• Text smaller
  • Text bigger

Ignorance gives politicians a free hand to exploit the politics of
envy. Our education system creates a growing surplus of that ignorance.
Politicians like Richard Gephardt, D-Mo., and John McCain, R-Ariz., who
see high income earners as “winners in the lottery of life” carp that
Republican tax cuts will be on the backs of the poor to benefit the
rich.

You’d think a media person might query: How much taxes do the rich
pay, and how much do the poor pay?” But media people are also products
of our education system.

“OK, Williams,” you say, “how much taxes do the rich and poor pay?”
Using preliminary 1997 data from the Internal Revenue Service, the
Washington, D.C.-based Tax Foundation reports that the top 1 percent of
income earners are people with adjusted gross incomes of $250,000 and
over. These people earned 17.4 percent of all reported income. So what’s
their “fair” share of federal income taxes? I don’t know what’s fair,
but the fact is they paid 33.2 percent of all federal income taxes. By
the way, earning $250,000 is nice, but it’s hardly what you’d call rich
– it’s not even yacht money.

What about the lowest 50 percent of income earners, people with
adjusted gross incomes $24,000 and below? Gephardt and McCain call these
the “working class” people upon whose backs George W. Bush’s proposed
tax cuts will rest. It turns out that the lowest 50 percent of income
earners earned 14 percent of all income and paid 4.3 percent of all
federal income taxes, a trifling part of the cost of government.

The top 5 percent of earners (income over $108,000) paid 52 percent
of federal income taxes, the top 10 percent (income over $79,000) paid
63 percent, and the top 25 percent of income earners (income over
$48,000) paid 82 percent. I’d like one of these Americans, who might be
paying a mortgage, a car note and college tuition for one or two
youngsters, to stand up and say, “I’m rich!”

After playing the envy game, presidential contenders call for
health-care reform. That translates into more government control. Before
we buy into their promises of better health care with greater government
control, we ought to look around.

Politicians used to sing the praises of Britain’s National Health
Service. A recent study by David Green and Laura Casper, “Delay, Denial
and Dilution,” written for the London-based Institute of Economic
Affairs, concludes that the NHS delivers health-care services that are
just about the worst in the developed world. The head of the World
Health Organization calculated that Britain has as many as 25,000
unnecessary cancer deaths a year because of underprovision of care.
Twelve percent of specialists surveyed admitted refusing kidney dialysis
to patients suffering from kidney failure because of limits on cash.
Waiting lists for medical treatment have become so long that there are
now “waiting lists” for the waiting list.

You say, “Williams, Canada’s government health-care system is what we
should have!” Canada’s government system isn’t that different from
Britain’s. For example, after a Canadian has been referred to a
specialist, the waiting list for: gynecological surgery is 4 to 12
weeks, cataract removal is 12 to 18 weeks, tonsillectomy is 3 to 36
weeks and neuro-surgery is 5 to 30 weeks.

Toronto-area hospitals, concerned about lawsuits, ask patients to
sign a legal release accepting that while delays in treatment may have
jeopardized their health, they nevertheless hold the hospital blameless.
You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure out why Canadians
flock to American hospitals and Americans don’t flock to Canadian
hospitals.

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.