More phony income redistribution by the liberals

By Larry Huss,

Two Senate Democrats have introduced bills to reduce taxes on the lower end of the economic ladder.  Like most Democrat initiative these days the purpose is more illusional than actual.  Sen. Corey Booker (D-NJ) introduced a bill that would increase the standard deduction for a married couple to $75,000 thus eliminating  federal income taxes on the first $75,000 of joint income.  Currently, the standard deduction is $32,200 for 2026 and will increase based on inflation for future years.  Mr. Booker’s proposal more than doubles the standard deduction.  It will reduce your taxable income by $42,800  and your taxes, if you make in excess of $32,200, by up to $5,800.  Mr. Booker’s proposal is a significant boon to those couples earning between $32,200 and $75,000, both of which are significantly below the median family income.

Sen. Chris van Holland (D-MD) would eliminate the standard deduction and provide instead for a cost of living adjustment of $92,000 – same thing, different name.  Mr. van Holland’s adjustment would be indexed to cost of living increases in future years.

Both proposals would be funded by increasing the taxes on the upper bracket incomes and corporate earnings.  This follows an increasing frequent drone from the left about wealth transfers from the rich to the poor – redistribution.  So much so that Democrats, particularly in blues states, like Washington and Oregon, have focused continuing tax increases designed to target upper incomes with the promise that the vast majority of voters will not have to pay and so they should go ahead and vote for the tax increase regardless of its purpose – usually for the purpose of growing the size and cost of government generally with little actual benefit for the poor.  Frankly, despite “crocodile tears” the Democrats care little about the plight of the poor which they see as yet another opportunity to signal their “virtues” in caring for yet another group of victims.

Redistribution of wealth  doesn’t solve the plight of the poor – only good paying jobs will do that.  It is the old adage that give a man a fish and it feeds him for a day, teach a man to fish and he will always be fed.  What redistribution of wealth does is increase the dependency of larger and larger segments of the population on the goodwill of the government.  The Democrats own the welfare card and they play it to the hilt whether it is proposing increased welfare payments or wringing their hands about the intentions of Republicans to end Social Security.  The best protection for the preservation of your welfare dependency is to vote Democrat.

The welfare state has grown so large with so many benefits available that it now serves as one of the chief impediments to finding a job.  Here is a startling statistic.  As of the end of December, 2025, there were approximately 6.6. million job vacancies that remained unfilled.  At the same time there were approximately 1.9 million able-bodied men and women receiving unemployment benefits.  People were foregoing employment in favor of sitting on their duffs and collecting unemployment welfare benefits.  So here is the deal.

I have previously written about the concentration of wealth in the hands of a small percentage of the populous.  At the same time, I recognized that increasing taxes for the very rich simply generates more revenue for the government to squander.  Frankly, if I had to choose between the concentration of wealth in few and additional revenue to the government I would be all in for the concentration.  But we don’t have to.  We can solve both problems simultaneously.  In a previous column, I wrote:

“1.  Continue the current tax code as applied to taxable income under $1Million.  (Index that threshold to account for inflation.)

“2.  For income exceeding $1 Million eliminate all deductions, credits and other means of hiding or deferring income and tax that excess at twenty percent on a flat tax basis.

“3.  Limit the use of the proceeds from that flat tax to reducing the national debt and thereafter fully funding the Social Security System with an actual trust – only the old age assistance program and not Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, disability programs – like other welfare programs they should remain the responsibility of the general fund.. The trust cannot be used for any other government purpose.

To that I would add that a person or business could receive a tax credit against that flat tax for the investment in any new business that created in excess of fifty positions in private enterprise.

Frankly, if the proposals by Messrs. Van Holland and Booker contained such a requirement I could find my self supporting them.  But they won’t because both proposals are about creating dependency on government, not solving the problem of poverty.