The rich pay too

In the United States, they never tire of arguing about taxes. Especially before the elections. But in an era of economic boom, it is very reminiscent of an endless Latin American series.

Massachusetts People's Republic

Until 1909, when the US corporate income tax was introduced, the US government lived primarily through customs and excise taxes. The income tax was introduced in 1862 to pay for the civil war with the southerners (its highest rate was a mere 10%), but a decade later it was allowed to rest peacefully in Bose.

However, the wealth of the tycoons of that time, after whom museums, foundations and libraries were later named (Andrew Carnegie, Pierpont Morgan or John Rockefeller), haunted many, and in 1884 the income tax was resurrected. Massachusetts resident Charles Pollock tried to challenge it in court, was defeated in the lower courts, but succeeded in the supreme court, which declared the income tax contrary to the country's constitution.

The US Democratic Party characterized this court decision as a “usurpation” and in 1886 made the introduction of the tax one of the points of its election program. Her struggle was crowned with success in 1913, when the 16th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified, giving Congress the power to “collect taxes on income, whatever the source thereof.”

Since then, Massachusetts has become such a stronghold of Democrats that it received the mocking name “Massachusetts People's Republic” from Republicans. The Democratic Party continues to fight over taxes, and the ashes of Charles Pollock knock on the hearts of Republicans who believe that a man is a better steward of his own money than the most humane government.

Bill was forgiven not only Monica

For the time being, this philosophy appealed to most voters, and Republicans rode out calls for tax cuts for decades, like Cinderella in a pumpkin carriage. Bill Clinton, who studies opinion polls every day like some people study a horoscope, knew what Americans wanted, and during the 1992 election campaign he also promised tax cuts for His Majesty's Middle Class.

When Clinton took office, he raised taxes rather than cut them, but most Americans still loved him, which meant times had changed. In 1997, Republicans last succeeded in getting Clinton to sign a major tax cut they passed in Congress. Polls showed that Americans still liked the idea of ​​sharp tax cuts.

But the economic boom continued, and this idea gradually lost popularity. People earned so much that the need to regularly share their hard-earned money with the treasury seemed less and less burdensome to them. Republicans, with numbers in hand, argued that after cutting taxes, an economic recovery would inevitably come, but there was a recovery anyway. The public, stunned by the boom, did not want to drive the wave with any changes, including manipulations with taxes.

Reading the polls, Clinton discovered that there are some things that voters consider more important than cutting taxes. These include pensions, schools and free healthcare for the poor and elderly. Announcing his draft budget for 1998, he said that the surplus money that had accumulated in the treasury by that time should be used to replenish the pension fund, and not to cut taxes.

This put Republicans in a difficult position. If they insisted on cutting taxes, the White House would say they were willing to do it at the expense of pensions. The Republicans didn't push too hard, especially since they also know how to read polling data. Last November, a Los Angeles Times poll found that 80% of respondents preferred to spend the excess on pensions, health care and education instead of cutting taxes.

The state budget in the United States is drawn up mainly from tax revenues. Republicans said that lowering taxes meant giving people their own money back, which they could then put aside for retirement, pay for a doctor or school, or even just burn it. It's their money. But the public was so cool to these arguments that George W. Bush for a long time did not emphasize his tax cut plan in his election propaganda. The plan is to reduce them by $1.3 trillion over the next decade.

Bush tried the plan ahead of the New Hampshire primary, where he was facing Sen. John McCain. Bush proposed introducing new tax rates: 10%, 15%, 25% and 33% instead of the current 15%, 28%, 31%, 33% and 39.6%. McCain, for his part, preached campaign finance reform and said that Bush's tax innovations would ruin the treasury.

McCain won by 19 points. Bush eventually prevailed, but in part by talking more about how he would improve public education and health care and less about his plans to cut taxes.

It's better to be free and rich...

Democrats, who spent the last century pitting poor Americans against rich ones, see no reason not to do so this year and accuse Bush of wanting to cut taxes for moneybags. His apologists respond that since the rich pay much more than others under the progressive tax system existing in the United States, it would only be fair to cut their taxes more than others.

Realizing that no one likes taxes, Gore also promises to cut them, but by a much smaller amount, and proposes to use the remainder to cover the US national debt and social security, which is dear to the people’s hearts. The first chooses freedom, and the second chooses what is called social justice. On November 7, Americans will decide what they prefer.

Vladimir KOZLOVSKY, New York