Social Question

JLeslie's avatar

Does it bother anyone else that the media does not put accountants on tv to discuss taxes, but instead politicians, financiers, and, economists?

Asked by JLeslie (55796points) February 7th, 2010

They talk about raising taxes on the rich, but never have an accountant on tv to discuss how the tax deductions the rich utilize really pan out for them. Only people lile Warrent Buffet have spoken out about how he pays fewer taxes as a percentage of his income than his secretaries, and that taxing him equally would not affect how much business he creates.

Why people want to tax the rich less is beyond me. Literally less is how it works out as a percentage. I just want it to be equal.

I do want to clarify that I do not think “rich” is $250K a year and up, which has been the number out there lately. I would start more around $400K. But this is separate from any discussion about Capital Gains tax, and other write offs.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

11 Answers

Spinel's avatar

People put more weight on the professionals you mentioned in your title. These professionals also tend to be more famous. Obviously, for example, Clinton will attract more attention than an unknown accountant.

Besides, who ever said the media was out for the good of the people? They seem more concerned with viewership than truth. Most people like the thought of taxing the rich because they see the economic abundance of the high class as unfair. If the media were to interview an accountant, s/he might disagree with the popular view, therefore damaging viewership numbers. Politicians who are trying to appeal to the masses are much safer to have on the show.

The_Idler's avatar

It’s television, what do you expect?

It’s a pity, yeah, but only one tiny part of a much larger problem.

john65pennington's avatar

The majority of the public would never understand the jargon that CPAs would give them on television. it too complicated and the public would lose interest. besides, exactly who would you believe, anyway?

JLeslie's avatar

@john65pennington What about visual examples, graphs, of people who make $300K from business and investments how much they pay in taxes, and how much someone who makes $200K going to work 9–5? Something to show the inequity of it all.

Trillian's avatar

@john65pennington has a point. In the past couple years, there have been two CPA suicides that I know of in my area, and apparently both had been skimming, or whatever you call it and were close to being found out. It’s enough to make me completely lose faith in my fellow man. And I had so much to begin with!~

john65pennington's avatar

Which had you rather watch…..Forensic Files or a long-winded CPA that spouts out numbers that you cannot associate with? i know where you are coming from, but i honestly do not believe giving out the money facts would ever hold an audience for more than two minutes. i was the treasurer for our police union and i learned this first hand. i had their attention for two minutes and then it all went downhill.

laureth's avatar

The for-profit media’s job is pretty much to entertain, not necessarily to inform (unless that’s what makes them the profit).

The_Idler's avatar

This is what I mean. The whole media system is the issue.
Commercial media can’t be trusted to act in the interests of public duty.

The most obvious alternative is state-run media, but then you have to have faith in the government. I think the BBC strikes a pretty good balance, though it has been getting worse since the recent trend towards incentivisation and anti-paternalism (not towards government interests, but just away from public duty).

JLeslie's avatar

@john65pennington I am talking about shows like Morning Joe, Meet the Press, even The Today show and Oprah, not competition like Forensic Files. A show where viewers seemingly want to learn.

qashqai's avatar

Because accountants are ugly.

laureth's avatar

@The_Idler – We used to have something called the Fairness Doctrine:

“The FCC took the view, in 1949, that station licensees were “public trustees,” and as such had an obligation to afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial issues of public importance. The Commission later held that stations were also obligated to actively seek out issues of importance to their community and air programming that addressed those issues. With the deregulation sweep of the Reagan Administration during the 1980s, the Commission dissolved the fairness doctrine.”

In other words, because the air is public, companies who used the air to broadcast for profit were obligated to use a portion of their broadcast for subjects necessary to the public good. However, this was done away with in the 1980s.

Thanks, Uncle Reagan!

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther