Sometimes we believe that we are backing a worthy cause or
making a good decision, but it turns out (sometimes too late) not to be the
case. Two recent examples in the news are
trophy hunting and tax deductibility.
Though they may seem totally unrelated, they share the common
characteristic that we tend not to think them through.
They both tend to be political, which makes it all the more
important that we fully understand what is going on so as not to be manipulated
by the opposing forces. In these cases I
am taking a critical thinking approach rather than taking sides.
In the first case, many oppose trophy hunting as treating animals
badly. There was talk earlier this year
of banning imports of trophy-hunted elephants and possibly
other species for that reason. A
deeper look reveals a different story.
This article from CNN explains that the major
threat facing elephants and other exotic wildlife is not the trophy hunters,
but other factors such as loss of habitat, retaliatory killing by local farmers
and poaching. Poachers come at night to
kill the elephants for their ivory. Controlling
poaching, reimbursing farmers for crop damage and preserving the savannah
requires funding. A major source of that funding is the license fees paid by the rich trophy hunters. As long as the hunting is well regulated, the
overall impact on wildlife can be positive.
It seems counterintuitive at first
glance that shooting a few elephants or lions in a well-regulated way could
benefit the larger group, but it’s true.
The writer of the CNN piece admits to being a conservationist and
vegetarian who wishes for a different solution, but the revenue ensures positive
outcomes for animals as a whole and jobs for local game wardens. Other sources agree, including The University
of Washington’s Conservation Magazine and the National Geographic. Yet some want to brand these fat-cat hunters
as evil men who hate animals and are destroying the planet.
The second example has to do with tax deductibility, which is
the subject of a fuss in Washington over a new tax law. Various proposals intend to double the
standard deduction while eliminating different itemized deductions. But are these deductions as valuable as their
backers claim? Here is a simplified
explanation.
A deduction is the amount we subtract from our income before
calculating taxes. If we earn $50,000
and have $15,000 in deductions, we pay tax on only $35,000. Using a 15% tax bracket, the actual savings
is not $15,000, but 15% of that, or $2,250 – still nothing to sneeze at.
But don’t forget the standard deduction! You must spend that $15,000 to get the
benefit, but we can subtract $12,000 without doing anything, which would reduce
our taxes by $1,800 (15% of 12,000). In
this example, the difference between having the deduction and not is only $450, or
3% of the total deduction.
Now I don’t know many people who would go rushing to the
store for a 3%-Off sale, but that’s not the way it’s presented. When the state or local government wants to
raise your taxes they explain how it won’t hurt you because “it’s all tax-deductible.” When a charity wants your money they
emphasize the tax-deductibility. When a
tax preparer charges $50 for software or over $100 for the personal
touch, they don’t tell you that this money saved you only an incremental
$450. No, they stress the much larger number at the bottom of your return, remind you that their fee is also tax-deductible and then urge you to get your money today at their high interest rate. (Note:
The CPA Practice Advisor says that you should expect to pay
an average of $273 in the 2017 filing season if you want to itemize your
deductions.)
Elected officials at all levels, charities, environmentalists,
tax preparers, animal rights advocates, realtors and many others depend on the
majority of us not to think too deeply.
Perhaps some of them aren’t thinking clearly themselves. But when we just nod in blind agreement,
allowing ourselves to be misled, we get poor outcomes and may never realize it.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Click again on the title to add a comment