Posts Tagged ‘tax’

h1

When Is Sex Not Personal?

2008.November.11

First, check this out. If you or anyone you know has been in this situation, congratulations, you live in a world of postmodern sexuality.

Perhaps the only union more awkward than politics and religion is that of politics and sexuality. And wouldn’t you know, it’s tied to those convenient wedge issues the Dems and Reps love to throw at us: if you have a friend or family member who is gay, you have to vote Democratic or you’re forcing them back into the closet. If you have any hesitations about abortion, you have to vote Republican or they’ll become mandatory and paid for with taxes on your fingernail clippings.

Nope, there couldn’t possibly be such aberrations as pro-life Democrats, or gay Republicans.

The difficulty with sexuality as a political issue is that, like religion, it is next to impossible to divorce from the personal experience of each and every voter. Say you had a homoerotic dream one time, does that make you a Democrat? Say you heard about someone who’s had four abortions and you think that’s just too many, does that make you a Republican? Of course not, but because sexuality is so personal, it inspires intense reactions in both extremes, leaving little room for gray on the issues.

To me, one of the funniest things is how sexual politics doesn’t necessarily correspond to one’s sexual proclivities. The most ardent supporters of abortion rights use protection so as not to need them. Most of the gay men I know struggle with their identity not only because their love is forbidden, but because they don’t feel like they have a complete choice in forming that identity. Do I identify as an athlete first? An artist? A father? Or am I relegated to always being a gay athlete, a gay artist, or a gay father? I recently mentioned how Black Americans are struggling over whether to identify gay rights with civil rights, but both peoples have been forced to experience how one piece of individual identity can so easily overshadow all others – regardless of whether it is your preferred identifier.

Wedge issues cause polarization within the broader American community, but they can even polarize the communities FORMED by the division, by forcing members to fight for mainstream recognition by going mainstream or fight for the fringe since that’s the only place you can be yourself. As gay men have come to a more prominent visibility, they have to struggle to develop individual or even community identities beyond stereotypes and pavlovian associations. Admit it, when you think of gay men, you think of pink clothing, musicals, interior decorating, and BUTT SEX. Where is there room for a personal or political identity beyond that?

Does sex ever get to be personal for those whose own American identity is designated for them based on one dimension of lives that are otherwise no more or less complicated than anyone else’s?

If I may offer a conjecture, it is not solely the responsibility of these individuals to ask such questions. “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” We must each (not in spite of our individual proclivities but in celebration of them) recognize that any sexual act is pissing someone off somewhere, and therefor embrace love itself as an act of rebellion.

Advertisements
h1

What Is Fair Tax?

2008.November.9

If there was any battle that was doomed from the start in 2008, it was Mike Gravel‘s bid for the presidency. He stole attention in the Democratic debates by raising questions that Democrats aren’t supposed to ask, but showed less than 1% in every poll and primary that bothered to include him. Then he said that was just a springboard for his big goal: the nomination of the Libertarian Party, where Gravel came in fourth in a field of eight. The Libs ended up with Republican Bob Barr; apparently even Libertarians have to side with name recognition once in a while.

I don’t know enough about Gravel to say whether he would have been a good candidate, but he definitely had some interesting ideas. How many Libertarians do you know who want single-payer healthcare? One that has gotten my attention is FairTax, an initiative that would eliminate the IRS and address funding needs with a simple sales tax on new goods and services. It is largely supported by Republicans, but Gravel saw it as an important piece of his larger interest in direct democracy – returning government to the people.

Fair Tax also rebutts the shared Democrat and Republican mythos: Democrats tax more! Repulicans spend less! There’s this notion that if you might ever need government assistance for anything, you should support Dems because they’ll pay for it, but if you ever wanted to be rich (and who hasn’t at some point?), you should support Republicans because they’ll let you keep more of it. Americans for Fair Taxation mention the contradiction on their website: “Indeed, the tax code is manipulated by both parties in Congress alike with reckless abandon to punish enemies and reward supporters…”

The Fair Tax would tie taxation directly to consumption, holding more of us accountable to our own spending habits and making sure that wealthy Americans pay their share (but are not saddled with more). Visitors to our country would also pay the consumption tax, so one’s visitation or immigration status would no longer exempt them from paying taxes.

There are drawbacks, mostly tied to any transition from the existing system. There would appear to be a price hike of 30%, since proponents insist that the sales tax should be included in all quoted prices, but the bigger concern would be the entire segment of industry that would be completely eliminated. Accounting as we know it would be decimated, and an entire skill set that applies to every single sector would become obsolete. No small issues, these.

%d bloggers like this: