Steal from the poor and give to the rich. Did I miss something?

A regressive tax system is defined by a tax level which increases as the wealth or ability of an individual or business to pay decreases. This mere definition sounds biased to favor the wealthy within a population. I completely agree with David when he states, "If we were to adopt a more progressive tax system, taxing the wealthiest Texans a much higher percentage than the paltry 3% they currently pay, while reducing the disproportionate tax burden on the poor, the benefits would be endless."

Texas is depending on regressive taxes, such as property taxes and a one-cent sales tax, along with fees to provide a great portion of funding for important state functions. When we look at inequality as David talks about it seems obvious to me that we are taking money from the poor to provide for the poor and likewise money from the rich goes right back to the rich. This money gap causes the issue David addresses of poor socio-economic mobility. If only there was a tax which could solve this problem; perhaps an income tax? Texas is one of only seven states which do not impose an income tax. 

An article on WiseGeek breaks down basic advantages income taxes would have over consumption tax including a progressive system which would adjust to individual incomes, consumption rates, and deduction qualifications. Income taxes would better measure an equal and fair amount of taxes each individual could be expected to pay. An income tax could also be used to distribute the wealth evenly so that districts or state functions which currently do not receive sufficient funding could be on the right path to receiving a more even disbursement of funds. Texas is currently attempting to solve funding issues but we are not looking into all of our options, especially those which seem more fair and beneficial.    

Effective Public Transportation for Texas

     I have to disagree with the idea of an overhaul on public transportation in Austin, which Christopher suggests on his blog. I have lived in Austin for three years now and have taken advantage of the bus system and occasionally a taxi. I believe the effectiveness of public transportation is apparent to those who have no other option such as a personal vehicle or carpool. The capital metro system is an effective although time consuming way to navigate Austin. For those who have the option to take a car, the public transportation system seems like a hassle when in fact, the capital metro system is not only already effective but also working to grow through the input of the community. The website is user friendly and even has a trip planner which uses starting points and destinations to give the user the ideal route and timing needed. This trip planning feature allows a bus rider to bypass colored maps which Christopher points out are sometimes difficult to interpret.

     The proposition that we look to New York as an example is like comparing apples to oranges. New York’s subway system is so developed and successful due to the tight concentration of people and businesses. Austin is a sprawling city; if you think the buses don’t reach enough of the city, an underground system would likely only be a straight strip through the middle, at least to start with. Christopher also mentions traffic jams which are frequent on I-35. These traffic jams are not a result of public transportation but a result of the quantity of people compared to lanes during rush hour and collision delays. Providing an underground system would not likely clear up the traffic on I-35 as Texas and Austin is a place where a great number of residents own a vehicle and therefore would not be part of the target population to benefit from growth in public transportation. I think that Austin is a city which effectively promotes carpooling, bike riding, and public transportation but a user of such methods must understand that just because it’s better for the environment does not mean that it will be easier or faster than commuting in a personal vehicle.