In this op-ed being promoted by Instapundit and others, the author sketches out the effect of Sen. Obama’s plan to secure social security and allow the Bush tax cuts for the top 1% to expire will have on folks like Tiger Woods and the New York Yankees. I guess the effect is supposed to elicit sympathy or outrage, but that’s the kind of out of touch thing we’ve come to expect from the right.
People (like me) may like Tiger Woods or the Yankees (not me) but we don’t give a crap about their finances. We all know that these guys make way more than the rest of us could hope to make, and we know that there’s little to no social value in a guy making 7 to 8 figures for hitting a ball. If they have to pay slightly more in taxes so that the social security system stays solvent for another decade or more? NOBODY CARES.
In the last couple decades when the sports leagues have gone on strike or had lockouts the fans have rarely sided with the athletes. In general, fandom is envious of their salaries and normal people think a work stoppage when you’re being paid a $10 million signing bonus is pretty ridiculous. The conservative argument is that raising the social security caps and allowing the Bush tax cuts for the top 1% to expire will really piss off millionaires and billionaires.
But besides conservatives and Republicans, nobody in the real world cares if millionaires and billionaires are perturbed. We know they have their money to comfort them.
It’s sad when disengenuousness hits highs like this. Nobody making half a million dollars a year or more actually winds up paying the full marginal rate on their income. Why not? Well, let’s start with the substantial mortgage interest deduction for their home, their tax-sheltered 401(k) and IRAs, any business-related personal expenditures, and any other state and federal tax loopholes they choose to avail themselves of.
The top 400 taxpayers paid an average of 18 percent income tax during the Bush tax cut years. I think they can afford to pay a little more.
Instapundit posts a link to the editorial (as you do) and says he hadn’t thought much about it.
This is “promoting”?
Hmmm….interesting, but poor, choice of examples to represent the “Top 1%.” I figure the top 1% earn about $250,000 per year, not per weekend. A reasonably successful couple of married professionals can make this much money, and believe it or not there are plenty of them who live modestly and budget carefully to pay for things like education and the occasional vacation.
Sean, you need to get a copy of the liberal version of the Blogging Handbook. Page 435, section 15, subsection A says:
“Linking to any other blogger, news story or anything else without specifically and categorically denouncing it, will automatically be accepted as a wholehearted endorsement of said link.”
Scratch, don’t bother. Oliver is under the delusion that somebody making 100K a year is “rich” so trying to get him to understand how Obama’s plan is poor policy is pointless.
I don’t think you can say the top 1% live modestly. The top 1.5% in 2005 earned $250,000 per year. The top 1% is likely significantly higher, and in the past couple years, it has grown.
Yes, pity those scraping by on $100k.
“This is “promoting”?”
For Instapundit, yes. It’s his standard M.O.–link to something he likes and add a pithy “Heh,” or “Read the whole thing.”
What if he said, “I don’t necessarily agree with their point, but it’s a good read.”?
Oliver – You mean those making over $100,000 that might have had to rack up tens of thousands of dollars in student loans to put themselves through 8 to 10 years of school just to get to where they are?
Nah, screw them. They don’t deserve a break.
They’re getting a heck of a break: they’re making way more than the average person. Trust me, my best friend is in just this position.
Gravypan, actually, I’m one of those people. I have benefited from artificially low tax rates due to the Bush tax cuts. Furthermore, my peers in the 1990s apparently did fine under the old tax regime, particularly since both then and now we saved and were able to generate lower-taxed income via capital gains or place our money in tax-deferred or tax free accounts insulated from capital gains taxes.
Would I *like* paying more taxes? Probably not. However, I do realize that many aspects of my chosen lifestyle– downtown apartment, not worrying about gas prices, etc. — are bankrolled simply because taxes are artificially low. And even in the event that taxes might increase, it would only be on my MARGINAL income. Were I lucky enough to make a post-deduction income of 105,000/yr, the taxes would only be increased on that extra $5000. Do I deserve a break? Hell yeah, I do. I’m awesome and good looking and have a great job. I GOT a break for several years. However, since I live in a modern nation with modern infrastructure, rather than a third-world hellhole, I recognize as much as anyone that the government’s bills need to be paid to maintain the modern society that makes my lifestyle possible.
Fortunately, in my case, it is becoming clear that taxes are going to rise for those in the top 1%, which is more than double my income, so I’m not worried.
Yes, pity those scraping by on $100k.
That’s not what I said. This is not the first time you have done this. There’s a huge chasm between “scraping by” and “rich.” YOU SAID that somebody making $100K a year is “rich” and that’s a large problem with those of your ideological bend. You think that’s “rich” and therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to subject them to even more taxation than before.
You seem to forget that people who make $100K a year have bills and other costly obligations like other people do. School loans, car loans, mortgage payments, taxes (federal, state, local, property), health insurance, utilities, groceries, etc. It adds up. Is it easier for the family of four with a yearly income of $100K to live than another family of four with $50K per year? Sure. But then again, it’s also easier for the family with $50K per year than the family with $25K per year. Yet, I think even you would find that calling a family of four making $50K a year “rich” would be stupid. It is the same for $100K.
You know what’s rich? When you can live a life where you never need to use a credit card, where buying cars never involves a finance guy, where buying property doesn’t involve a loan process, where paying for health insurance is unnecessary and where you can point to something that costs a lot of money and say “I’ll take it” right there on the spot.
I’m sure Tiger and Paris will be fine.
You seem to forget that people who make $100K a year have bills and other costly obligations like other people do.
As did I when I made $50k/yr. I got by. As did people who made 100k/yr in 2000. They got by, too.
Interesting, though, that you chose 100k, when the actual tax proposals floated will affect those who make 200k or 250k. Why focus on the 100k/yr crowd?
Those who benefited from the Bush tax plan had something equivalent of the “7 fat years” from the Bible. The wise person knew that taxes were being kept artificially low for a temporary period and planned accordingly. Since many of those who make decent salaries are not stupid, I can only assume they’re engaging in a bit of dishonest whining about the possible burdens of a tax regime more in line with current costs. Either that, or they simply lacked the wisdom to save and husband their resources during their good fortune of the “7 fat years,” leaving them unable to cope with the 7 lean years. If you made 100k/yr from 2001-today and are too financially incapable of weathering Y2K levels of taxation, it means that you have poor financial discipline, which likely points to some extremely bad character issues that you’re harboring.
So someone isn’t rich just because they can’t afford everything they want?
What I don’t get is why folks like Jay will defend this sort of thing. It doesn’t affect you, and even if it did, I doubt the sort of people we’re talking about (<$250K/year) would help you out if you asked.
Jay: YOU SAID that somebody making $100K a year is “rich” … You think that’s “rich”
Well, I feel safe with the assumption that folks generally believe anyone making significantly more than them is rich. When I first started working years ago I thought folks who made over 100k (about 5x my salary at that time) were “rich”. Now, as my income has risen, I think folks making over 150k, certainly those making 200k are rich.
I would generally think folks believe those making 3x to 5x as much money as they are are rich.
And by that measure, since the vast majority of folks make less than around 60k, people who make 200,000 per year ARE rich to most people, whether they view themselves that way or not.
Interesting, though, that you chose 100k, when the actual tax proposals floated will affect those who make 200k or 250k. Why focus on the 100k/yr crowd?
Because that is a starting point for Democrats. Remember, Obama can only propose certain legislation. The actual legislation will come out of the Ways and Means Committee, and if Democrats are still in control that means the tax man himself, Charles Rangel will be crafting the actual legislation….or NOT doing so…like allowing the current tax rates to expire and return to 2000 levels. It’s a lot easier to do that when one can float the myth that somebody making $100K a year is rich.
What I don’t get is why folks like Jay will defend this sort of thing.
Because tax policy should consist more of, “You don’t need this much money, so we’re taking more if it.”
I often ask those how they would feel if the same rationale were used on them by their employer. “Hey Duros, I was just looking over some numbers and I realized that you don’t need to make as much as I am paying you, so I’m going to cut your salary.”
Because tax policy should consist more of, “You don’t need this much money, so we’re taking more if it.”
Well who on earth says that?
Here in the real world, Jay, tax policy consists of “The government is going to spend X dollars, where are we going to get it?”
The idea that government taxes away income just because “they” don’t want you to keep it is a Republican frame that’s false and intentionally inflammatory.
So, the article does spend a lot of time boo hooing about people who make a lot of money. But buried in there is what seems like the more relevant point – if you increase taxes by a large amount, you strongly incent people to take action to avoid those taxes. Given that (this is from http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html for 2005) the top 1% (makes > than 364,657) of taxpayers pay 40% of all taxes, and the top 5% (makes > than 145,283) pay 60% of all income taxes, it seems a bit naive to think that you can raise taxes by a large amount and expect that this relatively small group of taxpayers will just shrug and say, “oh well, better pay up.” (This isn’t to say that it is knowable what will happen, as Laffer curve arguments never get anywhere.)
The other question the article asked is whether it seemed fair for someone to pay 53-57% of their earnings. That is kind of rhetorical since, IMO, if you believe in progressive tax brackets, you aren’t particularly interested in fairness.
The idea that government taxes away income just because “they” don’t want you to keep it is a Republican frame that’s false and intentionally inflammatory.
Uh huh:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/14/us/politics/14talk.html
ouch!
Thank you jay and haplo for standing up for poor, downtrodden me against lucky duckies like yourself who won’t be affected by this tax increase. Rest assured, there will always be a place for you two on my staff, maybe parking my cars (as long as you wear gloves of course) or cleaning my toilets (I have 20 of them in my estate).
After all, without poor folks like you standing up for powerless people like me, the unwashed masses may be able to get healthcare, and after all, what good is MORE poor people like you, right?
The antecedent of “it” isn’t clear, but I think he’s saying the top 1 percent don’t need the tax cut, not that he doesn’t want them to keep their money.
It’s also interesting that you skipped right over the lead paragraph of the story:
Your own cite seems to support my contention that your framing is false.
13. A common contribution is essential for the maintenance of the public forces and for the cost of administration. This should be equitably distributed among all the citizens in proportion to their means.
14. All the citizens have a right to decide, either personally or by their representatives, as to the necessity of the public contribution; to grant this freely; to know to what uses it is put; and to fix the proportion, the mode of assessment and of collection and the duration of the taxes.
Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen
Oliver, I’m guessing you live in an apartment, and are single and childless. You know what houses cost in your area (if you don’t, or for others who don’t, think $400k minimum for a very modest detached home.) Someone living in one of these homes who is married and has a couple kids and maybe some college loans, and who is making $100k per year, is living a lifestyle that is not even in the same universe as the mega-rich sports stars you cited in support of your point. Why would you cite a man who made over $120,000,000 last year, then transfer that logic to people making less than one thousandth of that amount?
Jay, so you just lied and made stuff up, using 100k as a starting point, even though Obama proposed something else? You’ve got problems, man. In any case, I don’t think anyone making 250k/yr at the 2000-era tax rates was in the poor house. I believe they were doing quite well and, no doubt, they were well aware that the tax cuts were temporary and likely planned accordingly, as I have. That the tax on their income *above* 250k might be slightly higher doesn’t bother me a bit.
Once again, if people didn’t realize that tax rates were being held artificially low from 2001-2008, in part to prevent people like you from getting upset while paying a war fought primarily for the amusement of you and your ideological bottom feeders, then you were being very naive if not economically ignorant.
Taxes exist so the government can pay for stuff. Right now the government is paying for stuff it can’t afford, because tax cuts were passed. Hopefully you considered those tax cuts to be helpful and useful during the time they were used, and now they revert to normal levels. Why you have a problem with this, Jay, is something that is completely unclear. You either don’t understand how taxation works or you have severe and deep-seated problems with money management that no tax cut is ever going to help, because it is a flection of your poor moral fitness.
This is a perfect example of my theory that liberals think in pragmatism and conservatives think in principles. I would venture that the liberal argument here is that ‘a huge, growing chasm (relative to other healthy economies) between the richest and poorest makes for a weak and unstable society, and at the extreme causes depressions when the poorest are too poor to consume,’ while the conservatives here seem to be arguing that ‘progressive taxation is unfair and wrong.’
I’m not the one citing Tiger Woods as a figure of sympathy, the writer in question was. My belief is that we should raise the caps on SS and let the Bush cuts expire for the top 1% and not the middle class. That will only affect only the very rich, and not even the rich making $100k (and yes, $100k/year is rich – even in Maryland).
Tyro: it is becoming clear that taxes are going to rise for those in the top 1%, which is more than double my income, so I’m not worried
Duros:What I don’t get is why folks like Jay will defend this sort of thing. It doesn’t affect you…
Interesting pattern.
but I think he’s saying the top 1 percent don’t need the tax cut, not that he doesn’t want them to keep their money.
Oh cmon! Edward Scissorhands couldn’t split hairs like that! It’s the same thing and you know it.
Your own cite seems to support my contention that your framing is false.
Nonsense. His own words are right there in black and white. You’re a smart person and you know full well that even that repeal wouldn’t be enough to pay for his health care plan. His comments were a direct appeal to emotion and not based on sound policy. He’s not the first Democrat to use the “need it” or “deserve it” when it comes to taxation issues and he won’t be the last.
Jay, so you just lied and made stuff up, using 100k as a starting point, even though Obama proposed something else?
Actually, my comments about 100K were directed at Oliver who has said (and still believes) that people making $100K a year are rich. It’s pretty easy to see that if you learn to scroll and read for content.
You’ve got problems, man. </i
I’m not the one with a reading comprehension issue.
Once again, if people didn’t realize that tax rates were being held artificially low from 2001-2008, in part to prevent people like you from getting upset while paying a war fought primarily for the amusement of you and your ideological bottom feeders,
And that’s all I needed to read to realize you’re not worth responding to. Cheers.
Two people making a combined 100k per year aren’t “rich”, no, but then again, the bottom end of the top 1.5% of households in the US starts at 250K. Based on what I’ve seen of people at that level, I’d say they’re pretty close to being considered “rich”. The richest one percent are making over 350K per year, bare minimum. Even with a mortgage and student loan payments, they can take the hit, particularly since the SS “donut hole” will exempt 150k of their income from taxation, and since they can deduct their mortgage interest and any pension plan investments from taxes paid.
Bottom line: nobody will actually pay the top marginal rate, just as nobody paid the top marginal rates when they were above 50%. But they will pay more taxes, that much is true.
Actually Scratch, Parthenon’s comment seems to have captured the dynamic pretty well. Some people feel that, on principle, taxes shouldn’t be raised, while we look at the practicalities of the matter.
Plus, as I said, surely those in the top 1% who saw their taxes cut in 2001 in the face of a war and long-term deficits must have understood that they were benefiting from a Biblical “7 fat years” that they prepared for, knowing that the tax cuts were, themselves, temporary. So I’m not sure what the big deal is. You and Jay disagree, but for reasons that are unclear.
Just to give people some perspective, it is said that your mortgage should be, at most 3x to 3.5x your income. Take that into account when trying to claim whether one income level or another supports a lifestyle of being “rich.”
And by the way, isn’t this typically a conservative concern?
US National Debt – 9,493,685,181,666.44 and counting.
“Oh cmon! Edward Scissorhands couldn’t split hairs like that! It’s the same thing and you know it.”
Mr. Caruso scolding others for “splitting hairs? That’s rich.
It’s not the same in the least, Jay. The Republican framing is all about motive–”Liberals want to confiscate wealth! They’re envious of success!”
Even the quote you offer, “he supported ‘rolling back the Bush tax cuts on the top 1 percent of people who don’t need it,’” doesn’t indicate punitive, confiscatory taxation. The plain meaning is right at the top of the story, but you chose to ignore it to try to make your point.
“He’s not the first Democrat to use the “need it” or “deserve it” when it comes to taxation issues and he won’t be the last.”
How quickly we move from distorting something he did say to faulting him for something he didn’t say.
You make a strong case there, Jay.
Mike…
particularly since the SS “donut hole” will exempt 150k of their income from taxation
I’m not sure if you really meant that, but just to be clear, 150k would be exempt from SOCIAL SECURITY TAXES. They would still pay income tax on the full amount, and income tax is what we’re talking about here.
QUESTION FOR EVERYBODY: I came up with a number online, from 2003, saying that the top 1% earned at least $230k. So I swagged it and guessed that it must be $250k today. Anyone have a better source?
>This is a perfect example of my theory that liberals think in pragmatism and conservatives think in principles.
Heh, thats a hoot. Liberals just deal with reality and conservatives only think in terms of airy fairy principles, eh? I might lend this theory some credence if I didn’t see a lot of liberals very consistently ignoring very pragmatic considerations, such as incentives. (Increase welfare payouts, more people will try to get them. Decrease the cost of health care to the end user, people will consume more of it. Increase taxes, people will act to avoid those taxes.) To be fair, conservatives have no monopoly on pragmatic thinking either, but to ascribe pragmatism as a trait primarily found in liberals is laughable from my standpoint.
Tyro, I almost agree with Parthenon, except that I DO NOT believe, nor do I think that most conservatives believe, that progressive taxation is wrong. Rather, I believe that there is some common sense limit to what the top rate should be. I suspect that liberals tend to have an idea that the “excessive” incomes of “rich” people are wells of cash they can tap when they need some more money in the treasury, and I think this is wrong.
My feeling is that somewhere around 25 or 30% should be the max federal income tax rate, and that any time total taxes (federal, SS, state, etc) approach 50%, that’s wrong and should be remedied.
Shorter The Top 1%:
It isn’t right that some people, for whatever reason, are doing better than me. They should pay. I know its envy, but it makes me feel better.
Hey at least its honest.
Jay: Exhibit A–see Haplo9, immediately above.
Liberals just deal with reality and conservatives only think in terms of airy fairy principles, eh?
Pretty much.
Heh, thats a hoot. Liberals just deal with reality and conservatives only think in terms of airy fairy principles, eh?
I didn’t mean to suggest that there was some sort of bright line between the two, only that it’s a tendency I’ve observed – certainly there’s some overlap. Conservative media hosts tend to harp about ‘core principles,’ and the 20th century president most beloved by the right, Ronald Reagan (some would say the conservative FDR), seems to me to have operated from this perspective. Compare this to FDR – probably the 20th century president most beloved by democrats – who might have nationalized major league baseball if he’d thought it would have helped. Liberals seem to admire pragmatic flexibility, while conservatives seem to admire ’stick to your guns’ steadfastness. But I could be wrong.
As an aside, ‘airy fairy principles’ is a great line.
I might lend this theory some credence if I didn’t see a lot of liberals very consistently ignoring very pragmatic considerations, such as incentives.
Sure, every party and ideology occasionally covers a gap in its logic with emotion or passion (though I’ll make no attempt to quantify who does it more, since we’ll all think the other side does). In other news, the sky is still blue.
Interesting pattern.
Whaddya mean? It’s like the Estate or “Death” tax. If you’re estate is values at less than $3 million it doesn’t effect you at all, and yet conservatives are ready to go to war for it’s repeal.
Same thing applies here. I doubt that anyone commenting here falls into the top 1%, $200K ” ” up, and we’re talking about a middle-class tax cut which will effect you more directly.
So why do you care about protecting the rich at your own expense?
*valued*
Plus signs don’t work. Good to know.
I suspect that liberals tend to have an idea that the “excessive” incomes of “rich” people are wells of cash they can tap when they need some more money in the treasury, and I think this is wrong.
Warren Buffet says he pays less tax than his secretary and doesn’t think it’s right. What’s your excuse?
Duros…
Whaddya mean? It’s like the Estate or “Death” tax. If you’re estate is values at less than $3 million it doesn’t effect you at all, and yet conservatives are ready to go to war for it’s repeal.
Actually, this seems like a contrary example. Many conservatives are against this type of tax IN SPITE OF the fact that it will not affect them directly.
In my post, I pointed out that both you and Tyro seem to think that it shouldn’t matter to anyone who won’t be directly affected by it. That’s how wealth redistribution is sold, but I think it’s wrong whether it affects me directly or not.
As I said before, I think that 25-30% is a good common sense cap for income tax.
Scratch, I made the very true point that, financially speaking, I was not going to be affected, not that I didn’t think it was worth being concerned about as a policy issue. As a policy issue, I’m very concerned about it: I think it should pass.
Many conservatives are against this type of tax IN SPITE OF the fact that it will not affect them directly.
Yeah. I got that. I don’t get that. Why do you fight other people’s battles for them? General principles? Please. You’re voting against your own best interest. What is the net-gain there?
As I said before, I think that 25-30% is a good common sense cap for income tax.
Ok, fine. Shouldn’t it be the same for everybody? With no loopholes, shelters or tax dodges?
Decrease the cost of health care to the end user, people will consume more of it.
Goddamn I hate this meme!
My son’s asthma medicine, my daughter’s cleft palate, my other daughter’s atrial septal defect are not medical luxuries that I can afford to ignore if the cost of my health insurance increases or if, God forbid, we lose our health insurance all together.
I don’t consume health care like I consume pizza, goddammit. These are life and death decisions that people make every day.
/end rant
Income data for 2006:
19% of households earn 100K or more
1.9% make 250K or more
“As I said before, I think that 25-30% is a good common sense cap for income tax.”
Why? It won’t raise enough to fund the government and all the services that voters have decided are necessary. Unless you want to cut the military budget $200-400 billion with the rest of the services to be cut? It will also entail bringing our boys (and girls) back home from the Middle East.
It will also mean lots of Grandmas and Grandpas won’t get their medication or be able to go to the doctor’s office, but since most cons couldn’t give a rat’s ass about them, I use the military example.
Bottom line, your fellow AMERICANS want certain services. They cost a certain amount, which has to be recouped through taxation. Please let me know what services you want to eliminate to balance the budget, pay down the debt and STILL keep income taxation at the level you desire. Be specific. Keep in mind that the annual deficit runs about $400-600 billion including the two “wars”.
“Actually, my comments about 100K were directed at Oliver who has said (and still believes) that people making $100K a year are rich. It’s pretty easy to see that if you learn to scroll and read for content.”
Classic. Jay you wrote:
Oliver is under the delusion that somebody making 100K a year is “rich” so trying to get him to understand how Obama’s plan is poor policy is pointless.
Whether or not anyone can change Oliver’s opinion about what “rich” means, Oliver’s opinion has nothing to do with Obama’s actual plan, which, as pointed out, won’t affect those making 100k a year, but you linked to two anyway.
Even when you acknowledge, indirectly, what’s actually in Obama’s plan you go on to suggest that Obama’s focus on people earning 250k/year and up didn’t mean anything because Dems in the House would lower the rate to 100k anyway. Based on what? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
In your case, reading for content isn’t half as important a skill as being able to wade through the bullshit.
Quaker:
Even the quote you offer, “he supported ‘rolling back the Bush tax cuts on the top 1 percent of people who don’t need it,’” doesn’t indicate punitive, confiscatory taxation.
Quaker, I have to agree with Jay here. You really are splitting hairs. How does Obama arrive at the conclusion that the top 1 percent “don’t need it”? Does he have some kind of numbers or facts to back that up? Did he go ask them? Of course not, he just decided that they don’t need it, primarily because saying so plays well in politics. When someone else decides what you do or don’t need and takes it based on that decision, I would call that punitive, or at least arbitrary. Now, most of us would agree that those people probably aren’t going to be hurting, but its kind of ridiculous to see people like you saying, “hey! what could be objectionable about that?” Do you really see no problem with the idea of a politician deciding what other people do or do not need?
Do you really see no problem with the idea of a politician deciding what other people do or do not need?
By definition this is what a politician does.
Quaker, I have to agree with Jay here. You really are splitting hairs.
The two of you agree? Oh well, I certainly must be wrong then. A thousand apologies. Jay would certainly know from splitting hairs.
How does Obama arrive at the conclusion that the top 1 percent “don’t need it”? Does he have some kind of numbers or facts to back that up?
Yes. He can “do a Google” to find that the top 1 percent of wage earners begins at about $300K a year and averages much more. These people need a tax cut the way Britney Speers needs bad advice.
Now, most of us would agree that those people probably aren’t going to be hurting, but its kind of ridiculous to see people like you saying, “hey! what could be objectionable about that?”
It’s kind of ridiculous to see people like you inventing things that haven’t been said.
Do you really see no problem with the idea of a politician deciding what other people do or do not need?
I’ll tell you what we all need–and I’m not even a politician. We need a federal budget that doesn’t run deficits in the hundreds of billions of dollars year after year. We need a Dollar that’s not sinking against every other major world currency. Most of all, we flushing money down the drain on adventures in empire-building. Every politician who tells you we need to keep taxes low for the top 1 percent is also telling you something else, but it’s something they won’t tell you right out loud–we’re going to pay for those deficits by borrowing money from our grandchildren.
Duros,
>You’re voting against your own best interest. What is the net-gain there?
The ’self interest trumps all’ argument makes no sense. If I vote against a law that takes 50% of Duros income and gives it to me, I have voted against my self interest. But I think most people here would agree that there is something wrong with someone who would vote for such a law. I think thats where most conservatives take issue with progressive (or steeply progressive) taxation. Socking the other guy is nice if it doesn’t affect you, but it violates a basic sense of fairness. Most liberal rhetoric around progressive taxation seems made to obscure this basic point – you are asking (well, telling) some other guy to sacrifice more than you, and the only reason is that you believe that he is more likely to be able to afford it than you. In other words, we-think-we-need-this-and-have-the-votes-to-take-it. Which, given the system we have, is just how it works. But don’t try to put a dress and lipstick on it, because it has nothing to do with fairness or justice or any of that.
>It’s kind of ridiculous to see people like you inventing things that haven’t been said.
Oh I see, so you weren’t trying to say that what Obama said wasn’t so bad. You were just clarifying Jay’s point for him as to how bad Obama’s comment was. Right.
>We need a federal budget that doesn’t run deficits in the hundreds of billions of dollars year after year.
Sounds good. I’ll agree that we should cut some fat out of the military and look at how we can bring troops home from all of the far flung places they are deployed to. In turn, you’ll agree that we need to look into means testing entitlement programs, and look into how to deal with the long term liabilities of said entitlement programs, such as by privitization or benefits reductions. Deal?
>Every politician who tells you we need to keep taxes low for the top 1 percent is also telling you something else, but it’s something they won’t tell you right out loud–we’re going to pay for those deficits by borrowing money from our grandchildren.
Seems like doublespeak to say that it is keeping taxes low for the top 1 percent when they have the highest rates already, but ok. I’m glad that you have concern for our grandchildren though. I can thus assume that you are most worried about Soc. Sec. and Medicare liabilities that our grandchildren will have to pay, which some estimates put at 50 trillion.. right?
Enlightened Liberal…
I’ll decline to work out a federal budget this evening, as I have to do the dishes and watch some tv. Your response is interesting, though. You seem to think that taking ever more money from other people is not only permissible, but inevitable. Do you think there is a reasonable upper limit to taxation, and if so, what do you think that limit is?
Jay: I often ask those how they would feel if the same rationale were used on them by their employer. “Hey Duros, I was just looking over some numbers and I realized that you don’t need to make as much as I am paying you, so I’m going to cut your salary.”
So, would what they don’t end up paying me be used to provide better health care benefits or in any way benefit me?
See, that’s where your analogy falls down.
So you have no answers to the budgetary problems. As expected. As far as your question, the reasonable limit on taxation is where the needs and desires for government actions for the benefit of the general public intersect with the revenue that is needed to fund those items.
In Sweden, that is often over 50%, because Swedes ask for a high level of social welfare. In many developing countries, the tax rate is very low as the populace can’t afford the services they want. Here it is somewhere in the middle.
So to put an arbitrary figure on the amount of taxation isn’t really any more than dogma, and dogma doesn’t pay for the commons. It’s like me saying that I shouldn’t have to spend more than 20% of my income on housing. Nice thought, but in order to make it reality I have to make more or get less house.
“You seem to think that taking ever more money from other people is not only permissible, but inevitable. ”
People want more governmental services. People have to pay for them. Is that really so hard to understand?
It’s not the same in the least, Jay. The Republican framing is all about motive–”Liberals want to confiscate wealth! They’re envious of success!”
Now you’re moving the goalposts. My specific comment was about “need.” I could have also cited “deserve” because Democrats have said that as well. You’re deciding now to take it to a more extreme level, but the bottom line is, Obama himself is on record as saying that those people “don’t need” those tax cuts. It has nothing to do with fact that he wanted to use the revenues for health care. He was still using the logical fallacy of appealing to emotions to make his case.
How quickly we move from distorting something he did say
Blah blah blah. Funny how I can distort something that was a direct quote. Give it up Quaker. You said nobody says those things and I provided evidence that they do. DEAL WITH IT.
Please let me know what services you want to eliminate to balance the budget, pay down the debt and STILL keep income taxation at the level you desire. Be specific. Keep in mind that the annual deficit runs about $400-600 billion including the two “wars”.
Be specific? Obama is the one talking about cutting back the tax cuts for the top 1%, which would amount to about $131 billion a year. He says he wants to use that to pay for his health care plan. Let’s see the specifics on how he plans to do it with that amount? Obama’s tax plan doesn’t do nearly enough to cover all the new spending he wants to implement.
Bottom line, your fellow AMERICANS want certain services. They cost a certain amount, which has to be recouped through taxation.
Yes and unfortunately, more and more people are being disconnected from the full cost of government. It’s very easy to advocate higher and higher income taxes when you’re not paying any. It is a fact that in 2006 nearly 44 million people had no federal tax liability after credits and deductions. So of course Americans want certain services. When you bear little of the cost, why wouldn’t you want it?
People want more governmental services. People have to pay for them. Is that really so hard to understand?
Right, but like I just said, many people don’t have to pay for those services. Why not advocate raising taxes across the board?
E.L…
People want more governmental services. People have to pay for them. Is that really so hard to understand?
People want more government services because they are told that other people will pay for them. I’m sure you realize that your argument flows from desire rather than need.
You know what gets really tedious in these long exchanges, Jay? Having to remind you of the words you typed with your own stumpy fingers.
Now let’s get back to the point. Your assertion here is that tax policy consists of deciding how much money a taxpayer needs and then confiscating the remainder. This is, in fact a mild paraphrase of the more incindiary framing common amongst devotees of Hayek, Bork, Grover Norquist and the rest of the drown-it-in-the-bathtub gang. Haplo9 rendered it more honestly.
It’s not hair splitting at all to differentiate between this entirely imaginary tax boogeyman and the functioning of government in executing public policy. Constituents demand services. Stewards of the public purse find ways to pay for them.
There’s no envy. There’s no deciding of limits on how much money anyone should have. You and Haplo are making that stuff up.
People want more government services because they are told that other people will pay for them. I’m sure you realize that your argument flows from desire rather than need.
Scratch, just because you’re a greedy asshole doesn’t mean that everyone else is.
Haplo9, I haven’t forgotten you. I see you there asking to be schooled again.
Oh I see, so you weren’t trying to say that what Obama said wasn’t so bad. You were just clarifying Jay’s point for him as to how bad Obama’s comment was. Right.
That’s so embarrassingly wrong I’m not even going to help you correct it. You may return upthread, improve your comprehension, and then try again.
I’ll agree that we should cut some fat out of the military and look at how we can bring troops home from all of the far flung places they are deployed to. In turn, you’ll agree that we need to look into means testing entitlement programs, and look into how to deal with the long term liabilities of said entitlement programs, such as by privitization or benefits reductions. Deal?
Of course. But not until the skies are dark with swarms of pork on the wing. We can bring about fiscal responsibility without stealing it from the elderly and infirm. Once again, you seem to believe the magic formula for the highest marginal tax rate is X-1 for all values of X. In other words: lower, always lower, no matter what the cost.
Codswallop, sir! Those who gather the most bountiful harvest from the fields of capitalism can well afford to sacrifice a few extra grains for the health of our common furrows.
Seems like doublespeak to say that it is keeping taxes low for the top 1 percent when they have the highest rates already,
Have you forgotten so quickly? We’re discussing the rollback of the Bush tax cuts for the top 1 percent of income earners. I want the rollback. You do not. Is any of this sounding familiar?
Why is wealth redistribution a good thing? Why do some people think that they are entitled to another’s property?
“Decrease the cost of health care to the end user, people will consume more of it.”
Homer: Wow! A Valu-Qual coupon book!
[...]
Marge: Ooh, free foot pain analysis!
Homer: Oh, Marge, that’s a trick to get you in there so they can cure your foot pain.
E.L…
I think your explanation is a good example of how reasonable people can disagree. It reminds me of Nancy Pelosi talking about the budgeting process several years ago. She complained, “The Republicans have it backwards. They want to decide what the tax rates should be, then decide how to spend it. But we need to do what real American families do with their budget. A family will decide what they need, then add up how much money it will take.”
What? That is completely backwards. A real family knows what their income is, and they must decide how to spend that fixed amount. Yes, there is some control over income but it usually comes down to getting as much as you can, and living with it. It’s very rare for a family to decide they need more money and coming up with a reliable way to get it.
So you seem to think that society as a whole has certain needs or desires, and the populace is obligated to pay for all of it. I, on the other hand, think that people are entitled to keep most of the money they earn, and government should spend within that amount rather than just taking more money every time they dream up something else to spend taxes on. We have different ideas about the obligations of wage earners, and that is fine.
That’s a nice thought scratch, but you may want to take it up with your Republican representatives because the runaway deficits are the result of a Republican regime.
Again, you are using dogma in place of reality. If I want a certain lifestyle and am unwilling to settle, I have to figure out how to pay for it. Americans want certain programs and are unwilling to settle, as your side found out when it tried to dismantle Social Security. Therefore, taxes must be raised.
“I, on the other hand, think that people are entitled to keep most of the money they earn, and government should spend within that amount rather than just taking more money every time they dream up something else to spend taxes on.”
Nice job beating that strawman. When you’re done, please identify the programs that Americans will give up to preserve the tax cuts for the wealthy.
If I want a certain lifestyle and am unwilling to settle, I have to figure out how to pay for it.
I agree a hundred percent. The “unwilling to settle” is the sticking point.
As I said, I won’t be writing a budget in this forum, any more than you will be identifying for me all your desired marginal tax rates, the resulting revenue, and a demonstration of how all needs are met with this revenue. There’s a reason the budget takes hundreds of people and several years to write.
You haven’t even identified a program that you would cut. In other words, you go waving your bible but you are unwilling to venture any guess of how we will arrive at that ideal. That’s childish. Just like picking an arbitrary figure of taxation level like 50% like it has any meaning. Reality is no one pays taxes at that level right now and likely no one will after the Bush tax cuts for the rich are rolled back.
Why is wealth redistribution a good thing? Why do some people think that they are entitled to another’s property?
If I may –
Effects of Inequality
Here’s one bit from the above link — “The most consistent finding in cross-national research on homicides has been that of a positive association between income inequality and homicides. (Neapolitan 1999 pp 260)”
And another — “Higher levels of economic inequality tend to intensify social hierarchies and generally degrade the quality of social relations – leading to greater levels of stress and stress-related diseases. Richard Wilkinson found this to be true not only for the poorest members of society, but also for the wealthiest. Economic inequality is bad for everyone’s health.”
And the most important in my opinion, particularly for anyone who wants to grumble about Marxism – “They conclude that too much equality (below a Gini coefficient of .25) negatively impacts growth due to “incentive traps, free-riding, labour shirking, [and] high supervision costs”. They also claim that high levels of inequality (above a Gini coefficient of .40) negatively impacts growth, due to “incentive traps, erosion of social cohesion, social conflicts, [and] uncertain property rights”. They advocate for policies which put equality at the low end of this “efficient” range.”
The article also prints the arguments for economic inequality not being a major issue.
One should note that those who claim that they’re against the growth of government, if they were logical, would support the use of taxation to pay for it. Raising taxes is difficult and unpopular. If you can’t raise taxes to pay for a program, then the public will re-evaluate how much it really WANTS that program.
However, if you think you can just keep charging something on your credit card with no consequence, you’ll spend and spend and spend endlessly. And then complain when the bills have to be paid.
Mostly, people complaining about the growth of government while railing against taxes are self-delusional. It’s not that they’re lying, it’s that, ultimately, they DON’T CARE how big government is, they just want lower taxes. Which is fine. It is a juvenile, simple-minded attitude, but it is fine. It is simply an attitude I do not take seriously from someone who claims to be interested in the politics of a modern nation like the USA. It’s just the rantings of a not-very-deepo thinker who’s still cribbing notes from 80s-era talking points.
Taxes were held artificially low for a temporary period of time. If you think that it would be an unmitigated disaster to let this temporary period end and revert back to the previous state, then it is because you, like many Republicans, live a life of angry, irrational fear. Or you are financially insolvent and have lived you life wasting your money, even when you saved a very small amount of on taxes. In neither case are you arguments to be taken seriously or in any way entertained by people who actually think.
Parthenon,
An interesting Wikipedia treatment on the concept of economic disparity. It doesn’t seem to really touch on the morality of wealth redistribution. The example of De Toque Ville for example while lauding what is different about America as opposed to Europe dwells much more about opportunity, upward mobility, and initiative then it wealth redistribution.
As mentioned in the article the concept of equality before the law is central to the discussion. It is inherently immoral for a politician to promise to take away the property of a minority for the votes of a larger voting block. While the concept of something for nothing can be presented in an appealing manner, the promotion of an ever larger welfare state does not bode well for the Republic. What you tax more of you get less of, a society that dissuades merit and initive will get less of it, sort of like Europe.
Unlike amused observer, I tend not to focus on the “immorality” of “wealth redistribution” and look at the morality of letting Grandmothers go without health care so that millionaires can keep 5% more of their income. I tend to focus on the morality of protecting the Social Security safety net rather than giving millionaires a tax cut they didn’t ask for.
And as always, amused fails to look at the most insidious form of wealth redistribution- the exploiting of the poor and working class by wealth through collusion, lobbying, union busting, and “free trade” agreements that send decent jobs overseas so that a few extra cents per share show up on the bottom line. Yet that’s not usually the form of “wealth redistribution” that Cato and their fellow travelers usually opine.
An interesting Wikipedia treatment on the concept of economic disparity. It doesn’t seem to really touch on the morality of wealth redistribution. The example of De Toque Ville for example while lauding what is different about America as opposed to Europe dwells much more about opportunity, upward mobility, and initiative then it wealth redistribution.
That’s true, my source was Wikipedia, which I avoid when writing a paper but I rather thought was okay for a blog, particularly because the Wikipedia article quoted studies from economists. I suppose I might have clicked through to the actual studies, but who has time for all that? I’m not exactly a blogging connessieur, but Wikipedia is naturally sort of a ‘via,’ no?
You’re correct in pointing out that it avoided a discussion of morality. If memory serves, that wasn’t what your earlier question specified – I believe you were asking why some degree of wealth redistribution was ‘a good thing.’ I interpreted that as a request for information, a perspective other than that with which you were already familiar.
Morality is, by nature, terribly fuzzy and subjective. Although there are clearly some absolutes, your moral compass might lead you to slightly different conclusions than mine, and wildly different conclusions than a woman from rural Pakistan. Because it’s so subjective I’m reluctant to get into a discussion of it myself, aside from pointing out that I believe steep income redistribution to be an immoral act, and that people who are smarter, work harder, and yes, occasionally are luckier, should be rewarded for that. In a perfect world I’d prefer a laissez-faire system where what’s yourn is yourn and what’s ourn is ourn. Alas, our world is imperfect, and markets and economies must be managed somewhat so that the income gap doesn’t go from Grand Canyon to Valles Marineris.
I too am a fan of de Tocqueville, and while I believe some of what he wrote applies today, I’m not certain the parts about opportunity and upward mobility are as relevant. From 2003-06 there were eight economies freer than the United States. Each offers, just as an example of institutionalized services beyond those the US, some sort of universal health care to its citizens. Do you have some evidence that Americans have more opportunity and upward mobility than other developed parts of the world?
What you tax more of you get less of, a society that dissuades merit and initive will get less of it, sort of like Europe.
My first impulse is that this is a common-sense sort of conservative notion that isn’t at all true. I’m afraid I’ve got to ask for some evidence again. Europe-hating shall not stand without backup.
Why is wealth redistribution a good thing? Why do some people think that they are entitled to another’s property?
Thank you, AO. I had neglected this high-falutin’ variant of Haplo9’s bogus framing. In spite of its pretense at addressing morality, this is also an entirely false frame.
The purpose of taxation is not redistribution of wealth. Find me even one lawmaker who proposes taxation for this purpose. Wake me when you’re ready.
Why do some people think that they are entitled to another’s property? Again false. Show me an example.
Taxation is a fact of life in every single country on earth (with the possible exception of entirely dysfunctional places like Somalia). Governance is accomplished only with the expenditure of funds, and those funds have to come from somewhere.
I’m woefully uninterested in those who seem to think they’re being insightful by disagreeing with the very concept of progressive taxation. That’s wonderful you think that, but it makes about as much sense as arguing that the USA should become a monarchy. Progressive taxation is a means by which modern, wealthy countries pay for their public expenses.
If you think it’s unfair and find it upsetting, keep in mind that life is unfair, and while you’re complaining that progressive marginal income tax rates on income above $250k might return to Y2K, keep in mind that there’s someone growing up in Canton, OH who lives in poverty and has few opportunities to escape in life. The response to dealing with that person’s predicament is to remind him that life is unfair and that the USA is still the best country on earth. Those upset about the tragedy of progressive taxation would be well-reminded to internalize the same message.
Well put, Tyro.
[TFJ--terrorist fist jab!--to Tyro]
I’m woefully uninterested in those who seem to think they’re being insightful by disagreeing with the very concept of progressive taxation.
Who said they were against progressive taxation?
E.L…
Maybe next time someone says they want to pull out of Iraq I should ask them which units and in what order, totally discounting their opinion if they don’t and endlessly debating their choices if they do. Your premise seems to be that it’s impossible to spend less, which is laughable.
Your premise seems to be that it’s impossible to spend less, which is laughable.
No, the premise is this: Those who insist that the path to a balanced budget is paved with spending cuts aren’t being realistic. Just “cutting the fat,” no matter how deep the cuts, won’t come close to closing the gap.
I would love to see an ad with Warren Buffet and Bill Gates supporting Obama’s tax plan to “tax the rich”, maybe talking about supporting education, healthcare, infrastructure with the money.
When there are people in Canton, OH or Baltimore who are mired in abject poverty and despair, it’s hard to sympathize with someone like “Diddy” Combs agonizing about whether he can afford a new 70-foot yacht or should he just settle for the 65-footer.
Parthenon,
Nothing wrong with a wikipedia link. I mentioned the fact only to show that I had taken the trouble to follow your link, read it, and ponder the merits of your post. Regarding Europe, do you really suggest I should go to the trouble of providing cites for Europe’s industrial growth, output, employment rates, social welfare benefits and taxation on a per capita basis? You know as well as I do the general picture, higher unemployment, lower productivity, lower output, higher taxation, more social services and less upward mobility.
Quaker,
The earlier post regarding liberal pragmatism vs. conservative principles is enlightening. I agree wholeheartedly with that position, liberals are less principled.
“The purpose of taxation is not redistribution of wealth. Find me even one lawmaker who proposes taxation for this purpose. Wake me when you’re ready.
Why do some people think that they are entitled to another’s property? Again false. Show me an example.”
If you need concrete examples of the redistribution of wealth via public policy and the transfer of one person’s property taken by taxation to another through social services then your basic grasp of mathematics is flawed. As for an example of a lawmaker, are you kidding? How about Obama? Not that he should be singled out for criticism, buying votes with somebody else’s money is standard political procedure.
If you need concrete examples of the redistribution of wealth via public policy and the transfer of one person’s property taken by taxation to another through social services then your basic grasp of mathematics is flawed.
No problem with my math. No problem with my understanding of taxation. My only problem is that I won’t accept your framing.
By your standard, any taxation is “redistribution of wealth,” if the tax money is used for the benefit of anyone other than the person who paid the tax. A staff sargeant’s salary? Redistribution. A medical bill for a Medicare patient? Redistribution.
If you reduce your equation to who receives benefits with a value in excess of taxes paid, you’re taking an unnecessarily narrow view. Example: My tax dollars pay for a measles vaccination for the children of illegal immigrants. Do I get any benefit? Or is that just “redistribution”?
Do I get any benefit?
Some would argue that you do, by getting to live in a healthier society – sort of the way well-funded public universities benefit society at large by raising the communal floor of education. Just tossin’ a thought out there.
Point being that most so-called ‘redistribution’ in liberalised countries brings tangential benefits for everybody, although that may be too esoteric a point for this discussion. I’m going back to Wittgenstein and Russell on the other thread…
Today’s American conservatives really should try Brazil. They’d like it.
“although that may be too esoteric a point for this discussion.”
Not esoteric. Precisely the point.
most so-called ‘redistribution’ in liberalised countries brings tangential benefits for everybody,
But isn’t that the stick in the craw of conservatism and/ or libertarianism in general? “Why should I have to pay for everybody else?” they whine. “I got mine, screw you.” Forgetting entirely that society as a whole is a collective proposition.
And thus I just can’t understand why Republicans, conservatives and libertarians alike will defend to the point of exhaustion the kind of excess of today’s multi-millionaires.
If you don’t make x amount of money, you don’t have to pay taxes, because you’re already dirt fucking poor.
I get that part.
If you make in excess of y amount of money, you don’t have to pay taxes, because you’re so stinking filthy rich that….
I don’t get that part.
somebody tell me why Donald Trump’s wealth shouldn’t be redistributed. Nobody needs a gold plated toilet.
“Framing” is not a mathematical concept. Taxation is a percentage game; it’s basic arithmetic. Progressive taxation is at its heart unfair and unequal application of the law. If one guy makes a hundred grand a year and one guy makes 20 grand a year and both pay 20% in taxes that is fair and equal treatment. If the government chooses programs based on the money they can extract from the taxpayers in a fair and equal way that is morally honest.
Liberals want the government to help people out; I get it. Liberals want rich guys to pay more so normal people can pay less; I get it. Liberals favor spending lots of other people’s money to help people; I get it. Most of you guys want the government to give you more than you give the government; I get it. I don’t particularly care for real rich guys but I think everyone should be treated equally. I just don’t see where anyone is entitled to somebody else’s property. What did you do to justify a piece of Donald Trump’s action? What I don’t get is why you people think you are entitled a free lunch on somebody else’s dime.
Progressive taxation is at its heart unfair and unequal application of the law.
Right there is all that needs to be said. You have finally stated “wealth redistribution” accurately.
Like I said, I get it. It’s not a mystery that liberals favor wealth redistribution. What I don’t understand is why you are proud to support something unfair. Why are you entitled to something that doesn’t belong to you. Why can’t I come over and get some of your stuff? Would it be ok? What if I could get a majority of the people who want some of your stuff to say it is alright to take it?
You’re still insisting on your distorted frame? (Yes, there’s that word again!)
I don’t call it “wealth redistribution.” Our government–the “of The People, by The People, for The People” one–undertakes activities which further the aims of our society, that “promote the general welfare,” etc.
The government imposes taxes to this end. Then they spend the money. When they spend it, somebody gets that money. That’s what you’re calling “wealth redistribution.” Sorry. I won’t go along.
“Why are you entitled to something that doesn’t belong to you.”
I’m not. That distorted perception is your invention.
“Why can’t I come over and get some of your stuff? Would it be ok?
If you mean “Can the federal government demand a share of my wages?” then yes, it’s OK. If you mean “Can I have your car?” then no.
What if I could get a majority of the people who want some of your stuff to say it is alright to take it?
It happens. It happens legally and it has happened since the founding of the Republic. To undertake a change at this time would be, well, revolutionary. Why do you hate America?
Quaker,
You neither understand nor appreciate much of our Constitution. The historic meaning of tomorrow, the celebration of the creation of an unprecedented society based on the rights, freedoms, and liberties of the individual appears to be beyond your grasp. No society is perfect. Slavery that occurred globally almost from the dawn of time was abolished in this country. That it existed at the time of it’s founding in no way diminishes the accomplishment the creation of The United States represents. Basically at heart you appear to be a socialist, a system that is counter to every principle of the foundation upon which this country was built. And you think that is a good thing.
You neither understand nor appreciate much of our Constitution.
That’s rather presumptuous.
the celebration of the creation of an unprecedented society based on the rights, freedoms, and liberties of the individual appears to be beyond your grasp.
Is not.
That it existed at the time of it’s founding in no way diminishes the accomplishment the creation of The United States represents.
Wait. We kidnapped people from their homes, held them against their will through brutal suppression of anything resembling human rights, exploited their labor to enrich an aristocratic class, and countenanced buying and selling them the way we do cattle–and that in no way diminishes the creation of the United States?
Holy crap, dude.
Basically at heart you appear to be a socialist,
Sez you. I already told you I don’t accept the labels you choose to put on things. That includes the labels you apply to me.
And you think that is a good thing.
One tries one’s best.
I base my presumptions purely on the content, merit, and logic of your posts. Your acceptance of labels has no bearing on the specific definitions of the words that make up the English language nor on the specific meaning of the words I choose to express my thoughts. Your perception does not trump reality.
Your perception does not trump reality.
Nor does yours.
If you wish, you may enumerate parts of the Constitution which I “neither understand nor appreciate.”
Proceed at your peril.
LOL, I’m oh so scared.
Let’s try the 14th amendment.
Let’s do.
While I wait for you to serve, you may
peruse this. It is obliquely relevant to our discussion.
Why don’t you wander back over to the “Where Black Republican” thread and square your concept of equality before the law with the 14th Amendment rather than make me repeat myself here.
LOL, I’m oh so scared.
Let’s try the 16th amendment.
Fixed.
But let’s try Amused Observer’s ideas. Let’s get rid of ALL government programs! No public schools, no road maintainance/construction, no police, no prisons, no fire department, etc. Of course, if you don’t want to put your money where your mouth is, that’s fine. After all, if all that were to happen, you’d be dead in a week.
Zython,
A state of complete anarchy isn’t exactly what I had in mind. But given the proposed conditions I imagine if I lasted the first day I’d last far longer than a week.
A state of complete anarchy isn’t exactly what I had in mind.
Of course not, you just think that the government should work for free.
somebody tell me why Donald Trump’s wealth shouldn’t be redistributed. Nobody needs a gold plated toilet.
Duros – fair question. I have a couple of immediate thoughts. The first is that it just isn’t how we do it in this country – from the first post-military outpost European presence, the Americas (especially those run by corporations) were sold to immigrants by disingenious speculators and land dealers as a place to come and make a bundle. That attitude, I feel, has largely persisted today.
Secondly the sorts of people who immigrated to the Americas pre-revolution were largely individualistic natural libertarians, looking to escape the still-highly stratified and tightly held land situation in Europe – especially those who expanded to settle beyond the Applachians. Working for somebody else was almost tantamount to Chattel status – if you didn’t have your piece of land and your farm you were basically nothing, and if you made it by God you kept what you got. I see a little of the same attitude that spurred the Whiskey Rebellion in the attitudes taken by modern conservatism, even though they seem to me to be defending a system that supports and encourages steep wealth consolidation.
Trump can gold plate his toilet if he wants. I’m not as interested in a ceiling as in a floor, a rising standard of living for the lowest. Japan, for instance, has a law that CEOs can’t make more than around 60 times the amount of the lowest paid worker, while in the unregulated US it’s somewhere more along the level of 400 to 1.
As I suggested before, it seems self-evident to me that a higher ceiling benefits everyone. Suppose you, I, Quaker and Observer are in a society together and none of us can speak, and I can’t read. If it costs 20 bucks to teach me to read, and I only have seventeen, it makes sense to me that it’s in the interest of you three to kick in a buck each so I can communicate and you can benefit from having more productive members in your society. Obviously there’s a subjective limit to this idea, but I’m fairly certain the ideal limit lies well beyond where current conservative ideas would put it.
Well said, parthenon.
What did you do to justify a piece of Donald Trump’s action?
Well, I don’t think I’m as big a prick as he is. That must be worth something.
What if I could get a majority of the people who want some of your stuff to say it is alright to take it?
You mean like imminent domain? Happens all the time.
And yet, AO seems to think we don’t understand how taxation works.
** “higher ceiling” should be “higher floor” in the fourth paragraph, although that was probably obvious. **