UPDATE:  May 29th, 2007 (9:25pm) - There is a “hidden” point to this post revolving around a fairly prominant social debate.  Stupidly, I made virtually no allusions to it; I hid the point so well that no one even thinks to look for it.  I don’t want to spoil the suspense for those who haven’t yet read it, so I won’t spill the beans.  If you’ve got a chip as large as I do, you’ll see it.  Well-adjusted folk will scratch their heads.  Sorry for teh bad writing! :( 

Lorena, a good friend of mine, drove to work last January in a brand new 7-Series BMW.  It was a glorious machine, squat and angled with a stance conveying sloth, gluttony and greed.  My car, a three year-old American (yuck!) sedan, had a hull carelessly splashed with drab paint, an anemic engine designed around plebian economies, and an interior of Spartan plastics and faux-hides. In contrast, Lorena’s new Germanic brute wore a dashing black velvet ensemble, an endless puddle of outer space shrouding non-existent angles and curves. Its engine hypnotized the driver with an endless surge of horsepower and torque. The interior of the car smelled of a sweet sugar cow’s hide, and the strategic placement of soft, golden bulbs along the ceiling of the car’s cabin emulated the serenity and peace that accompanies a late night nap in a warm wood-trimmed library.  Imagining the deafening silence this machine produced while devouring mile after mile at hyper-freeway speeds, my keen automotive knowledge tagged the yacht’s price at at least $80,000.

Of course I grilled her relentlessly, wondering how our identical salaries had produced such vastly different vehicle purchases; my ghetto-turd sold for $11,800, around 1/7th the price of her new mobile palace.  Uncle Sam, she revealed, had blessed her with a $15,000 tax refund.  My wife and I thought thieves would target our new-found wealth after receiving a scant $1400 tax refund (which would have been a paltry $1100 were we not married); quaint, I know. I began to reflect on my plight.  Lorena and I, both Americans paying taxes on similar salaries, should get equal tax refunds.  Why did I get only $1700, whereas she got $15,000?  Was I simply being melodramatic, or was there an enormously unfair tax structure at work here?  

Unable to shake the feeling that the IRS had shafted me, I stewed about that 7-Series all weekend. It invaded my sleep, prompting watery dreams that made little sense and created buckets of anxiety. Naked, I pushed an oily 30-ton ball of steel up a sharp and rocky hill, slowly straining and perspiring as I labored.  Sweat wept from my body and fell to the black dirt, exploding into cascades of gold bullion stamped “LORENA.”  I cried out in despair against the murky dreamscape, cursing my pores as they bled me dry.

Was it because the IRS preferred Lorena’s gender over mine? Could it possibly be that the IRS sought to burden me with an increased tax load because I am a man?  Had the crimes of my misogynistic forefathers finally come home to roost?  A quick check of my manhood confirmed that I was still the stronger and more capable gender; I struck the idea of sex discrimination.

Perhaps Lorena’s mocha-colored skin had a role to play in this injustice.  As a Peruvian native, Lorena carried with her not only a seductive accent, but the bloodline of an incredibly privileged South American race as well.  I considered the possibility that the ethnic crimes perpetrated by my greedy imperialist ancestors were being corrected at my expense.  A reaffirming nod to my alpine heritage dashed the thought of racial discrimination. Whites are immune from discrimination; lucky me.

I suddenly found myself in a panic:  Lorena got more than I did, and I was running out of valid reasons why.  Gender and race played no role and, as both Lorena and I were married and heterosexual, neither did marital status or sexual preferences.  I began to think silly, unreasonable things. In a confused daze, I considered the possibility that I did not deserve a $15,000 refund, that Lorena’s refund reflected society’s reward for her hard work. Luckily, I recalled the immortal American creed in which I had blindly placed my trust: “All men are created equal.” Whatever injustice had relegated me to a three-year-old American (yuck!) car needed to be rectified, and pronto. 

Imagine my surprise, and the deflated state of my tax-cheating ego, when Lorena explained that as a landowner, she was entitled to write off all of the primary mortgage interest she had paid to the evil Zionist bankers during the previous year.  Yet again, my uneducated brain and low-class mentality had stupidly calculated my monthly savings by renting a home (at a mere $700) instead of buying a home (at a stratospheric, unholy California purchase price) as too high to ignore.  Not having grown up among the wealthy and affluent, I had no idea that owning a home would so dramatically decrease my tax burden.

Nevertheless, has anyone examined the fairness of such a wealth-friendly tax policy?  I thought the 24th Amendment had buffed out the ugly Poll Tax scratch from the polished skin of American society.  I thought that our government had removed all of the unfair benefits afforded exclusively to wealthy property owners, understanding finally that even the poor souls renting their lives away were entitled to equal treatment.  Lorena’s gilded chariot donkey-kicked my gut with a realization that American fat-cat politicians still cater to the rich at the expense of powerless renters like you and me.

There cannot be a valid reason for the IRS to reduce so greatly a landowner’s tax burden.  Hell, if someone is rich enough to own land, shouldn’t he pay more in taxes?  Why should I be forced to give away more of my income simply because I am too poor to own land?  Doesn’t the IRS understand what it means to drive a three year-old American (yuck!) car in
Southern California? It is obvious that the US government simply does not like renters, probably because everyone in the government comes from rich land owning families.

This simply cannot stand anymore.  I have three plans to help combat this injustice, and I’d like your suggestions as to which one will work best:

1.  The IRS must allow renters to become landowners, even if they do not own land.  This will be done by redefining what constitutes a landowner.  For example, the new definition for a landowner could be something along the lines of:  “One who, while on land, holds possessory rights over an item of personal property.”  However, this may find sailors and pilots excluded, as they are often not on land.  Fine-tuning is required, but you get the idea.  OR,

2.  The IRS must allow renters to deduct “constructive” interest paid to their landlords on their tax returns.  For example, if my rent is $700/month, I can deduct $690 for every month of paid rent from my taxable income. After all, just as making a minimum credit card payment hardly results in credit card debt reduction, monthly rent payments do nothing to reduce the “balance” owed by a renter on land not being sold.  OR,

3.  Both 1 and 2.  Renters are often poor, and by virtue of their economic plight, a protected class. What purpose is there for a strong federal government if not to protect members of minority groups?

If you are a landowner, you probably will not like any of my suggestions.  You will probably fight my suggestions, claiming that one cannot rent land and own it; that one cannot deduct interest that has not been paid.  You will try to sound intelligent, logical, rational, and honest.  You will try to paint an ugly picture of me, stating that I am merely looking for a handout that I do not rate, that I am complaining for no reason.  But I’m old enough and wise enough to recognize the real reason for your unfair tax policy:  bigotry fueled by an unnatural hate of the poor. 

One day, somewhere far off in a utopian future, we will all be renters free from the shackles of landowners.  We will stand, hand in hand, signing rainbow songs of diversity and celebrating our universal renterness. Until then, I’ll be content with merely nullifying the rewards of individual labor and redefining terms that exclude me. Isn’t that how we roll in here in imperialist America?