rest of the country, New Hampshire has been bitten by trickle-down economics over the years, most recently with a series of business tax cuts that have not exactly been awesome for the good people of the state. A thorough assessment of those cuts conducted last summer by the New Hampshire Fiscal Policy Institute landed in a not-so-unexpected place: “We did not find evidence the tax rate reductions spurred sufficient economic growth to offset tax revenue losses or to increase business tax revenues.”
Those losses, the NHFPI said, “totaled between $496 million and $729 million across tax years 2016-2022.” But, hey, it’s good to be a corporation.
The counter-argument to what those figures suggest is that the cuts were never meant to pay for themselves , but rather to provide economic stimulus and strengthen the overall business environment. That’s the trickle down piece of it: When corporations and the wealthy benefit, the argument goes, we all benefit.
In terms of fiscal policy, this is one of the lines that divides the political left and right in America. In his “Cross of Gold” speech at the 1896 Democratic Convention in Chicago, William Jennings Bryan laid it out this way: “There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that, if you will only legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea, however, has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous, their prosperity will find its way up through every class which rests upon them.”
I’m a big fan of this kind of debate. My sense is that tax breaks that directly and primarily benefit corporations and the wealthy – like the state’s repeal of the interest and dividends tax – do not ultimately serve the greater public good, but I think all perceptions should be challenged. It’s healthy, and helps foster conversations about fundamental issues that carry daily consequences for voters.
What isn’t healthy is when scorched-earth words and phrases that have largely lost their meaning through misapplication – like “socialist” and “communist” – are used to squash economic policy conversations before they begin.
That’s where we are right now, and it’s not good. But I think I understand why it happens.
While w e all want to protect our wealth, whether we have a little or a lot, wealthier Americans have more options to not only protect but grow those riches. One way to do that is by purchasing political power through campaign contributions, something that became much easier in 2010 with Citizens United , and that’s when the real trickle-down happens. Policies desired by corporations and other wealthy donors become “platforms” that spread by political party osmosis – like the wonders of business tax cuts, the joys of a $7.25 minimum wage, and the inherent evils of a robust social safety net.
What you don’t want to do as a wealthy person or corporation is to let your greed flag fly, so you get your purchased political players to start yelling “socialist” or “communist” at anybody who suggests that the richest among us should pay their fair share.
If you’re top-tier wealthy, the only thing better than buying political power is electing one of your own. Donald Trump, the most billionaire-ish of billionaires, has recently taken to calling Kamala Harris and her running mate Tim Walz “communists.” Why, he doesn’t say exactly – and he doesn’t have to. The sooner you get voters imagining Cold War breadlines in America, the sooner you can get back to your online lovefest with Elon Musk, a fellow member of the American billionaires club, now more than 800 strong .
When it comes to the art of shutting down reasonable debate before it begins, New Hampshire’s version of Trump’s red-baiting is to scream “New Hampshire Advantage” at anyone who suggests that the state’s overreliance on property taxes isn’t working out so well for the average Granite Stater. The crazy thing is that anyone who owns or rents property here experiences the very definition – and full misery – of “regressive” taxation on a daily basis: “Low-income taxpayers pay a disproportionate share of the tax burden, while middle- and high-income taxpayers shoulder a relatively small tax burden.”
New Hampshire has one of the highest effective property tax rates in the country, yet mention an income tax of any kind on the campaign trail here and you’ll be chased into the hills, or maybe Massachusetts. Meanwhile, instead of listening as our lawmakers earnestly debate what a truly equitable system might look like, our beleaguered property-tax-paying voters are left to take out their frustrations on poor local school districts, whose greatest sin is to exist in an unfair tax system .
Crazier still, we’d rather debate whether high school seniors should be allowed to read Toni Morrison’s “Beloved” than talk honestly about the real causes and ramifications of our self-inflicted economic inequity.
But do you know who is psyched that we’re tangled up in arguments about things like school curriculum instead of fair taxation? I think you probably do, because it’s the same well-heeled gang that’s been pulling the levers from the get-go.
I’m sorry to say, New Hampshire, that there is no white knight en route to lift us out of our “advantage.” There is only the waiting for whatever comes first – the long-promised trickling down of all those cuts or the mammoth property tax bill that finally chases us into the cold night.
Most Popular
Comments / 0