by publius
The good news is that it's pretty much official — health care reform is ON this year. Obama is carving out a big chunk of money for it — and we wouldn't be reading these stories if they weren't serious about it.
There will of course be many posts to come as that debate unfolds. But what's fascinating to me is how politically ambitious the proposed funding allocation is. He's not merely trying to pay for health care — he's trying to drive a stake through the heart of the Reagan coalition by isolating the wealthy.
I first saw this argument in the excellent NYT Magazine article by David Leonhardt (which I posted on a few months ago). Essentially, Leonhardt argues that "Obamanomics" aims to break the Reagan coalition by severing the rich from the lower-income classes. To achieve this goal, Obama is cutting taxes for everyone but the top 5%, and then using those tax hikes to pay for ambitious progressive legislation. Here's Leonhardt:
earners with more modest middle-class tax cuts and then maneuvered the
Democrats into an unwinnable choice: are you for tax cuts or against
them? Obama, however, argues that this is the moment when the politics
of taxes can be changed.
To do this, he is proposing tax cuts for most families that are
significantly larger than those McCain is offering, along with major
tax increases for families making more than $250,000 a year. “That’s
essentially a major part of our economic plan,” Obama said. “But it’s
also a political message.” Economically, he is trying to use the tax
code to spread the bounty from the market-based American economy to a
far wider group of families. Politically, he is trying to drive a wedge through the great Reagan tax gambit.
And that's exactly what he's doing here with the proposed health care funding. Obama is pushing for national health care reform — the crown jewel of the progressive legislative agenda — while simultaneously trying to break down the modern political coalitions that Nixon and Reagan built.
This guy is swinging for the fences — and swinging hard.
//he’s.. isolating the wealthy.//
// severing the rich from the lower-income classes.//
// Obama is … for everyone but the top 5%//
The wealthy are bastards. Who needs them anyway? They’re bloody leaches sucking away our vital fluids.
//he’s.. isolating the wealthy.//
// severing the rich from the lower-income classes.//
// Obama is … for everyone but the top 5%//
The wealthy are bastards. Who needs them anyway? They’re bloody leaches sucking away our vital fluids.
dave – i’ve been a bit obsessed with this topic, but i think i have a good reason. the inequality in this country is so extreme and ridiculous that it’s going to take a very hard push just to fix it a little bit.
i don’t think anyone going to be marching anywhere with pitchforks. but if a bit of class rhetoric can shift the balance a little bit, everything will be better (ESPECIALLY for the rich, who didn’t do so bad after 1993 as i recall)
dave – i’ve been a bit obsessed with this topic, but i think i have a good reason. the inequality in this country is so extreme and ridiculous that it’s going to take a very hard push just to fix it a little bit.
i don’t think anyone going to be marching anywhere with pitchforks. but if a bit of class rhetoric can shift the balance a little bit, everything will be better (ESPECIALLY for the rich, who didn’t do so bad after 1993 as i recall)
The good news is that it’s pretty much official — health care reform is ON this year
I think we should just tax internet trolls to pay for health care. I have yet to meet an internet troll who did not claim to have a fabulously successful business.
There would be plenty of money left over for volcano monitoring. And SUPERTRAINS!
Win win.
The good news is that it’s pretty much official — health care reform is ON this year
I think we should just tax internet trolls to pay for health care. I have yet to meet an internet troll who did not claim to have a fabulously successful business.
There would be plenty of money left over for volcano monitoring. And SUPERTRAINS!
Win win.
// i think i have a good reason//
Yes, of course. That’s always the case isn’t it.
When will Mr. Obama be sending us yellow stars to wear? The wealthy are the root of all evil. Rise up ye people and eat your bosses. Rise up and seize your due.
//ESPECIALLY for the rich,// Emphatic bastards. How DARE they excel. We will rise as a people as we devour those who excel! Strive ye people for mediocrity. Strive for ordinariness.
C’est la lutte finale/ Groupons-nous et demain/ L’Internationale/ Sera le genre humain.
// i think i have a good reason//
Yes, of course. That’s always the case isn’t it.
When will Mr. Obama be sending us yellow stars to wear? The wealthy are the root of all evil. Rise up ye people and eat your bosses. Rise up and seize your due.
//ESPECIALLY for the rich,// Emphatic bastards. How DARE they excel. We will rise as a people as we devour those who excel! Strive ye people for mediocrity. Strive for ordinariness.
C’est la lutte finale/ Groupons-nous et demain/ L’Internationale/ Sera le genre humain.
Godwin!
So soon, too…
Godwin!
So soon, too…
d’d’d’: there are all sorts of reasons to favor this other than thinking that the wealthy are bastards, bloodsucking leeches, etc.
Take me, for instance. ([Henny Youngman] Please! [/Henny Youngman]) I was born and raised among — not the really rich, but the pretty darn well off. I myself am not rich, having opted for academia, but when I agree with the line of thought publius is putting forward, I’m talking about people I grew up with. And some of Obama’s suggestions impact me directly: e.g., I have never discussed their wills with my parents, but it is not unimaginable that I might be subject to the estate tax, at least if they don’t raise the limit too much.
I’m also not really into self-hatred, or hatred of the people I grew up with.
I just think two things. First, that as publius said, the inequality in this country has just gotten too great. And this isn’t something that just happened by itself, that government would have to interfere with; it’s the result of government policy, which I think should be undone.
Second, especially in a time of real crisis, the idea that the people who really can afford to help more — who are not senior citizens whose retirement savings have been decimated, or families trying to figure out how on earth to manage to send the kids to college, or people who wake up every day wondering what they’ll do if they’re laid off, but people who actually will do OK, even if a little less OK than before — should not pitch in — well, it sticks in my craw.
I got all sorts of advantages from the way I was brought up: a wonderful education, no family fights about money, travel abroad, you name it. Somehow, it sticks in my craw to complain about the likes of me being asked to pay a little more so that people who didn’t can actually get health insurance they can count on.
d’d’d’: there are all sorts of reasons to favor this other than thinking that the wealthy are bastards, bloodsucking leeches, etc.
Take me, for instance. ([Henny Youngman] Please! [/Henny Youngman]) I was born and raised among — not the really rich, but the pretty darn well off. I myself am not rich, having opted for academia, but when I agree with the line of thought publius is putting forward, I’m talking about people I grew up with. And some of Obama’s suggestions impact me directly: e.g., I have never discussed their wills with my parents, but it is not unimaginable that I might be subject to the estate tax, at least if they don’t raise the limit too much.
I’m also not really into self-hatred, or hatred of the people I grew up with.
I just think two things. First, that as publius said, the inequality in this country has just gotten too great. And this isn’t something that just happened by itself, that government would have to interfere with; it’s the result of government policy, which I think should be undone.
Second, especially in a time of real crisis, the idea that the people who really can afford to help more — who are not senior citizens whose retirement savings have been decimated, or families trying to figure out how on earth to manage to send the kids to college, or people who wake up every day wondering what they’ll do if they’re laid off, but people who actually will do OK, even if a little less OK than before — should not pitch in — well, it sticks in my craw.
I got all sorts of advantages from the way I was brought up: a wonderful education, no family fights about money, travel abroad, you name it. Somehow, it sticks in my craw to complain about the likes of me being asked to pay a little more so that people who didn’t can actually get health insurance they can count on.
he’s trying to drive a stake through the heart of the Reagan coalition by isolating the wealthy.
I thought the best line of speech was sizing up Bush economics as giving the nation’s wealth to the wealthy.
he’s trying to drive a stake through the heart of the Reagan coalition by isolating the wealthy.
I thought the best line of speech was sizing up Bush economics as giving the nation’s wealth to the wealthy.
what hilzoy said. but the key point (to the extent you’re going to engage us substantively) is that POLICY brought this state of affairs upon us.
what hilzoy said. but the key point (to the extent you’re going to engage us substantively) is that POLICY brought this state of affairs upon us.
More seriously…
I think, from a systems basis, there’s something basically unhealthy about a system where what’s circulating gets concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. This is not a very rigorous approach, but my intuition is that the trend of greater concentration of wealth in fewer hands is not good for the entire system. It needs buy in from all participants, and if wealth is concentrated in few hands, then there is less buy in and the system WILL collapse.
From another perspective, concentration of wealth seems to discourage class mobility. If there is less capital flowing downward, there is less ability to move upward, particularly among the most impoverished sectors. Again, this contributes to system instability. Moreover, it strikes harder at the unifying myths of American society–bettering ourselves through our own effort. Ignoring that sort of effect is very dangerous, and not just in the long term. (And…the flipside of class mobility for the impoverished is…class mobility for the wealthy…only that class mobility is downward. The wealthy should be at risk of failure, too, just as the poor).
More seriously…
I think, from a systems basis, there’s something basically unhealthy about a system where what’s circulating gets concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. This is not a very rigorous approach, but my intuition is that the trend of greater concentration of wealth in fewer hands is not good for the entire system. It needs buy in from all participants, and if wealth is concentrated in few hands, then there is less buy in and the system WILL collapse.
From another perspective, concentration of wealth seems to discourage class mobility. If there is less capital flowing downward, there is less ability to move upward, particularly among the most impoverished sectors. Again, this contributes to system instability. Moreover, it strikes harder at the unifying myths of American society–bettering ourselves through our own effort. Ignoring that sort of effect is very dangerous, and not just in the long term. (And…the flipside of class mobility for the impoverished is…class mobility for the wealthy…only that class mobility is downward. The wealthy should be at risk of failure, too, just as the poor).
I presented a project to the town manager today that will provide 80 units affordable to people earning 50% of the median income or less and 80 units affordable to moderate income persons as well as 40 market rate units. I will commit to subsidizing the rents on these 160 units for 30 years – essentially the rest of my life. The project will generate an increase in property tax revenues to the Town $920,000 per year. It is an amount big enough to finance the swim center the Town wants to build in the regional park. The commercial component of the mixed use project will bring essential services to the west side of town that are not currently available. It will reduce crosstown traffic by 30% and thereby save time, money, fuel and carbon for the local population. Sales taxes revenues to the Town will increase. The project is within 500 meters of commuter rail and adjacent to the Town square. It will contribute to a more vibrant town center by putting homes, foot traffic and eyes on the public space.
Approximately $100 million will be spent in the local economy on labor and materials during the 4 year construction period. There should be at least 100 construction jobs during that whole 4 years. On completion the commercial part of the project will support about 100 permanent employees.
I will build the roads, sewers, traffic signals, roundabouts, parks, community gardens and recreation centers. The town will grant me permission after twisting my arm for a new firetruck and soccer field in addition to the full fire district fees and park fees which are meant to pay for those things. The Town will take credit for the project. The county will not help. The state will not help. Obama will not help. now_what will not help.
I will take money out of my own pocket to supply equity for it. I will borrow for the rest. To borrow I will pledge all of my net worth to the bank – so that if the project fails I’ll have nothing left of what i’ve spent my entire life earning. The town will require that I build more office space than I can lease because a consultant told them it would be good. When I ask them if they’ll lease the excess space from me they’ll say “of course not. why would we.”
The project will suck money every month for the next four years. If all goes well, I might be able to start drawing money out in five years.
What a lovely neighborhood it will be that the ‘town’ creates
Later, in years to come, i’ll sit in a cafe on the square and admire what a lovely neighborhood the ‘town’ created for it’s citizens. And i’ll listen to the progressive activists shouting slogans in the square “Eat the rich bastards.” “5 percent is indecent!”
C’est la vie.
I presented a project to the town manager today that will provide 80 units affordable to people earning 50% of the median income or less and 80 units affordable to moderate income persons as well as 40 market rate units. I will commit to subsidizing the rents on these 160 units for 30 years – essentially the rest of my life. The project will generate an increase in property tax revenues to the Town $920,000 per year. It is an amount big enough to finance the swim center the Town wants to build in the regional park. The commercial component of the mixed use project will bring essential services to the west side of town that are not currently available. It will reduce crosstown traffic by 30% and thereby save time, money, fuel and carbon for the local population. Sales taxes revenues to the Town will increase. The project is within 500 meters of commuter rail and adjacent to the Town square. It will contribute to a more vibrant town center by putting homes, foot traffic and eyes on the public space.
Approximately $100 million will be spent in the local economy on labor and materials during the 4 year construction period. There should be at least 100 construction jobs during that whole 4 years. On completion the commercial part of the project will support about 100 permanent employees.
I will build the roads, sewers, traffic signals, roundabouts, parks, community gardens and recreation centers. The town will grant me permission after twisting my arm for a new firetruck and soccer field in addition to the full fire district fees and park fees which are meant to pay for those things. The Town will take credit for the project. The county will not help. The state will not help. Obama will not help. now_what will not help.
I will take money out of my own pocket to supply equity for it. I will borrow for the rest. To borrow I will pledge all of my net worth to the bank – so that if the project fails I’ll have nothing left of what i’ve spent my entire life earning. The town will require that I build more office space than I can lease because a consultant told them it would be good. When I ask them if they’ll lease the excess space from me they’ll say “of course not. why would we.”
The project will suck money every month for the next four years. If all goes well, I might be able to start drawing money out in five years.
What a lovely neighborhood it will be that the ‘town’ creates
Later, in years to come, i’ll sit in a cafe on the square and admire what a lovely neighborhood the ‘town’ created for it’s citizens. And i’ll listen to the progressive activists shouting slogans in the square “Eat the rich bastards.” “5 percent is indecent!”
C’est la vie.
paraphrasing. Hopefully I’ve got the gist accurately //the idea that the people [like d’d’d’dave] who really can afford to help more –should not pitch in [because, as you can see from d’d’d’dave’s 2:15a comment he just stands by and lets the town do all the work]– well, it sticks in my craw.//
I wouldn’t want your craw to be stuck.
paraphrasing. Hopefully I’ve got the gist accurately //the idea that the people [like d’d’d’dave] who really can afford to help more –should not pitch in [because, as you can see from d’d’d’dave’s 2:15a comment he just stands by and lets the town do all the work]– well, it sticks in my craw.//
I wouldn’t want your craw to be stuck.
Taking you exactly at your word, d’d’d’dave, I have to ask: why bother with such generosity to ingrates like your town government, or now_what, or me? Why put your vast wealth at risk, instead of retiring on it? Are you some kind of altruistic masochist?
Also for curiosity: is there some reason, selfish or otherwise, why you don’t invest your money in some other jursdiction? Some impoverished former steel town, say, where the local government is so hard up that they’d give you tax breaks if not outright subsidies to build your project there?
–TP
Taking you exactly at your word, d’d’d’dave, I have to ask: why bother with such generosity to ingrates like your town government, or now_what, or me? Why put your vast wealth at risk, instead of retiring on it? Are you some kind of altruistic masochist?
Also for curiosity: is there some reason, selfish or otherwise, why you don’t invest your money in some other jursdiction? Some impoverished former steel town, say, where the local government is so hard up that they’d give you tax breaks if not outright subsidies to build your project there?
–TP
publius and hilzoy
in an effort to engage you substantively. I think that the greatest portion of the increase in inequality over the last 15 years is not due to tax breaks for the wealthy. It is due to the erosion in wages that has resulted form the rise of china, india, brazil and other such places who have grown by supplying world class trade goods at cheaper wages than american workers. Is it a policy issue? Yes. But it is not a tax policy issue. It is not a union issue. It is an overall national competitiveness issue. Should there be trade barriers to cure it? I think not. But that is for the policy makers to decide.
I think wage discrepencies vis a vis the world are the root of the rising inequality. The wealthy are not to blame. I believe, as Publius has clearly expressed in this post, Obama is not working from altruistic motives. He is working from a desire to cement political power. He sees the wealthy as a handy scapegoat and he is using them. Progressives like Publius are cheering him on with full knowledge. I’m a little more sympathetic to Hilzoy. I think she’s led a sheltered life ensconced in academia for generations. I think she believes policy makers are gods and the rich are idle leeches.
C’est la vie.
I’ll spend my life doing what is right whether you guys believe it or not. People like you will benefit from my life more than I will benefit from yours. But you will tell yourselves, and your children, and your students the opposite until you go to your graves in old age.
publius and hilzoy
in an effort to engage you substantively. I think that the greatest portion of the increase in inequality over the last 15 years is not due to tax breaks for the wealthy. It is due to the erosion in wages that has resulted form the rise of china, india, brazil and other such places who have grown by supplying world class trade goods at cheaper wages than american workers. Is it a policy issue? Yes. But it is not a tax policy issue. It is not a union issue. It is an overall national competitiveness issue. Should there be trade barriers to cure it? I think not. But that is for the policy makers to decide.
I think wage discrepencies vis a vis the world are the root of the rising inequality. The wealthy are not to blame. I believe, as Publius has clearly expressed in this post, Obama is not working from altruistic motives. He is working from a desire to cement political power. He sees the wealthy as a handy scapegoat and he is using them. Progressives like Publius are cheering him on with full knowledge. I’m a little more sympathetic to Hilzoy. I think she’s led a sheltered life ensconced in academia for generations. I think she believes policy makers are gods and the rich are idle leeches.
C’est la vie.
I’ll spend my life doing what is right whether you guys believe it or not. People like you will benefit from my life more than I will benefit from yours. But you will tell yourselves, and your children, and your students the opposite until you go to your graves in old age.
They have town managers in Singapore, Dave?
They have town managers in Singapore, Dave?
typo correction: on 2:15a post it should be 240 market rate units not 40. The entire project is 400 units plus commercial space.
typo correction: on 2:15a post it should be 240 market rate units not 40. The entire project is 400 units plus commercial space.
//They have town managers in Singapore, Dave?//
Yes. Have you heard of the Lee family?
//They have town managers in Singapore, Dave?//
Yes. Have you heard of the Lee family?
There are statistics available regarding pre and post tax income inequality.
If people cared, they could know.
If they didn’t care, they could just say whatever supported their biases.
There are statistics available regarding pre and post tax income inequality.
If people cared, they could know.
If they didn’t care, they could just say whatever supported their biases.
So that’s who you took your proposal to?
Hint: if you want to bring up a substantive point, preceding it with an anecdote that is more fiction than fact is not an optimal strategy. Credibility is the coin of the realm. Just saying.
So that’s who you took your proposal to?
Hint: if you want to bring up a substantive point, preceding it with an anecdote that is more fiction than fact is not an optimal strategy. Credibility is the coin of the realm. Just saying.
Tony P
//Taking you exactly at your word, d’d’d’dave, I have to ask: why bother with such generosity to ingrates like your town government, or now_what, or me? Why put your vast wealth at risk, instead of retiring on it? Are you some kind of altruistic masochist?//
I do it because I love to build things that please people and improve their lives. It gives me pleasure to see people enjoying neighborhoods I’ve built. I didn’t do it to get rich. I started out doing what I love. I did it well and the money came. More money allows me to do what I love in a bigger and better way. Simple as that.
//Also for curiosity: is there some reason, selfish or otherwise, why you don’t invest your money in some other jursdiction? Some impoverished former steel town, say, where the local government is so hard up that they’d give you tax breaks if not outright subsidies to build your project there?//
Real estate is a local business. It takes hands-on management to do a project well and keep it nice. You’ve all seen projects owned by absentee landlords: The details are shabby, maintenance is behind, commercial spaces stay empty a month or two longer than they should. There is no pleasure in doing schlocky work. It is embarrassing. So I don’t want to do it.
Also, if I built a project out of town or in the rust -belt somewhere I couldn’t come home every day to spend time with my family. Unless of course I used a private plane. In the first place, that is dangerous. In the second place: private plane users are currently seen as the lowest of the low: fat cat, carbon wasters who spew greenhouse gasses.
Tony P
//Taking you exactly at your word, d’d’d’dave, I have to ask: why bother with such generosity to ingrates like your town government, or now_what, or me? Why put your vast wealth at risk, instead of retiring on it? Are you some kind of altruistic masochist?//
I do it because I love to build things that please people and improve their lives. It gives me pleasure to see people enjoying neighborhoods I’ve built. I didn’t do it to get rich. I started out doing what I love. I did it well and the money came. More money allows me to do what I love in a bigger and better way. Simple as that.
//Also for curiosity: is there some reason, selfish or otherwise, why you don’t invest your money in some other jursdiction? Some impoverished former steel town, say, where the local government is so hard up that they’d give you tax breaks if not outright subsidies to build your project there?//
Real estate is a local business. It takes hands-on management to do a project well and keep it nice. You’ve all seen projects owned by absentee landlords: The details are shabby, maintenance is behind, commercial spaces stay empty a month or two longer than they should. There is no pleasure in doing schlocky work. It is embarrassing. So I don’t want to do it.
Also, if I built a project out of town or in the rust -belt somewhere I couldn’t come home every day to spend time with my family. Unless of course I used a private plane. In the first place, that is dangerous. In the second place: private plane users are currently seen as the lowest of the low: fat cat, carbon wasters who spew greenhouse gasses.
LJ
//So that’s who you took your proposal to?
Hint: if you want to bring up a substantive point, preceding it with an anecdote that is more fiction than fact is not an optimal strategy. Credibility is the coin of the realm. Just saying.//
WTF? Are you a 15 year-old? You seem to think that any real-life story is bogus or inapplicable to true policy theory. Does policy transcend reality? But you fall all over yourself admiring a story about iraqi widows – stories like that are the height of truth. Is pain the only truth? Everyone lies unless they speak of pain?
LJ
//So that’s who you took your proposal to?
Hint: if you want to bring up a substantive point, preceding it with an anecdote that is more fiction than fact is not an optimal strategy. Credibility is the coin of the realm. Just saying.//
WTF? Are you a 15 year-old? You seem to think that any real-life story is bogus or inapplicable to true policy theory. Does policy transcend reality? But you fall all over yourself admiring a story about iraqi widows – stories like that are the height of truth. Is pain the only truth? Everyone lies unless they speak of pain?
//There are statistics available regarding pre and post tax income inequality.
If people cared, they could know.
If they didn’t care, they could just say whatever supported their biases.//
Yes. We know that income equality can be engineered through taxation. The point I am making is that the ‘disease’ is international wage competition. Engineering income equality via tax policy is a mitigation not a cure. It is akin to getting a wheel chair for a person with a broken leg. It is not as good as fixing the leg.
//There are statistics available regarding pre and post tax income inequality.
If people cared, they could know.
If they didn’t care, they could just say whatever supported their biases.//
Yes. We know that income equality can be engineered through taxation. The point I am making is that the ‘disease’ is international wage competition. Engineering income equality via tax policy is a mitigation not a cure. It is akin to getting a wheel chair for a person with a broken leg. It is not as good as fixing the leg.
You’re changing your story now. Changing it with every post actually. Maybe you’re just talking to hear yourself talk. That can be fun.
The point I am making
You’re not making any points.
You’re changing your story now. Changing it with every post actually. Maybe you’re just talking to hear yourself talk. That can be fun.
The point I am making
You’re not making any points.
Hint: if you want to bring up a substantive point, preceding it with an anecdote that is more fiction than fact is not an optimal strategy. Credibility is the coin of the realm. Just saying.
right, I thought I was reading a composite of every Business Times article in the U.S.
But he really just wants to tells us how unfair life has been to him:
so that if the project fails I’ll have nothing left of what i’ve spent my entire life earning.
life has given him nothing he has not earned.
Hint: if you want to bring up a substantive point, preceding it with an anecdote that is more fiction than fact is not an optimal strategy. Credibility is the coin of the realm. Just saying.
right, I thought I was reading a composite of every Business Times article in the U.S.
But he really just wants to tells us how unfair life has been to him:
so that if the project fails I’ll have nothing left of what i’ve spent my entire life earning.
life has given him nothing he has not earned.
C’est la lutte finale/ Groupons-nous et demain/ L’Internationale/ Sera le genre humain.
Ah ! ça ira, ça ira, ça ira /
Quand l’aristocrate protestera /
Le bon citoyen au nez lui rira /
Sans avoir l’âme troublée /
Toujours le plus fort sera.
C’est la lutte finale/ Groupons-nous et demain/ L’Internationale/ Sera le genre humain.
Ah ! ça ira, ça ira, ça ira /
Quand l’aristocrate protestera /
Le bon citoyen au nez lui rira /
Sans avoir l’âme troublée /
Toujours le plus fort sera.
It gives me pleasure to see people enjoying neighborhoods I’ve built.
To what degree would your pleasure be diminished if you made less money at it, either before or after taxes?
–TP
It gives me pleasure to see people enjoying neighborhoods I’ve built.
To what degree would your pleasure be diminished if you made less money at it, either before or after taxes?
–TP
Tony P. has put his finger on the heart of the matter. d’d’d’dave wouldn’t be making this investment if he wasn’t planning to make money from it. The project he is planning sounds great, and, to the extent that he met or exceeded any local requirements governing low income housing, he is to be commended. But beyond that, I have little sympathy for his position.
//
I will take money out of my own pocket to supply equity for it. I will borrow for the rest. To borrow I will pledge all of my net worth to the bank – so that if the project fails I’ll have nothing left of what i’ve spent my entire life earning.
…
People like you will benefit from my life more than I will benefit from yours.
//
I was a United States Marine and during my enlistment I bet my life that I could help keep this country safe without getting killed.
d’d’d’dave, you were able to amass your wealth partly due to the fact that there were people who made sure that you weren’t at the mercy of those who would take it away from you (and I mean everyone, from the police to the military, not just myself.) So whether you want to base your grumbling about being made to pay your fair share on what either the risks you take (yours being taken mostly for your own benefit), or what benefit your life was to others (and unless you are doing this development in silicon valley, I ain’t getting squat out of it), you might want think about the degree to which your accomplishments were achievable due to the benefits you get from the 300 million of us who take our own risks every day that you never even know about.
Tony P. has put his finger on the heart of the matter. d’d’d’dave wouldn’t be making this investment if he wasn’t planning to make money from it. The project he is planning sounds great, and, to the extent that he met or exceeded any local requirements governing low income housing, he is to be commended. But beyond that, I have little sympathy for his position.
//
I will take money out of my own pocket to supply equity for it. I will borrow for the rest. To borrow I will pledge all of my net worth to the bank – so that if the project fails I’ll have nothing left of what i’ve spent my entire life earning.
…
People like you will benefit from my life more than I will benefit from yours.
//
I was a United States Marine and during my enlistment I bet my life that I could help keep this country safe without getting killed.
d’d’d’dave, you were able to amass your wealth partly due to the fact that there were people who made sure that you weren’t at the mercy of those who would take it away from you (and I mean everyone, from the police to the military, not just myself.) So whether you want to base your grumbling about being made to pay your fair share on what either the risks you take (yours being taken mostly for your own benefit), or what benefit your life was to others (and unless you are doing this development in silicon valley, I ain’t getting squat out of it), you might want think about the degree to which your accomplishments were achievable due to the benefits you get from the 300 million of us who take our own risks every day that you never even know about.
You seem to think that any real-life story is bogus or inapplicable to true policy theory.
No, dave/frank. I think your stories are bogus. I mean, you claimed here that you over $500,000 during the last two years, and that taking that as of your income over two years, you should be making around 1.5 million a year. So we are supposed to believe that you are writing us between dealing with your real estate empire because, I don’t know, if you convince the commentariat here, it’s a much better investment of your time? Pull the other leg, dave/frank.
I mean, you first showed up here as frank and began to lecture everyone about your tax problems. When you got shredded by the people here who actually know about taxes, you stormed off, promising never to darken our guest towels again. (word to the wise: no one uses backslashes to quote. Except you).
Now you are back with even more specious anecdotes (welfare family buying the big screen TV, your drug-dealing renter, and now your munificent urban renewal scheme) and you want to be taken seriously? Even you yourself give up the fact that you are BSing because after your d^d^d^davetown story, you feel compelled to start your next comment off with “in an effort to engage you substantively.” Dr. Freud to the red courtesy phone, Dr. Freud to the red courtesy phone.
My advice, clear out your caches and come back under a new identity. Learn to use html tags and dump that ///backslash quote/// tic. And then engage us honestly instead of making up stories and pretending they are real to try and make your point. If you have to hang your point on a story, clearly label it as a hypothetical. But this ‘I’m an incredibly wealthy guy whose only outlet to complain about politics is to slum with a bunch of blog commentators’ got old a long time ago.
You seem to think that any real-life story is bogus or inapplicable to true policy theory.
No, dave/frank. I think your stories are bogus. I mean, you claimed here that you over $500,000 during the last two years, and that taking that as of your income over two years, you should be making around 1.5 million a year. So we are supposed to believe that you are writing us between dealing with your real estate empire because, I don’t know, if you convince the commentariat here, it’s a much better investment of your time? Pull the other leg, dave/frank.
I mean, you first showed up here as frank and began to lecture everyone about your tax problems. When you got shredded by the people here who actually know about taxes, you stormed off, promising never to darken our guest towels again. (word to the wise: no one uses backslashes to quote. Except you).
Now you are back with even more specious anecdotes (welfare family buying the big screen TV, your drug-dealing renter, and now your munificent urban renewal scheme) and you want to be taken seriously? Even you yourself give up the fact that you are BSing because after your d^d^d^davetown story, you feel compelled to start your next comment off with “in an effort to engage you substantively.” Dr. Freud to the red courtesy phone, Dr. Freud to the red courtesy phone.
My advice, clear out your caches and come back under a new identity. Learn to use html tags and dump that ///backslash quote/// tic. And then engage us honestly instead of making up stories and pretending they are real to try and make your point. If you have to hang your point on a story, clearly label it as a hypothetical. But this ‘I’m an incredibly wealthy guy whose only outlet to complain about politics is to slum with a bunch of blog commentators’ got old a long time ago.
When will Mr. Obama be sending us yellow stars to wear?
[…]
WTF? Are you a 15 year-old?
No. I’m sorry, but no. I call parody troll. And a pretty damn amusing one, I must add. Hats off, ddd…I needed a chuckle this morning.
When will Mr. Obama be sending us yellow stars to wear?
[…]
WTF? Are you a 15 year-old?
No. I’m sorry, but no. I call parody troll. And a pretty damn amusing one, I must add. Hats off, ddd…I needed a chuckle this morning.
TripleD-Dave – Generally I agree with you. I’m not at all happy with Obama’s “eat the rich” rhetoric.
OTOH, my sister has received about $1M in medical care over the last few years that clearly saved her life. I’m not doing too badly, but I don’t have that kind of scratch. No one in my family does. Medicaid paid for it. SSI helped with other expenses. Even with that it was still an incredible financial burden on the whole family.
She was only eligible for that because she was already disabled. Had she been “normal” she would have died due to lack of medical care.
I hate taxes as much as anyone, more than most here. But I’ll pay for this. If it’s going to save someone else’s sister Obama can tax me a bit more. He claimed the other night he would not – but he should. I owe it.
TripleD-Dave – Generally I agree with you. I’m not at all happy with Obama’s “eat the rich” rhetoric.
OTOH, my sister has received about $1M in medical care over the last few years that clearly saved her life. I’m not doing too badly, but I don’t have that kind of scratch. No one in my family does. Medicaid paid for it. SSI helped with other expenses. Even with that it was still an incredible financial burden on the whole family.
She was only eligible for that because she was already disabled. Had she been “normal” she would have died due to lack of medical care.
I hate taxes as much as anyone, more than most here. But I’ll pay for this. If it’s going to save someone else’s sister Obama can tax me a bit more. He claimed the other night he would not – but he should. I owe it.
Steve, I understand. I’m a homeowner. For every local school budget increase which will necessitate an increase in my properties taxes. I went to public schools, my friends have taught within public schools. I know exactly what they deal with.
I vote yes. Once for my friends, though none are in my district. Once for my history, and the gifts that it has granted me. And once for my future, because the future will not depend on just my skill set, but the skill set of those around me.
It isn’t that we love taxes (and I’m speaking rhetorically here), it is that we love the benefits that community efforts bring more than we love the numbers in our bank accounts, we love the good that losing a little can bring to the many. Yes, there’s a balance. But everything is a point on finding the golden rule of moderation.
Steve, I understand. I’m a homeowner. For every local school budget increase which will necessitate an increase in my properties taxes. I went to public schools, my friends have taught within public schools. I know exactly what they deal with.
I vote yes. Once for my friends, though none are in my district. Once for my history, and the gifts that it has granted me. And once for my future, because the future will not depend on just my skill set, but the skill set of those around me.
It isn’t that we love taxes (and I’m speaking rhetorically here), it is that we love the benefits that community efforts bring more than we love the numbers in our bank accounts, we love the good that losing a little can bring to the many. Yes, there’s a balance. But everything is a point on finding the golden rule of moderation.
How DARE they excel.
Personally I have no problem with the fact that you, dave, are wealthy. Assuming you are, it sounds like you are.
It sounds like you have worked very hard, put much of your own personal wealth at risk, and built a good business. From what you’ve said here, it sounds like employ a lot of people, treat them well, and give them a chance to do well for themselves.
I think all of that is great, and you deserve, and should enjoy, everything you’ve earned. It’s actually not that easy to do what you’ve done.
I also want to say thanks for the charitable contributions you’ve made, which you mentioned elsewhere.
A couple of things.
First, ‘excel’ is kind of a weird word to use. Lots of people excel in lots of ways. Business people who excel are rewarded with wealth, other folks who excel at other things may be rewarded in other ways. It’s good to be good at what you do, but it brings its own reward. It doesn’t earn you any special treatment.
Second, a lot of wealthy people are not wealthy due to any particular excellence on their part. Some inherit it, some get lucky, some gain wealth without creating any particular value for anyone else. Some work in absurdly overcompensated professions. And, some earn every penny.
Third, the level of tax increase that is being discussed in Congress, as opposed to on blogs, is just not going to cripple anybody, nor is it going to prevent any sane person from continuing to invest and create value with their capital.
As an aside, I think your point about wage erosion as a source of income inequality is apt. I’d only add that a lot of increased revenue gained by outsourcing labor has ended up flowing to wealthy Americans in the form of dividends and capital gains. So, its kind of a two-fer.
How DARE they excel.
Personally I have no problem with the fact that you, dave, are wealthy. Assuming you are, it sounds like you are.
It sounds like you have worked very hard, put much of your own personal wealth at risk, and built a good business. From what you’ve said here, it sounds like employ a lot of people, treat them well, and give them a chance to do well for themselves.
I think all of that is great, and you deserve, and should enjoy, everything you’ve earned. It’s actually not that easy to do what you’ve done.
I also want to say thanks for the charitable contributions you’ve made, which you mentioned elsewhere.
A couple of things.
First, ‘excel’ is kind of a weird word to use. Lots of people excel in lots of ways. Business people who excel are rewarded with wealth, other folks who excel at other things may be rewarded in other ways. It’s good to be good at what you do, but it brings its own reward. It doesn’t earn you any special treatment.
Second, a lot of wealthy people are not wealthy due to any particular excellence on their part. Some inherit it, some get lucky, some gain wealth without creating any particular value for anyone else. Some work in absurdly overcompensated professions. And, some earn every penny.
Third, the level of tax increase that is being discussed in Congress, as opposed to on blogs, is just not going to cripple anybody, nor is it going to prevent any sane person from continuing to invest and create value with their capital.
As an aside, I think your point about wage erosion as a source of income inequality is apt. I’d only add that a lot of increased revenue gained by outsourcing labor has ended up flowing to wealthy Americans in the form of dividends and capital gains. So, its kind of a two-fer.
When will Mr. Obama be sending us yellow stars to wear?
Okay, seriously, how has this guy not been banned yet?
When will Mr. Obama be sending us yellow stars to wear?
Okay, seriously, how has this guy not been banned yet?
I think she’s led a sheltered life ensconced in academia for generations. I think she believes policy makers are gods and the rich are idle leeches.
Not for nothng dave, but this, among other things you’ve said here, are extraordinarily rude.
hilzoy is an academic. An accomplished academic. Her folks, likewise. Brilliant, accomplished people.
Think that’s an easy thing? You couldn’t do it.
It’s great that you’ve built a good business. Enjoy it.
Other people have done excellent things as well. Things you could never do.
If you want respect, perhaps you should show some respect. Building a successful business does not entitle you to be an @sshole.
And yeah, the ‘yellow stars’ thing was freaking over the line. People were made to wear yellow stars so they could be isolated for systematic discrimination and eventually murder.
Obama’s looking to ding you 3 or 4 points on your income above a quarter of a million bucks. In return we might just be able to make decent health care available to a few million people.
Get over yourself.
I think she’s led a sheltered life ensconced in academia for generations. I think she believes policy makers are gods and the rich are idle leeches.
Not for nothng dave, but this, among other things you’ve said here, are extraordinarily rude.
hilzoy is an academic. An accomplished academic. Her folks, likewise. Brilliant, accomplished people.
Think that’s an easy thing? You couldn’t do it.
It’s great that you’ve built a good business. Enjoy it.
Other people have done excellent things as well. Things you could never do.
If you want respect, perhaps you should show some respect. Building a successful business does not entitle you to be an @sshole.
And yeah, the ‘yellow stars’ thing was freaking over the line. People were made to wear yellow stars so they could be isolated for systematic discrimination and eventually murder.
Obama’s looking to ding you 3 or 4 points on your income above a quarter of a million bucks. In return we might just be able to make decent health care available to a few million people.
Get over yourself.
Building 160 units out of 400 at below market rates in California in this market? That’s 40% of your product. What city are you in? No city could impose that requirement and survive a regulatory taking challenge.
There are developers who specialize in low-income product; I’ve even represented a few in the Inland Empire. It’s a tremendously complicated business involving redevelopment agencies, federal funding, tax credits and the like.
I’ve also read that you, 4dave, develop mobile home parks. That’s a whole separate business with its own complex set of rules.
I have a sneaking suspicion that there’s a lot more going on here than you’ve let on.
Building 160 units out of 400 at below market rates in California in this market? That’s 40% of your product. What city are you in? No city could impose that requirement and survive a regulatory taking challenge.
There are developers who specialize in low-income product; I’ve even represented a few in the Inland Empire. It’s a tremendously complicated business involving redevelopment agencies, federal funding, tax credits and the like.
I’ve also read that you, 4dave, develop mobile home parks. That’s a whole separate business with its own complex set of rules.
I have a sneaking suspicion that there’s a lot more going on here than you’ve let on.
OCSteve: I hate taxes as much as anyone, more than most here. But I’ll pay for this. If it’s going to save someone else’s sister Obama can tax me a bit more. He claimed the other night he would not – but he should. I owe it.
Ah, Steve de Stogumber. Bless.
Russell, I actually don’t believe d’d’d’dave is anything but an online performance artist – a troll, I suppose, but in good moods I find him a funny troll. When I’m mellowed out, and all. I don’t think he’s rich and I very much doubt he has anything to do with housing projects.
OCSteve: I hate taxes as much as anyone, more than most here. But I’ll pay for this. If it’s going to save someone else’s sister Obama can tax me a bit more. He claimed the other night he would not – but he should. I owe it.
Ah, Steve de Stogumber. Bless.
Russell, I actually don’t believe d’d’d’dave is anything but an online performance artist – a troll, I suppose, but in good moods I find him a funny troll. When I’m mellowed out, and all. I don’t think he’s rich and I very much doubt he has anything to do with housing projects.
No matter who is running health care there is still not enough for everyone. We do not have enough of the best MRI scanners or CT scanners to give everyone the best. Even if we were to order enough of today’s best MRI scanners by the time they are delivered there would be a new better MRI, and not enough to give everyone the best.
Here is a question, right now the poor are the most likely to smoke, and the most likely to develop lung cancer because of it. So, do we as a nation pay for lung cancer treatment and support the stupid practice of smoking, or cut off funding for lung cancer for smokers, and preferentially damage the poor?
Colon cancer related to obesity?
Type 2 diabetes?
Health problems related to drug use?
Damages from participating in risky behavior like dirt biking?
How do we hit this in the tax code without hurting anybodies constituencies?
No matter who is running health care there is still not enough for everyone. We do not have enough of the best MRI scanners or CT scanners to give everyone the best. Even if we were to order enough of today’s best MRI scanners by the time they are delivered there would be a new better MRI, and not enough to give everyone the best.
Here is a question, right now the poor are the most likely to smoke, and the most likely to develop lung cancer because of it. So, do we as a nation pay for lung cancer treatment and support the stupid practice of smoking, or cut off funding for lung cancer for smokers, and preferentially damage the poor?
Colon cancer related to obesity?
Type 2 diabetes?
Health problems related to drug use?
Damages from participating in risky behavior like dirt biking?
How do we hit this in the tax code without hurting anybodies constituencies?
d’d’d’dave ‘generously’ decides to develop something hoping to make millions out of it and then whines when people notice that his opportunity to make millions comes because there is already a city and functioning government there for him to exploit.
The rich are different from us, they are shameless.
d’d’d’dave ‘generously’ decides to develop something hoping to make millions out of it and then whines when people notice that his opportunity to make millions comes because there is already a city and functioning government there for him to exploit.
The rich are different from us, they are shameless.
I’m not a huge fan of doing that, either, but fortunately tax policy can be set by any number of other priorities.
To me, people who can just barely afford to feed themselves and their family should not see their taxes go up just because you and I have some idealistic notion of “fairness”. People should be wanting to move themselves into a position to pay more taxes, because when they do that, they’re at the point where they’re actually in a position to accumulate wealth. To me, this is pretty much a no-brainer: you’ve made it when you’re paying enough taxes to bitch about it. You’ve REALLY made it when you make so much money that your effective tax rate actually goes down, and you can afford to pay other people to bitch about your taxes for you.
We could talk about punitive levels of taxation, but even if Obama bumps up the upper-bracket rate by 5%, we’re not even close to punitive. And as has been shown here once or a dozen times, the folks in the upper brackets are paying less taxes, percentage-wise, than you and I are.
Which is why I’m for making all income look pretty much the same as any other income, as far as the IRS is concerned. So: let’s not have one rate that applies to all investment income, let’s just treat investment income as income, subject to the same rules as any other income. That’s not going to generate an enormous increase in revenue, but it will tend to put equity back in the tax code.
And, sure, you can uncap social security. I’d seen a lot of discussion several years back to the effect that removing the income cap would be a neutral effect to SS, because you pays back out what you takes in, but Phil has pointed out (elsewhere) that some respected economists think it’d actually help SS. I’m now at the point where I’d have to see the figures to believe any claim at all about the net benefits/detriments to SS by taking the cap off, but doing so would tend to restore equity, so I have no objections.
Just think of it as your tithe, if that helps.
Now, as I said, publius and I disagree on the surface of the inequality question. I absolutely reject any notion of reparations, fixing past inequities, etc at my own personal expense. But, here’s the thing: you absolutely don’t want to enact tax policy that penalizes the poor disproportionately, and in a great many ways we’re doing that. Let’s fix that, and see what happens to income inequality. I’d guess the effect would be anything but sudden, and even in the long term, rather undramatic. But as I said, I’m ok with that. If the poor folks can use that to lever themselves above the bare-subsistence level, win.
I’m not a huge fan of doing that, either, but fortunately tax policy can be set by any number of other priorities.
To me, people who can just barely afford to feed themselves and their family should not see their taxes go up just because you and I have some idealistic notion of “fairness”. People should be wanting to move themselves into a position to pay more taxes, because when they do that, they’re at the point where they’re actually in a position to accumulate wealth. To me, this is pretty much a no-brainer: you’ve made it when you’re paying enough taxes to bitch about it. You’ve REALLY made it when you make so much money that your effective tax rate actually goes down, and you can afford to pay other people to bitch about your taxes for you.
We could talk about punitive levels of taxation, but even if Obama bumps up the upper-bracket rate by 5%, we’re not even close to punitive. And as has been shown here once or a dozen times, the folks in the upper brackets are paying less taxes, percentage-wise, than you and I are.
Which is why I’m for making all income look pretty much the same as any other income, as far as the IRS is concerned. So: let’s not have one rate that applies to all investment income, let’s just treat investment income as income, subject to the same rules as any other income. That’s not going to generate an enormous increase in revenue, but it will tend to put equity back in the tax code.
And, sure, you can uncap social security. I’d seen a lot of discussion several years back to the effect that removing the income cap would be a neutral effect to SS, because you pays back out what you takes in, but Phil has pointed out (elsewhere) that some respected economists think it’d actually help SS. I’m now at the point where I’d have to see the figures to believe any claim at all about the net benefits/detriments to SS by taking the cap off, but doing so would tend to restore equity, so I have no objections.
Just think of it as your tithe, if that helps.
Now, as I said, publius and I disagree on the surface of the inequality question. I absolutely reject any notion of reparations, fixing past inequities, etc at my own personal expense. But, here’s the thing: you absolutely don’t want to enact tax policy that penalizes the poor disproportionately, and in a great many ways we’re doing that. Let’s fix that, and see what happens to income inequality. I’d guess the effect would be anything but sudden, and even in the long term, rather undramatic. But as I said, I’m ok with that. If the poor folks can use that to lever themselves above the bare-subsistence level, win.
Ah yes Chad, blame the victims. If we spend all of our policy capital on preventing the undeserving, we will become petty, and mean spirited.
OCSteve: Where does Obama suggest we “eat the rich”? If he doesn’t say that, why do you say that he does? A slight increase in marginal tax rates is not class warfare. It’s a needed adjustment based upon current realities.
Ah yes Chad, blame the victims. If we spend all of our policy capital on preventing the undeserving, we will become petty, and mean spirited.
OCSteve: Where does Obama suggest we “eat the rich”? If he doesn’t say that, why do you say that he does? A slight increase in marginal tax rates is not class warfare. It’s a needed adjustment based upon current realities.
What’s “audacious” about this? It’s been SOP for the Democratic party ever since the ‘progressive’ income tax was invented: Jack up taxes on the minority, so you can convert the majority into net tax beneficiaries, to buy their votes in favor of jacking up taxes on the minority.
It’s about as “audacious” as clunking somebody over the head with a rock, and going through their pockets. About as original, too.
What’s “audacious” about this? It’s been SOP for the Democratic party ever since the ‘progressive’ income tax was invented: Jack up taxes on the minority, so you can convert the majority into net tax beneficiaries, to buy their votes in favor of jacking up taxes on the minority.
It’s about as “audacious” as clunking somebody over the head with a rock, and going through their pockets. About as original, too.
slarti for president.
oh, wait, we just got a new president…
slarti for secretary of the treasury. whoever sets tax policy.
slarti for president.
oh, wait, we just got a new president…
slarti for secretary of the treasury. whoever sets tax policy.
whoever sets tax policy.
Hmmm, thinking back to my Schoolhouse Rock days, it occurs to me that this is actually “Congress”.
Not a one-man job.
Thanks anyway for a good post, slarti.
Jack up taxes on the minority, so you can convert the majority into net tax beneficiaries, to buy their votes in favor of jacking up taxes on the minority.
Another nefarious plot revealed!
No flies on you, Brett.
whoever sets tax policy.
Hmmm, thinking back to my Schoolhouse Rock days, it occurs to me that this is actually “Congress”.
Not a one-man job.
Thanks anyway for a good post, slarti.
Jack up taxes on the minority, so you can convert the majority into net tax beneficiaries, to buy their votes in favor of jacking up taxes on the minority.
Another nefarious plot revealed!
No flies on you, Brett.
D’d’Dave – We could always roll back the tax code about 50-80 years, to when all income over $250,000/year was taxed at 95%(to be clear, the income up to that point was taxed much lower).
You are approaching this as if the current tax rates have always been this way. The tax rates on the upper-most income brackets have definitely decreased from that high rate.
D’d’Dave – We could always roll back the tax code about 50-80 years, to when all income over $250,000/year was taxed at 95%(to be clear, the income up to that point was taxed much lower).
You are approaching this as if the current tax rates have always been this way. The tax rates on the upper-most income brackets have definitely decreased from that high rate.
//There are developers who specialize in low-income product; I’ve even represented a few in the Inland Empire. It’s a tremendously complicated business involving redevelopment agencies, federal funding, tax credits and the like.
I’ve also read that you, 4dave, develop mobile home parks. That’s a whole separate business with its own complex set of rules.
I have a sneaking suspicion that there’s a lot more going on here than you’ve let on.//
I don’t develop mobile home parks. I bought a 25 acre mobile home park in the heart of my town. I paid everyone to go away. Now I am redeveloping it. Closing a mobile home park – now there is a complicated matter.
People who specialize in affordable product are generally not-for-profit companies who have no equity. They must apply to every agency under the sun to scratch together enough to make a go of each project. [The hidden secret is that their projects cost 35% more per unit to build because they churn away alot of money during the complicated fund raising process.]
There are advantages to putting affordable units in a project. In California measure 1818 and SB 435 provide all kinds of shortcuts for getting a project through the approval process in a hurry. With 20% VLI you can also fund a project with multi-family revenue bonds. The interest rates on credit enhanced daily low floaters is currently below 1%.
Inland empire? I broke ground last month on a senior facility in Palm Desert about a block from the Eisenhower hospital. Check it out. I did one in Chino Hills maybe six years ago and Murrieta about 10 years ago.
[Yes, Tony P, I’ve done the ‘build out of town’ thing. I don’t like it, but I’ve done it. I haven’t had to travel much myself in recent years. My guys do it.)
//There are developers who specialize in low-income product; I’ve even represented a few in the Inland Empire. It’s a tremendously complicated business involving redevelopment agencies, federal funding, tax credits and the like.
I’ve also read that you, 4dave, develop mobile home parks. That’s a whole separate business with its own complex set of rules.
I have a sneaking suspicion that there’s a lot more going on here than you’ve let on.//
I don’t develop mobile home parks. I bought a 25 acre mobile home park in the heart of my town. I paid everyone to go away. Now I am redeveloping it. Closing a mobile home park – now there is a complicated matter.
People who specialize in affordable product are generally not-for-profit companies who have no equity. They must apply to every agency under the sun to scratch together enough to make a go of each project. [The hidden secret is that their projects cost 35% more per unit to build because they churn away alot of money during the complicated fund raising process.]
There are advantages to putting affordable units in a project. In California measure 1818 and SB 435 provide all kinds of shortcuts for getting a project through the approval process in a hurry. With 20% VLI you can also fund a project with multi-family revenue bonds. The interest rates on credit enhanced daily low floaters is currently below 1%.
Inland empire? I broke ground last month on a senior facility in Palm Desert about a block from the Eisenhower hospital. Check it out. I did one in Chino Hills maybe six years ago and Murrieta about 10 years ago.
[Yes, Tony P, I’ve done the ‘build out of town’ thing. I don’t like it, but I’ve done it. I haven’t had to travel much myself in recent years. My guys do it.)
Second russell’s comment. Slarti, I doubt I have ever agreed more with something you have written.
Regarding 4dDave, I think we should look at his statements at face value, for at least the time being.
Number one, he claims he is building all this stuff. Wrong, people he has hired are doing this. It may seem trivial, but it really isn’t. People talk about us wanting to take money away from the wealthy (even though it is a relative small amount), money they have earned.
The problem is how one defines “earned.” There is merit in doing all the things 4dDave talks about doing, and it should not be diminshed. But when anyone talks about how much she or he has earned, when most of the money is actually created through the work of others, there can be a disconnect.
4dDave talks about wage depression being in large part due to lower wages overseas. Yet at the same time, US corporations, up until the last 18 months or so, were reporting significant increases in profits, yet individual earnings (except for the top 2%) were stagnant or actually decreasing.
It is not, therefore, as if companies could not afford to increase wages, they just chose not to. And by keeping individual earnings stagnant they decreased, in a way, spending which impacted the economy. They also contributed (I am not saying caused) some of the problems with people being unable to afford mortgage payments.
And to go back to russell’s point above, much of the income “earned” by the wealthy is through capital gains, which is taxed at absurdly low levels and for which the “earner” has done little or nothing to agin said income.
Second russell’s comment. Slarti, I doubt I have ever agreed more with something you have written.
Regarding 4dDave, I think we should look at his statements at face value, for at least the time being.
Number one, he claims he is building all this stuff. Wrong, people he has hired are doing this. It may seem trivial, but it really isn’t. People talk about us wanting to take money away from the wealthy (even though it is a relative small amount), money they have earned.
The problem is how one defines “earned.” There is merit in doing all the things 4dDave talks about doing, and it should not be diminshed. But when anyone talks about how much she or he has earned, when most of the money is actually created through the work of others, there can be a disconnect.
4dDave talks about wage depression being in large part due to lower wages overseas. Yet at the same time, US corporations, up until the last 18 months or so, were reporting significant increases in profits, yet individual earnings (except for the top 2%) were stagnant or actually decreasing.
It is not, therefore, as if companies could not afford to increase wages, they just chose not to. And by keeping individual earnings stagnant they decreased, in a way, spending which impacted the economy. They also contributed (I am not saying caused) some of the problems with people being unable to afford mortgage payments.
And to go back to russell’s point above, much of the income “earned” by the wealthy is through capital gains, which is taxed at absurdly low levels and for which the “earner” has done little or nothing to agin said income.
You want audacious?
Bailout
$750 billion more for banks? Kind of makes $690 billion over ten years for health care look like chicken feed.
I think that concern for rich people is unwarranted. They’re going to be very well taken care of, even by Obama and his crew.
You want audacious?
Bailout
$750 billion more for banks? Kind of makes $690 billion over ten years for health care look like chicken feed.
I think that concern for rich people is unwarranted. They’re going to be very well taken care of, even by Obama and his crew.
Yes, I was rude to Hilzoy. She has always been the model of decency and respectful discourse.
Hilzoy, I apologize. I was over the top and inaccurate.
Yes, I was rude to Hilzoy. She has always been the model of decency and respectful discourse.
Hilzoy, I apologize. I was over the top and inaccurate.
What we don’t know, Nathan, is what effective tax rates people actually paid back then. Before the computer age, it was probably a lot easier to hide money, particularly before Uncle Sam started putting a hawk eye on cash transactions above a certain amount.
I’d actually be fine with just collecting more tax from those folks in the upper fractional-percentile, before upping their upper-bracket rate. The more of your income you make from investment income, the more the upper-bracket rate doesn’t affect you at all.
Unfortunately, fiddling with the upper-bracket rate is much easier than revamping the tax code, and so is probably going to happen first. And once that happens, the tax code will probably continue to accrue badness like a coral reef accumulates new polyps.
I’d also be perfectly ok with throwing out or modifiying things like child tax credits and the like. We just broke into the upper couple of perctentiles of household income over the last five years or so (completely due to the fact that we both work), and as nice as that kind of thing is, we simply don’t need it.
Pare down the tax code. Make it simpler. Make it more equitable. I think all of these are possible, simultaneously.
What we don’t know, Nathan, is what effective tax rates people actually paid back then. Before the computer age, it was probably a lot easier to hide money, particularly before Uncle Sam started putting a hawk eye on cash transactions above a certain amount.
I’d actually be fine with just collecting more tax from those folks in the upper fractional-percentile, before upping their upper-bracket rate. The more of your income you make from investment income, the more the upper-bracket rate doesn’t affect you at all.
Unfortunately, fiddling with the upper-bracket rate is much easier than revamping the tax code, and so is probably going to happen first. And once that happens, the tax code will probably continue to accrue badness like a coral reef accumulates new polyps.
I’d also be perfectly ok with throwing out or modifiying things like child tax credits and the like. We just broke into the upper couple of perctentiles of household income over the last five years or so (completely due to the fact that we both work), and as nice as that kind of thing is, we simply don’t need it.
Pare down the tax code. Make it simpler. Make it more equitable. I think all of these are possible, simultaneously.
oyster tea
//OCSteve: Where does Obama suggest we “eat the rich”? If he doesn’t say that, why do you say that he does?//
OCSteve was responding to me and quoting me.
oyster tea
//OCSteve: Where does Obama suggest we “eat the rich”? If he doesn’t say that, why do you say that he does?//
OCSteve was responding to me and quoting me.
Dave, you still haven’t explained how returning to the tax rates of the Clinton era is an intolerable burden that will prevent you from doing the good you do and that is comparable to eating the rich or subjecting them to a holocaust.
And as others have said, you’re not building all these homes by yourself, and if you’d been born in Somalia you wouldn’t be in anything like your current position, despite your sterling personal qualities. We’re living in a society here!
Dave, you still haven’t explained how returning to the tax rates of the Clinton era is an intolerable burden that will prevent you from doing the good you do and that is comparable to eating the rich or subjecting them to a holocaust.
And as others have said, you’re not building all these homes by yourself, and if you’d been born in Somalia you wouldn’t be in anything like your current position, despite your sterling personal qualities. We’re living in a society here!
Thanks for the kind words, russell and John. I’m just kind of working things out.
Thanks for the kind words, russell and John. I’m just kind of working things out.
I bought a 25 acre mobile home park in the heart of my town. I paid everyone to go away. Now I am redeveloping it. Closing a mobile home park – now there is a complicated matter.
More at Slacktivist: class warfare
I bought a 25 acre mobile home park in the heart of my town. I paid everyone to go away. Now I am redeveloping it. Closing a mobile home park – now there is a complicated matter.
More at Slacktivist: class warfare
Ditto, if he’d been born a zebra. But neither thing happened, so we’re kind of relegated to arguing the actual topic at hand.
Ditto, if he’d been born a zebra. But neither thing happened, so we’re kind of relegated to arguing the actual topic at hand.
Since the debate has begun, I’d like to repeat the call to take medical insurance off the human resources desk.
I don’t much care how, but its currently a lose lose system for employer and employee.
They just don’t belong anywhere near our health records.
Since the debate has begun, I’d like to repeat the call to take medical insurance off the human resources desk.
I don’t much care how, but its currently a lose lose system for employer and employee.
They just don’t belong anywhere near our health records.
Where does Obama suggest we “eat the rich”? If he doesn’t say that, why do you say that he does? A slight increase in marginal tax rates is not class warfare.
I was quoting Dave, but everything Obama has proposed is based on taxing the wealthy to pay for it, letting the rest of us off the hook. He has personally been demonizing CEOs, not just lately, but all through the campaign (how many times did he use the line about the country having a moral deficit because CEOs make more in X time then some workers make in X time). Main Street vs. Wall Street, “shameful” bonuses, etc. Of course that is class warfare (IMO anyway).
It’s a little easier for the country to swallow the massive deficit when you assure them that only “the rich” will have to take a hit to pay for it.
I don’t make anywhere near $250k and I just said up thread I’m willing to pay more in taxes to fund healthcare. 5% would be a little rough right now, but 2-3%? Call it a health-care tax and assure me it’s going to fund healthcare and not some boondoggle and I won’t even gripe about it (much).
Where does Obama suggest we “eat the rich”? If he doesn’t say that, why do you say that he does? A slight increase in marginal tax rates is not class warfare.
I was quoting Dave, but everything Obama has proposed is based on taxing the wealthy to pay for it, letting the rest of us off the hook. He has personally been demonizing CEOs, not just lately, but all through the campaign (how many times did he use the line about the country having a moral deficit because CEOs make more in X time then some workers make in X time). Main Street vs. Wall Street, “shameful” bonuses, etc. Of course that is class warfare (IMO anyway).
It’s a little easier for the country to swallow the massive deficit when you assure them that only “the rich” will have to take a hit to pay for it.
I don’t make anywhere near $250k and I just said up thread I’m willing to pay more in taxes to fund healthcare. 5% would be a little rough right now, but 2-3%? Call it a health-care tax and assure me it’s going to fund healthcare and not some boondoggle and I won’t even gripe about it (much).
Yah. I would think that this would be QUITE relevant to the discussion, doncha think?
Yah. I would think that this would be QUITE relevant to the discussion, doncha think?
Ditto, if he’d been born a zebra. But neither thing happened, so we’re kind of relegated to arguing the actual topic at hand.
There was nothing “off topic” about that comment. The point is that what any of us are able to earn depends a great deal on the social and economic environments in which we exist and those environments are constructed and funded by the wealth and efforts of lots and lots of other people.
Ditto, if he’d been born a zebra. But neither thing happened, so we’re kind of relegated to arguing the actual topic at hand.
There was nothing “off topic” about that comment. The point is that what any of us are able to earn depends a great deal on the social and economic environments in which we exist and those environments are constructed and funded by the wealth and efforts of lots and lots of other people.
Fwiw: the only reason I brought up my background is that it seems like a data point that’s relevant to the question: what motivates people who support Obama? Is it hatred of the rich? In my case, no.
I’ve never seen the point of wanting rich people to have less, per se. I’ve always wished that everyone else could have had, for instance, the wonderful education I had, not that I didn’t have it.
On the other hand, someone needs to be taxed. And we’ve been giving huge tax breaks to the wealthiest people in our country for a long time. I think this is bad for the country — we need a prosperous middle class, and something resembling equality of opportunity — but also baffling on grounds of fairness.
Fwiw: the only reason I brought up my background is that it seems like a data point that’s relevant to the question: what motivates people who support Obama? Is it hatred of the rich? In my case, no.
I’ve never seen the point of wanting rich people to have less, per se. I’ve always wished that everyone else could have had, for instance, the wonderful education I had, not that I didn’t have it.
On the other hand, someone needs to be taxed. And we’ve been giving huge tax breaks to the wealthiest people in our country for a long time. I think this is bad for the country — we need a prosperous middle class, and something resembling equality of opportunity — but also baffling on grounds of fairness.
Jes
I agree with your first ‘fred clark’ link. I think that is the way to go. In fact it did happen with another mobile home park in my community. The interesting thing about it is that it almost didn’t happen because almost half of the residents resisted. The financing and repair needs was going to cause a relatively small bump in rent for them so they resisted.
Jes
I agree with your first ‘fred clark’ link. I think that is the way to go. In fact it did happen with another mobile home park in my community. The interesting thing about it is that it almost didn’t happen because almost half of the residents resisted. The financing and repair needs was going to cause a relatively small bump in rent for them so they resisted.
The only problem with the ‘war on wealth’ is that ‘the rich’ aren’t actually rich enough to pay for all of the spending. Once the disparity between rhetoric and accounting start to become apparent, the definition of who constitute ‘the rich’ will undergo revision.
Right now, the party line is that couples making more than $250,000 should pay more taxes. Last year, Joe Biden said it was $150,000. I’d be willing to bet that Ramblin’ Joe Biden wasn’t just talking out of his ear. After the 2010 election cycle, I think you will hear $125,000 return as the doubleplusgood definition of ‘the rich’.
If $125,000 becomes the new $250,000, I think you can also expect a heated Presidential battle in 2012, as moderates and Independents begin to balk at the increasing costs of implementing all of the Progressives’ plans.
The only problem with the ‘war on wealth’ is that ‘the rich’ aren’t actually rich enough to pay for all of the spending. Once the disparity between rhetoric and accounting start to become apparent, the definition of who constitute ‘the rich’ will undergo revision.
Right now, the party line is that couples making more than $250,000 should pay more taxes. Last year, Joe Biden said it was $150,000. I’d be willing to bet that Ramblin’ Joe Biden wasn’t just talking out of his ear. After the 2010 election cycle, I think you will hear $125,000 return as the doubleplusgood definition of ‘the rich’.
If $125,000 becomes the new $250,000, I think you can also expect a heated Presidential battle in 2012, as moderates and Independents begin to balk at the increasing costs of implementing all of the Progressives’ plans.
This entire discussion is really problematic. Why do we give the time of day to people who still, childishly, insist that taxes are an illegitimate form of popular action (“eat the rich”, force the rich to pay for the rest of us, creating interest groups where none existed before?) and, further, that a return to historical levels of progressive taxation would be identical to the utter destruction of the wealthiest classes? Its absurd. Obviously, based on historical precedent, much higher rates of taxation on the wealthiest portion of society didn’t harm their standard of living at all then, and wouldn’t now. Nor did it prevent them from earning more money, or spending their money freely, or spending heavily on charity, or inventing anything (to the extent that they did invent anything). The wealthy, like the rest of us, have the choice of fleeing this country if they don’t like the goods, services, and politics their votes buy them. I suggest they do so, if they can, just as they have in the past suggested that people like me leave our country if we don’t like its policies. Tax policy isn’t really unlike other policies, is it? We arrive at it through a democratic process in which the laws fairly apply to everyone *in a certain income bracket.* Don’t want to be in that income bracket? Give your money away, or earn more. Both are equally available options according to the Ayn Randians.
aimai
This entire discussion is really problematic. Why do we give the time of day to people who still, childishly, insist that taxes are an illegitimate form of popular action (“eat the rich”, force the rich to pay for the rest of us, creating interest groups where none existed before?) and, further, that a return to historical levels of progressive taxation would be identical to the utter destruction of the wealthiest classes? Its absurd. Obviously, based on historical precedent, much higher rates of taxation on the wealthiest portion of society didn’t harm their standard of living at all then, and wouldn’t now. Nor did it prevent them from earning more money, or spending their money freely, or spending heavily on charity, or inventing anything (to the extent that they did invent anything). The wealthy, like the rest of us, have the choice of fleeing this country if they don’t like the goods, services, and politics their votes buy them. I suggest they do so, if they can, just as they have in the past suggested that people like me leave our country if we don’t like its policies. Tax policy isn’t really unlike other policies, is it? We arrive at it through a democratic process in which the laws fairly apply to everyone *in a certain income bracket.* Don’t want to be in that income bracket? Give your money away, or earn more. Both are equally available options according to the Ayn Randians.
aimai
IWS – Slippery slope arguments are usually better kept as supporting arguments. They aren’t convincing as primary arguments because they should be preceded by arguments that show what causes the slippage.
So to make a better case, you’d want to start out by supporting the idea that “‘the rich’ aren’t actually rich enough to pay for all of the spending”. Charts and graphs would help. Once you’ve established that, you’ll have a few angles for going after the slippery slope.
IWS – Slippery slope arguments are usually better kept as supporting arguments. They aren’t convincing as primary arguments because they should be preceded by arguments that show what causes the slippage.
So to make a better case, you’d want to start out by supporting the idea that “‘the rich’ aren’t actually rich enough to pay for all of the spending”. Charts and graphs would help. Once you’ve established that, you’ll have a few angles for going after the slippery slope.
The thing is, no one has proposed that the rich pay for all the spending. There are still taxes on everyone else. There are savings from Iraq. There’s cap and trade. Etc., etc.
All anyone is suggesting is an attempt to make the tax system slightly fairer. And yet, oddly, this is supposed to reveal a hidden desire to eat the rich.
Question: if you can read hatred of some class of people off tax policy this easily, should I conclude that Republicans hate the poor, and our children, who will be paying for the Bush tax cuts for ages? Or does it only work for Democrats?
The thing is, no one has proposed that the rich pay for all the spending. There are still taxes on everyone else. There are savings from Iraq. There’s cap and trade. Etc., etc.
All anyone is suggesting is an attempt to make the tax system slightly fairer. And yet, oddly, this is supposed to reveal a hidden desire to eat the rich.
Question: if you can read hatred of some class of people off tax policy this easily, should I conclude that Republicans hate the poor, and our children, who will be paying for the Bush tax cuts for ages? Or does it only work for Democrats?
i am a NH swing voter.
when candidate Obama said “spread the wealth around” to JTP, i assumed Obama meant opportunity. during the non SOTU i felt an unsettling twinge, when i heard that i would receive a tax cut while my boss and friend would be asked to pay for a lot of overdue social changes. later during the speech, i felt relieved when Obama discussed cutting whole programs to help pay as well. i liked that. the reptilian brain is unpredictable, otherwise, what hilzoy said.
back to lurking
listening to J Tillman
i am a NH swing voter.
when candidate Obama said “spread the wealth around” to JTP, i assumed Obama meant opportunity. during the non SOTU i felt an unsettling twinge, when i heard that i would receive a tax cut while my boss and friend would be asked to pay for a lot of overdue social changes. later during the speech, i felt relieved when Obama discussed cutting whole programs to help pay as well. i liked that. the reptilian brain is unpredictable, otherwise, what hilzoy said.
back to lurking
listening to J Tillman
True, but pointless. We are who we are; we couldn’t ever be anything else. Arguing that there’s somehow an alternative to having been anything other than what you have been seems a lot like mental masturbation to me.
Sure, we’d all do well to get the entire context of our lives, but I don’t think it’s crucial to every single conversation that everyone does that. And at some point, it’s useful to grow up and own your own life, and not have to roll credits on the entire history of mankind just to have a conversation about taxes.
True, but pointless. We are who we are; we couldn’t ever be anything else. Arguing that there’s somehow an alternative to having been anything other than what you have been seems a lot like mental masturbation to me.
Sure, we’d all do well to get the entire context of our lives, but I don’t think it’s crucial to every single conversation that everyone does that. And at some point, it’s useful to grow up and own your own life, and not have to roll credits on the entire history of mankind just to have a conversation about taxes.
OCSteve, I’m not sure if you realize it, but this exact, specific sentiment is a fundamentally liberal outlook on the proper role of taxation for government services.
I don’t like taxes myself. I’d love to have that money in my pocket; it’s a nontrivial sum and I could use it. But I accept taxes as the price of civilization, and–more to the point–I’m willing to have a little bit less if that’s the price for everyone in the country to have health care and a proper safety net.
I know you’re hardly a wild-eyed liberal, but I’d like you to spend some time thinking through the logical implications of the line of reasoning that led you to your position on universal health care. See whether and how it applies to other services and safety nets, and the need for them. I’d honestly be surprised if you hadn’t had thoughts along that line before, but I’d be interested to hear where they led you.
OCSteve, I’m not sure if you realize it, but this exact, specific sentiment is a fundamentally liberal outlook on the proper role of taxation for government services.
I don’t like taxes myself. I’d love to have that money in my pocket; it’s a nontrivial sum and I could use it. But I accept taxes as the price of civilization, and–more to the point–I’m willing to have a little bit less if that’s the price for everyone in the country to have health care and a proper safety net.
I know you’re hardly a wild-eyed liberal, but I’d like you to spend some time thinking through the logical implications of the line of reasoning that led you to your position on universal health care. See whether and how it applies to other services and safety nets, and the need for them. I’d honestly be surprised if you hadn’t had thoughts along that line before, but I’d be interested to hear where they led you.
You wouldn’t be the first, if you did that. But for you in particular, we have higher expectations.
You wouldn’t be the first, if you did that. But for you in particular, we have higher expectations.
Jes
Your second link, class warfare, likens the govt to the employer who pays everyone equally and says ‘can’t I do what I want with my own money?’
But as I have pointed out repeatedly the govt doesn’t pay everyone equally with it’s own money. It takes from some and gives to others. It is unequal. e.g: Obama wants 5% to fund a health program for the 95%.
Jesus’ parable in Luke 16:1-13 is more apt. In it a servant realizes he will soon lose his job so he uses his masters money to make friends for himself who might help him when he loses his job.
I’m not against health care for poor people. When this bill passes I will pay my taxes. The thing that I continually rant about is the progressive notion it is ‘fair’. It is NOT fair. It is just what the majority has chosen to do.
Jes
Your second link, class warfare, likens the govt to the employer who pays everyone equally and says ‘can’t I do what I want with my own money?’
But as I have pointed out repeatedly the govt doesn’t pay everyone equally with it’s own money. It takes from some and gives to others. It is unequal. e.g: Obama wants 5% to fund a health program for the 95%.
Jesus’ parable in Luke 16:1-13 is more apt. In it a servant realizes he will soon lose his job so he uses his masters money to make friends for himself who might help him when he loses his job.
I’m not against health care for poor people. When this bill passes I will pay my taxes. The thing that I continually rant about is the progressive notion it is ‘fair’. It is NOT fair. It is just what the majority has chosen to do.
What unsettled you? It sounds like you (and Dave) somehow have the idea that the current set of tax rates was handed down on Mount Sinai and any deviation from it is an outrageous break with tradition and call to class warfare. Where does that come from? What is your basis for saying that 35% is the perfect top tax rate, as opposed to 36% or 39%?
What unsettled you? It sounds like you (and Dave) somehow have the idea that the current set of tax rates was handed down on Mount Sinai and any deviation from it is an outrageous break with tradition and call to class warfare. Where does that come from? What is your basis for saying that 35% is the perfect top tax rate, as opposed to 36% or 39%?
“Unfortunately, fiddling with the upper-bracket rate is much easier than revamping the tax code, and so is probably going to happen first.”
Slarti, I don’t have a link, but I heard on the radio while driving in to work that one of the things Obama is looking at to increase revenue is looking at some of the loopholes regarding deductions and what not, rather than actually raising the taxes.
Since the higher level income people can 1) afford the people who can dig those up and 2) generally have more ways to try to hide their income via deductiosn or exemptions, this would generally hit them the hardest.
At the same time, it might be closer to what you are talking about.
“Unfortunately, fiddling with the upper-bracket rate is much easier than revamping the tax code, and so is probably going to happen first.”
Slarti, I don’t have a link, but I heard on the radio while driving in to work that one of the things Obama is looking at to increase revenue is looking at some of the loopholes regarding deductions and what not, rather than actually raising the taxes.
Since the higher level income people can 1) afford the people who can dig those up and 2) generally have more ways to try to hide their income via deductiosn or exemptions, this would generally hit them the hardest.
At the same time, it might be closer to what you are talking about.
True, but pointless. We are who we are; we couldn’t ever be anything else. Arguing that there’s somehow an alternative to having been anything other than what you have been seems a lot like mental masturbation to me.
Would that include arguing that people could have made choices other than the ones they made?
Maybe you’re right, maybe it’s pointless to talk about such things. We should just say that poverty (i.e., hunger, poor health, low opportunity) is the number one cause of human suffering, and enact whatever policies are necessary to eradicate it.
True, but pointless. We are who we are; we couldn’t ever be anything else. Arguing that there’s somehow an alternative to having been anything other than what you have been seems a lot like mental masturbation to me.
Would that include arguing that people could have made choices other than the ones they made?
Maybe you’re right, maybe it’s pointless to talk about such things. We should just say that poverty (i.e., hunger, poor health, low opportunity) is the number one cause of human suffering, and enact whatever policies are necessary to eradicate it.
what aimai said.
what aimai said.
It is perfectly, totally, false that “Obama wants to take money from five percent to pay for health care for 95 percent.” People in this country who have health insurance are *already paying for their health insurance* through co-pays and through outright costs passed on from their employers. If we, as a country, choose to turn to the government and ask the government to take on the role of collecting our health care co-pays and ask the government to take on the role of the insurer/HMO it has literally nothing to do with the taxation of the rich. We are simply choosing to transfer our business from the free market to a government monopoly on health care. And if we further choose to tax *ourselves* in order to include people who are, for one reason or another, temporarily or permanently unemployed, children, and the elderly who should deny us that right? If we tax the rich as well, why not? Did the rich opt out of having children, the elderly, neighbors, and duties to society? Surely they can vote their consciences–too bad if there aren’t enough of them to block legislation approved by the rest of the citizenry.
I hasten to add that I am, probably, among the “rich.” DH and I live on a paycheck, but my family has money. An estate tax will hit us hard. But that doesn’t mean I don’t think that a serious estate tax is a bad idea. I don’t. Just like I don’t think that building roads, schools, hospitals, national defence etc… are not my problem because they benefit other people and not just me.
Can we please, please, please let the “I’ve got mine jack” fantasists remove themselves to afghanistan or sudan or anywhere else where the low tax/no services nirvana they long for actually exists?
aimai
It is perfectly, totally, false that “Obama wants to take money from five percent to pay for health care for 95 percent.” People in this country who have health insurance are *already paying for their health insurance* through co-pays and through outright costs passed on from their employers. If we, as a country, choose to turn to the government and ask the government to take on the role of collecting our health care co-pays and ask the government to take on the role of the insurer/HMO it has literally nothing to do with the taxation of the rich. We are simply choosing to transfer our business from the free market to a government monopoly on health care. And if we further choose to tax *ourselves* in order to include people who are, for one reason or another, temporarily or permanently unemployed, children, and the elderly who should deny us that right? If we tax the rich as well, why not? Did the rich opt out of having children, the elderly, neighbors, and duties to society? Surely they can vote their consciences–too bad if there aren’t enough of them to block legislation approved by the rest of the citizenry.
I hasten to add that I am, probably, among the “rich.” DH and I live on a paycheck, but my family has money. An estate tax will hit us hard. But that doesn’t mean I don’t think that a serious estate tax is a bad idea. I don’t. Just like I don’t think that building roads, schools, hospitals, national defence etc… are not my problem because they benefit other people and not just me.
Can we please, please, please let the “I’ve got mine jack” fantasists remove themselves to afghanistan or sudan or anywhere else where the low tax/no services nirvana they long for actually exists?
aimai
hilzoy
// oddly, this is supposed to reveal a hidden desire to eat the rich.//
My eat the rich comments were specifically directed at the point Publius made in the post that Obama is purposely isolating the rich for political gains.
You can read the interchange at 1:22a, 1:29a, and 1:41a.
Any quoting of ‘eat the rich’ later in the thread is out of context.
hilzoy
// oddly, this is supposed to reveal a hidden desire to eat the rich.//
My eat the rich comments were specifically directed at the point Publius made in the post that Obama is purposely isolating the rich for political gains.
You can read the interchange at 1:22a, 1:29a, and 1:41a.
Any quoting of ‘eat the rich’ later in the thread is out of context.
The thing that I continually rant about is the progressive notion it is ‘fair’. It is NOT fair.
You’re right, it would be so much fairer if people were continually discriminated against for their entire lives because their parents were badly off.
Each little troll that rants,
Each little pest that whines,
He made their glowing pants,
He made their tiny lines.
The rich man in his castle,
The poor man at his gate,
God made them, high or lowly,
And ordered their estate.
The thing that I continually rant about is the progressive notion it is ‘fair’. It is NOT fair.
You’re right, it would be so much fairer if people were continually discriminated against for their entire lives because their parents were badly off.
Each little troll that rants,
Each little pest that whines,
He made their glowing pants,
He made their tiny lines.
The rich man in his castle,
The poor man at his gate,
God made them, high or lowly,
And ordered their estate.
Any quoting of ‘eat the rich’ later in the thread is out of context.
Yeah, people. Make sure you’re referencing the hyperbolic and sarcastic argument that doesn’t track the facts presented in the post rather than some other argument.
Any quoting of ‘eat the rich’ later in the thread is out of context.
Yeah, people. Make sure you’re referencing the hyperbolic and sarcastic argument that doesn’t track the facts presented in the post rather than some other argument.
I’ve been following this thread with great interest.
Just wanted to say “thanks” to Aimai–that last post was fantastic.
I’ve been following this thread with great interest.
Just wanted to say “thanks” to Aimai–that last post was fantastic.
Jes
//You’re right, it would be so much fairer if people were continually discriminated against for their entire lives because their parents were badly off.//
Non sequitur.
Yes, god made me. And I try to give back abundantly. I believe that because I have done so more or less earnestly, he has blessed me with a bigger pile to give back abundantly. My cup runneth over, so to speak.
God made you. You can give back abundantly. If God had wanted you to give abundantly from my pile he would’ve given my pile to you in the first place. Why are you working so hard to give abundantly from my pile instead of your own? I think you should look unto your own house.
Jes
//You’re right, it would be so much fairer if people were continually discriminated against for their entire lives because their parents were badly off.//
Non sequitur.
Yes, god made me. And I try to give back abundantly. I believe that because I have done so more or less earnestly, he has blessed me with a bigger pile to give back abundantly. My cup runneth over, so to speak.
God made you. You can give back abundantly. If God had wanted you to give abundantly from my pile he would’ve given my pile to you in the first place. Why are you working so hard to give abundantly from my pile instead of your own? I think you should look unto your own house.
He’s not isolating the wealthy althouh he may be driving a stake through the heart of the GOP. I’m what you would call wealthy by the normal metrics but buying health insurance for two healthy early sixty year olds at 2400 bucks a month is not a check I like signing. Before I retired I was running a fairly large business and I’ve been telling people for 20 years that universal healthcare would come at the point that companies couldn’t carry on bearing the costs any longer and had reached the limit in the amount they could push onto their employees. We have reached that tipping point. As to the solution I suspect in the short term it’s going to look very like the MA state scheme which has proved more costly than expected but has been very successful in enrolment so that most people in the state are now covered. The Republicans problem is they don’t have a viable plan that provides universal coverage, eases the burden on business, and provides access at reasonable cost for even those with the dreaded pre existing conditions. McCain’s plan had more holes than swiss cheese and didn’t begin to address the cost of a package for a normal family of four at about $13,000 let alone access and universality, which is why he could never explain it. The other important distinction to be made is between “paying” and “delivering”. Basically delivering is going to remain principally in the private sector while paying is going to be more of a blend of private and public because of the offering of a low cost alternative from Medicare or similar. This is going to happen, it should happen, it’s going make a hell of difference in all sorts of areas from labor mobility to making the drug industry competitive. Ultimately, conservatives will come to terms with it just like they did Social Security, Medicare, Votes for women, and Desegregation.
He’s not isolating the wealthy althouh he may be driving a stake through the heart of the GOP. I’m what you would call wealthy by the normal metrics but buying health insurance for two healthy early sixty year olds at 2400 bucks a month is not a check I like signing. Before I retired I was running a fairly large business and I’ve been telling people for 20 years that universal healthcare would come at the point that companies couldn’t carry on bearing the costs any longer and had reached the limit in the amount they could push onto their employees. We have reached that tipping point. As to the solution I suspect in the short term it’s going to look very like the MA state scheme which has proved more costly than expected but has been very successful in enrolment so that most people in the state are now covered. The Republicans problem is they don’t have a viable plan that provides universal coverage, eases the burden on business, and provides access at reasonable cost for even those with the dreaded pre existing conditions. McCain’s plan had more holes than swiss cheese and didn’t begin to address the cost of a package for a normal family of four at about $13,000 let alone access and universality, which is why he could never explain it. The other important distinction to be made is between “paying” and “delivering”. Basically delivering is going to remain principally in the private sector while paying is going to be more of a blend of private and public because of the offering of a low cost alternative from Medicare or similar. This is going to happen, it should happen, it’s going make a hell of difference in all sorts of areas from labor mobility to making the drug industry competitive. Ultimately, conservatives will come to terms with it just like they did Social Security, Medicare, Votes for women, and Desegregation.
//Yeah, people. Make sure you’re referencing the hyperbolic and sarcastic argument that doesn’t track the facts presented in the post rather than some other argument.//
Ha. Exactly.
As if I’m the only hyperbolic one.
//Yeah, people. Make sure you’re referencing the hyperbolic and sarcastic argument that doesn’t track the facts presented in the post rather than some other argument.//
Ha. Exactly.
As if I’m the only hyperbolic one.
Slarti – I don’t think that comment is at all pointless and it’s not about imagining hypotheticals. It’s about showing that all of this personal excellence that results in wealth is not personal excellence in isolation. Talk of personal excellence takes away all of the context for that success. It erases all of the connections with the other people that worked and are working to build that context and minimizes any need to acknowledge anything but personal effort.
It’s a fantasy, and it leads people to undervalue the contributions of a lot of people who are presumed not to be excelling because they aren’t making as much money.
KC is just re-drawing attention to those connections that magically seem to disappear whenever someone tries to link personal virtue and income.
Slarti – I don’t think that comment is at all pointless and it’s not about imagining hypotheticals. It’s about showing that all of this personal excellence that results in wealth is not personal excellence in isolation. Talk of personal excellence takes away all of the context for that success. It erases all of the connections with the other people that worked and are working to build that context and minimizes any need to acknowledge anything but personal effort.
It’s a fantasy, and it leads people to undervalue the contributions of a lot of people who are presumed not to be excelling because they aren’t making as much money.
KC is just re-drawing attention to those connections that magically seem to disappear whenever someone tries to link personal virtue and income.
Why is anyone still engaging DDD?
I thought LJ pointed out some fairly damning evidence early on that not only is he not engaging us in good faith, but that his personal stories are fabricated. It occurs to me that DNFTT applies here.
Why is anyone still engaging DDD?
I thought LJ pointed out some fairly damning evidence early on that not only is he not engaging us in good faith, but that his personal stories are fabricated. It occurs to me that DNFTT applies here.
KC
Where does that come from?
where indeed? that was my point of sorts, that voter gut reactions are often unknowable to themselves. i thought i caught a whiff of gamesmanship, and so apparently did publius.
What is your basis for saying …
none, i have no basis, and furthermore i never made an argument about what rates should be at all… i am merely reminding the conversation that there exist those voters like me, under informed, undereducated and unaffiliated, and like it or not, we decide elections.
KC
Where does that come from?
where indeed? that was my point of sorts, that voter gut reactions are often unknowable to themselves. i thought i caught a whiff of gamesmanship, and so apparently did publius.
What is your basis for saying …
none, i have no basis, and furthermore i never made an argument about what rates should be at all… i am merely reminding the conversation that there exist those voters like me, under informed, undereducated and unaffiliated, and like it or not, we decide elections.
True, but pointless. We are who we are; we couldn’t ever be anything else. Arguing that there’s somehow an alternative to having been anything other than what you have been seems a lot like mental masturbation to me.
No I would say that your point is far less useful then the point john miller raised. When someone talks about what they earn in a way that seems to ignore the conditions that helped to create that wealth it is not “mental masturbation” to point that out. It is a simple hypothetical that points out that the issue of wealth is a complex one. Unless you are prepared to argue that all hypothetical scenarios are off topic then your point that “we are who we are” is entirely meaningless in the context of this conversation.
True, but pointless. We are who we are; we couldn’t ever be anything else. Arguing that there’s somehow an alternative to having been anything other than what you have been seems a lot like mental masturbation to me.
No I would say that your point is far less useful then the point john miller raised. When someone talks about what they earn in a way that seems to ignore the conditions that helped to create that wealth it is not “mental masturbation” to point that out. It is a simple hypothetical that points out that the issue of wealth is a complex one. Unless you are prepared to argue that all hypothetical scenarios are off topic then your point that “we are who we are” is entirely meaningless in the context of this conversation.
No I would say that your point is far less useful then the point john miller raised.
Sorry. I meant the point that KcinDC raised.
No I would say that your point is far less useful then the point john miller raised.
Sorry. I meant the point that KcinDC raised.
If God had wanted you to give abundantly from my pile he would’ve given my pile to you in the first place.
Oh . . . nonsense!
You did not earn your pile by your efforts alone. If you had been born a Nigerien goatherder, would you have that pile today? I think not.
As for God, look at that image on the dollar bill. It’s Washington, right? Therefore, render unto God what is God’s, and render unto Washington what is Washington’s.
If God had wanted you to give abundantly from my pile he would’ve given my pile to you in the first place.
Oh . . . nonsense!
You did not earn your pile by your efforts alone. If you had been born a Nigerien goatherder, would you have that pile today? I think not.
As for God, look at that image on the dollar bill. It’s Washington, right? Therefore, render unto God what is God’s, and render unto Washington what is Washington’s.
//Why is anyone still engaging DDD?
I thought LJ pointed out some fairly damning evidence early on that not only is he not engaging us in good faith, but that his personal stories are fabricated. It occurs to me that DNFTT applies here.//
Hmmmm? Has anyone ever responded to Catsy? DNFTT in action?
//Why is anyone still engaging DDD?
I thought LJ pointed out some fairly damning evidence early on that not only is he not engaging us in good faith, but that his personal stories are fabricated. It occurs to me that DNFTT applies here.//
Hmmmm? Has anyone ever responded to Catsy? DNFTT in action?
Couple-three thoughts:
1. Single payer is coming. Businesses are going to demand it. I don’t like it, but there it is, so my view is improve whatever system is proposed.
2. 250k/year is not a lot of money for a family of 4 in a place like Chicago — particularly if you’re self employed and have to pay both sides of the SS tax already.
3. Why are we deciding who is “rich” based on income? Folks who earn a lot of income tend to be folks who worked hard to get where they are and are continuing to work hard …. your doctors, lawyers, and somesuch. Shouldn’t soak-the-rich ire be reserved for folks who have substantial assets and don’t work?
By the way, I’m not suggesting that going after assets would be a sound tax strategy, only that assets are a better measure of wealth than income.
Couple-three thoughts:
1. Single payer is coming. Businesses are going to demand it. I don’t like it, but there it is, so my view is improve whatever system is proposed.
2. 250k/year is not a lot of money for a family of 4 in a place like Chicago — particularly if you’re self employed and have to pay both sides of the SS tax already.
3. Why are we deciding who is “rich” based on income? Folks who earn a lot of income tend to be folks who worked hard to get where they are and are continuing to work hard …. your doctors, lawyers, and somesuch. Shouldn’t soak-the-rich ire be reserved for folks who have substantial assets and don’t work?
By the way, I’m not suggesting that going after assets would be a sound tax strategy, only that assets are a better measure of wealth than income.
I’m not against health care for poor people. When this bill passes I will pay my taxes. The thing that I continually rant about is the progressive notion it is ‘fair’. It is NOT fair. It is just what the majority has chosen to do.
d’d’d’dave,
I can’t speak for all progressives, but to me the rationale behind the fairness of progressive taxation (as distinct from its utility for other reasons such as stabilizing the body politic so as to avoid public upheaval and violence, e.g. the French and Russian Revolutions) comes from looking at money as a means to an end, which is to purchase the goods and services which enhance people’s lives and provide them with the opportunity to experience happiness (or avoid misery).
Measured using this frame (an instrumental view of money), what is the marginal utility of income? Does it vary depending on how much you already have? It seems intuitively obvious to me that very broadly speaking the marginal utility of income decreases as one climbs the income curve, as subsistence needs (which tend to be rather urgent in nature) are displaced by consumption for the purposes of social competition.
This is blatantly obvious at the extreme ends of the income curve. For a person who is destitute, a 20 percent decrease in income may be the difference between life and death. For a billionaire, it has little effect on their personal consumption and is mostly a number on a spreadsheet, the loss of bragging rights vs. other billionaires, and a smaller inheritance to be passed on to heirs and/or a smaller philanthropic legacy. In my value system one of those things is conspicuously more painful and distressing than the other, and I’m guessing that we can agree on that point.
I think that perhaps where this consensus breaks down is over the issue of what the marginal utility of income is for the upper middle class (which is where IMHO most of the political fighting over progressive taxation comes from – you just don’t hear too many complaints coming from the likes of Warren Buffett and George Soros).
Do you have opinions one way or the other on this? Is there a reason why the loss of 200k to a person making 1 million per year is more or less distressing than the loss of 20k to a person making 100k per year? Is there a reason why marginal utility would decline with increasing income at the extremes but not in the middle? I ask because it seems to me that arguments for or against the fairness of progressive taxation hinge on this issue.
I’m not against health care for poor people. When this bill passes I will pay my taxes. The thing that I continually rant about is the progressive notion it is ‘fair’. It is NOT fair. It is just what the majority has chosen to do.
d’d’d’dave,
I can’t speak for all progressives, but to me the rationale behind the fairness of progressive taxation (as distinct from its utility for other reasons such as stabilizing the body politic so as to avoid public upheaval and violence, e.g. the French and Russian Revolutions) comes from looking at money as a means to an end, which is to purchase the goods and services which enhance people’s lives and provide them with the opportunity to experience happiness (or avoid misery).
Measured using this frame (an instrumental view of money), what is the marginal utility of income? Does it vary depending on how much you already have? It seems intuitively obvious to me that very broadly speaking the marginal utility of income decreases as one climbs the income curve, as subsistence needs (which tend to be rather urgent in nature) are displaced by consumption for the purposes of social competition.
This is blatantly obvious at the extreme ends of the income curve. For a person who is destitute, a 20 percent decrease in income may be the difference between life and death. For a billionaire, it has little effect on their personal consumption and is mostly a number on a spreadsheet, the loss of bragging rights vs. other billionaires, and a smaller inheritance to be passed on to heirs and/or a smaller philanthropic legacy. In my value system one of those things is conspicuously more painful and distressing than the other, and I’m guessing that we can agree on that point.
I think that perhaps where this consensus breaks down is over the issue of what the marginal utility of income is for the upper middle class (which is where IMHO most of the political fighting over progressive taxation comes from – you just don’t hear too many complaints coming from the likes of Warren Buffett and George Soros).
Do you have opinions one way or the other on this? Is there a reason why the loss of 200k to a person making 1 million per year is more or less distressing than the loss of 20k to a person making 100k per year? Is there a reason why marginal utility would decline with increasing income at the extremes but not in the middle? I ask because it seems to me that arguments for or against the fairness of progressive taxation hinge on this issue.
Good point. That’s why it’s ridiculous that capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than income gained through work.
Good point. That’s why it’s ridiculous that capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than income gained through work.
“IWS – Slippery slope arguments are usually better kept as supporting arguments. They aren’t convincing as primary arguments because they should be preceded by arguments that show what causes the slippage.
So to make a better case, you’d want to start out by supporting the idea that “‘the rich’ aren’t actually rich enough to pay for all of the spending”. Charts and graphs would help. Once you’ve established that, you’ll have a few angles for going after the slippery slope.”
According IRS records for 2006 (the most recent year for which they have published records), tax filers making above $200,000 in the United States paid $522,050,059,000 in Federal Income taxes. That is approximately 62.35% of all Federal Income taxes paid. An increase of 4.6% (from 35% marginal rate to 39.6%) would generate an additional $24,014,302,714.
Additional tax increase is being implemented by reducing, by approximately 20%, allowable deductions. In 2006, the total taxable income for the $200,000+ group of tax payers was $2,055,711,912,000. If you allow that the full 20% reduction were to apply, that would only increase taxable income by roughly $411 billion. That extra $411 billion would result in an extra $162.8 billion dollars of tax revenues, assuming that the full marginal tax rate of 39.6% applies to it.
So, even by lowering the tax threshold to $200,000, the increased annual taxes would only be $186 billion. The President is promising hundreds of billions in new spending AND cutting the budget deficit by half. You cannot simultaneously spend more AND cut the budget deficit WITHOUT increasing taxes. The tax increase proposals on ‘the rich’ (as ‘the rich’ are currently defined) simply won’t generate the necessary revenues to meet those promises.
I hope is able to do everything he is promising, but the numbers don’t appear to add up.
As to the assertion that “All anyone is suggesting is an attempt to make the tax system slightly fairer”, all I can say is that in 2006, there were 3,853,795 tax returns filed in the $200,000+ tax groups. That is approximately 9% of all taxable returns. That same 9% of filers paid 62.35% of all income taxes in 2006. I’m afraid I don’t understand what definition of “fair” is being used. Perhaps someone could point me in the direction the dictionary from which that definition is being pulled.
“IWS – Slippery slope arguments are usually better kept as supporting arguments. They aren’t convincing as primary arguments because they should be preceded by arguments that show what causes the slippage.
So to make a better case, you’d want to start out by supporting the idea that “‘the rich’ aren’t actually rich enough to pay for all of the spending”. Charts and graphs would help. Once you’ve established that, you’ll have a few angles for going after the slippery slope.”
According IRS records for 2006 (the most recent year for which they have published records), tax filers making above $200,000 in the United States paid $522,050,059,000 in Federal Income taxes. That is approximately 62.35% of all Federal Income taxes paid. An increase of 4.6% (from 35% marginal rate to 39.6%) would generate an additional $24,014,302,714.
Additional tax increase is being implemented by reducing, by approximately 20%, allowable deductions. In 2006, the total taxable income for the $200,000+ group of tax payers was $2,055,711,912,000. If you allow that the full 20% reduction were to apply, that would only increase taxable income by roughly $411 billion. That extra $411 billion would result in an extra $162.8 billion dollars of tax revenues, assuming that the full marginal tax rate of 39.6% applies to it.
So, even by lowering the tax threshold to $200,000, the increased annual taxes would only be $186 billion. The President is promising hundreds of billions in new spending AND cutting the budget deficit by half. You cannot simultaneously spend more AND cut the budget deficit WITHOUT increasing taxes. The tax increase proposals on ‘the rich’ (as ‘the rich’ are currently defined) simply won’t generate the necessary revenues to meet those promises.
I hope is able to do everything he is promising, but the numbers don’t appear to add up.
As to the assertion that “All anyone is suggesting is an attempt to make the tax system slightly fairer”, all I can say is that in 2006, there were 3,853,795 tax returns filed in the $200,000+ tax groups. That is approximately 9% of all taxable returns. That same 9% of filers paid 62.35% of all income taxes in 2006. I’m afraid I don’t understand what definition of “fair” is being used. Perhaps someone could point me in the direction the dictionary from which that definition is being pulled.
250k/year is not a lot of money for a family of 4 in a place like Chicago — particularly if you’re self employed and have to pay both sides of the SS tax already.
Its all relative of course, but 250k is an awful lot more than most people earn in Chicago or anywhere else. If the point is that even a small tax hike will not necessarily be painless for such a family then I think that is certainly a reasonable point. But I am quite sure that 250k is several multiple times larger than the median household income in Chicago. By most definitions of “a lot of money,” that would certainly count.
250k/year is not a lot of money for a family of 4 in a place like Chicago — particularly if you’re self employed and have to pay both sides of the SS tax already.
Its all relative of course, but 250k is an awful lot more than most people earn in Chicago or anywhere else. If the point is that even a small tax hike will not necessarily be painless for such a family then I think that is certainly a reasonable point. But I am quite sure that 250k is several multiple times larger than the median household income in Chicago. By most definitions of “a lot of money,” that would certainly count.
“Measured using this frame (an instrumental view of money), what is the marginal utility of income?”
IOW, it assumes that the correct theory of morality is utilitarianism, and act utilitarianism at that. And in so doing, rules out any serious consideration of “rights” as constraints on action.
Just once, I’d like to see some recognition by liberals that act utilitarianism being the one, true theory of morality is NOT a given.
“Measured using this frame (an instrumental view of money), what is the marginal utility of income?”
IOW, it assumes that the correct theory of morality is utilitarianism, and act utilitarianism at that. And in so doing, rules out any serious consideration of “rights” as constraints on action.
Just once, I’d like to see some recognition by liberals that act utilitarianism being the one, true theory of morality is NOT a given.
Those numbers don’t mean much without saying what percentage of all income those filers earned.
Those numbers don’t mean much without saying what percentage of all income those filers earned.
“Just once, I’d like to see some recognition by liberals that act utilitarianism being the one, true theory of morality is NOT a given.”
Wouldn’t the fact that LeftTurn referred to the instrumental view as a “frame” clearly indicate that he/she doesn’t consider that view to be a given?
If that doesn’t seem clear, I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge that act utilitarianism is not a given.
“Just once, I’d like to see some recognition by liberals that act utilitarianism being the one, true theory of morality is NOT a given.”
Wouldn’t the fact that LeftTurn referred to the instrumental view as a “frame” clearly indicate that he/she doesn’t consider that view to be a given?
If that doesn’t seem clear, I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge that act utilitarianism is not a given.
In 2006, the total taxable income for the $200,000+ group of tax payers was $2,055,711,912,000.
Well that would seem to indicate that you could tax that group at 100% – confiscate *all* their income, and it would only account for about 1/5 of our current debt. (10,843,355,058,860.91)
Now that is frightening.
In 2006, the total taxable income for the $200,000+ group of tax payers was $2,055,711,912,000.
Well that would seem to indicate that you could tax that group at 100% – confiscate *all* their income, and it would only account for about 1/5 of our current debt. (10,843,355,058,860.91)
Now that is frightening.
Yes, of course. Who doesn’t get this, please raise your hands. We all have more income and pay more taxes than Nigerian goatherders. We as an entire country have it, nearly to a man, woman and child, better than Nigerian goatherders. Who we have to thank for that, though, are mostly dead people.
Maybe there’s something I don’t get about this argument, if you can even call it an argument, but it doesn’t seem to actually make a point. If the point is that we’re fortunate to be where we are, WHO IS ARGUING COUNTER TO THAT?
I’m not saying that this is something that Must Not Ever Be Mentioned, I’m wondering why it keeps getting brought up as if it were some sort of counterargument. What’s it countering?
Yes, of course. Who doesn’t get this, please raise your hands. We all have more income and pay more taxes than Nigerian goatherders. We as an entire country have it, nearly to a man, woman and child, better than Nigerian goatherders. Who we have to thank for that, though, are mostly dead people.
Maybe there’s something I don’t get about this argument, if you can even call it an argument, but it doesn’t seem to actually make a point. If the point is that we’re fortunate to be where we are, WHO IS ARGUING COUNTER TO THAT?
I’m not saying that this is something that Must Not Ever Be Mentioned, I’m wondering why it keeps getting brought up as if it were some sort of counterargument. What’s it countering?
As usual our friend from ABQ nails the point. If happiness is log(money), then a progressive tax system is a flat tax system.
I wanted to expand on something else:
” … It’s about showing that all of this personal excellence that results in wealth is not personal excellence in isolation…”
Yes. I read Atlas Shrugged a long time back, but only recently did it occur to me – Why is the businessman Atlas? Why isn’t the scientist or engineer Atlas? Why isn’t the blue-collar guy working a 12-hr shift and doing a great job an ‘Atlas’?
I suspect society would grind to a Soviet-like halt if employees in general only did as much as they had to, to avoid getting fired.
I think there are a lot of heroes out there.
As usual our friend from ABQ nails the point. If happiness is log(money), then a progressive tax system is a flat tax system.
I wanted to expand on something else:
” … It’s about showing that all of this personal excellence that results in wealth is not personal excellence in isolation…”
Yes. I read Atlas Shrugged a long time back, but only recently did it occur to me – Why is the businessman Atlas? Why isn’t the scientist or engineer Atlas? Why isn’t the blue-collar guy working a 12-hr shift and doing a great job an ‘Atlas’?
I suspect society would grind to a Soviet-like halt if employees in general only did as much as they had to, to avoid getting fired.
I think there are a lot of heroes out there.
Brett: your word is my command! I’m a Kantian. I think that utilitarianism, act- or otherwise, is wrong. I have thought so ever since my first intro ethics course.
Brett: your word is my command! I’m a Kantian. I think that utilitarianism, act- or otherwise, is wrong. I have thought so ever since my first intro ethics course.
Good thing that confiscating 100 percent of the taxes of those people isn’t in the plan. But too bad that we ran up all that debt under Bush without having any plan at all. The debt exists. And will continue to exist. Until we pay it off, or retire it. Right now the repbublican party has no plans to do so. Not adding to the debt isn’t the same thing as dealing with it responsibly. Not adding to the debt at this particular moment is simply analagous to a robber taking all the money from the house and then turning around and lecturing the homeowner when they have to take a payday loan to cover expenses.
And I agree with david kilmer “I acknwoledge that act utilitarianism is not a given.” In fact, I’m not even interested in it. My morality is independent of utilitarianism. I think we should tax all the citizens in this country according to their ability to pay because its *more moral* to do so. I think citizens who refuse to pay their taxes, or who fradulently and maliciously hide their assets, aren’t citizens and should lose voting rights and residence rights. Because that’s the moral approach.
aimai
Good thing that confiscating 100 percent of the taxes of those people isn’t in the plan. But too bad that we ran up all that debt under Bush without having any plan at all. The debt exists. And will continue to exist. Until we pay it off, or retire it. Right now the repbublican party has no plans to do so. Not adding to the debt isn’t the same thing as dealing with it responsibly. Not adding to the debt at this particular moment is simply analagous to a robber taking all the money from the house and then turning around and lecturing the homeowner when they have to take a payday loan to cover expenses.
And I agree with david kilmer “I acknwoledge that act utilitarianism is not a given.” In fact, I’m not even interested in it. My morality is independent of utilitarianism. I think we should tax all the citizens in this country according to their ability to pay because its *more moral* to do so. I think citizens who refuse to pay their taxes, or who fradulently and maliciously hide their assets, aren’t citizens and should lose voting rights and residence rights. Because that’s the moral approach.
aimai
IWS – I’m not seeing anything in your argument that shows that rich people are unable to pay for the spending. You seem to be supporting the argument that the proposed tax rates won’t cover the spending.
As to the fairness thing, I’d ask this: you stated that 9% of filers payed 62% of income taxes. What percent of the income did those filers make?
IWS – I’m not seeing anything in your argument that shows that rich people are unable to pay for the spending. You seem to be supporting the argument that the proposed tax rates won’t cover the spending.
As to the fairness thing, I’d ask this: you stated that 9% of filers payed 62% of income taxes. What percent of the income did those filers make?
An interesting Government Insurance Factoid:
If you are a part time Army Reserve or National Guard soldier, you can purchase insurance through Tricare. This is a new program about a year or so old. Last year, for a family insurance program, the cost was $255.00 per month.
This year, after figuring out the real cost, the price is 181.00 per month (for a family of any size). I assume that the total cost is much higher, but that the program was funded with a set percentage of subsidy, thus lowering the cost to the soldier after new data.
Tricare is the replacement for CHAMPUS, for any older vets out there.
So, a nice new benefit for soldiers, and perhaps an area to study effectiveness of a wider governmental involvement in healthcare that includes a wider economic demographic than medicare and medicaid.
An interesting Government Insurance Factoid:
If you are a part time Army Reserve or National Guard soldier, you can purchase insurance through Tricare. This is a new program about a year or so old. Last year, for a family insurance program, the cost was $255.00 per month.
This year, after figuring out the real cost, the price is 181.00 per month (for a family of any size). I assume that the total cost is much higher, but that the program was funded with a set percentage of subsidy, thus lowering the cost to the soldier after new data.
Tricare is the replacement for CHAMPUS, for any older vets out there.
So, a nice new benefit for soldiers, and perhaps an area to study effectiveness of a wider governmental involvement in healthcare that includes a wider economic demographic than medicare and medicaid.
IOW, it assumes that the correct theory of morality is utilitarianism, and act utilitarianism at that. And in so doing, rules out any serious consideration of “rights” as constraints on action.
Just once, I’d like to see some recognition by liberals that act utilitarianism being the one, true theory of morality is NOT a given.
Bingo! Progressive tax policy can be construed as “fair” within a particular choice from amongst the variety of moral frameworks available to us. Now we can have a constructive conversation about the merits of competing frameworks, rather than just shouting “fair!”, “not fair!” at each other.
And yes, david kilmer is correct – I used the term “frame” in that sense.
IOW, it assumes that the correct theory of morality is utilitarianism, and act utilitarianism at that. And in so doing, rules out any serious consideration of “rights” as constraints on action.
Just once, I’d like to see some recognition by liberals that act utilitarianism being the one, true theory of morality is NOT a given.
Bingo! Progressive tax policy can be construed as “fair” within a particular choice from amongst the variety of moral frameworks available to us. Now we can have a constructive conversation about the merits of competing frameworks, rather than just shouting “fair!”, “not fair!” at each other.
And yes, david kilmer is correct – I used the term “frame” in that sense.
“That same 9% of filers paid 62.35% of all income taxes in 2006. I’m afraid I don’t understand what definition of “fair” is being used.
Those numbers don’t mean much without saying what percentage of all income those filers earned.”
Good point. That 9% of filers, who paid 62.35% of all income taxes, accounted for approximately 50% of the income. I didn’t mean to suggest that the top 9% should only pay 9% of income taxes – obviously, they should account for more, since they have higher income.
“That same 9% of filers paid 62.35% of all income taxes in 2006. I’m afraid I don’t understand what definition of “fair” is being used.
Those numbers don’t mean much without saying what percentage of all income those filers earned.”
Good point. That 9% of filers, who paid 62.35% of all income taxes, accounted for approximately 50% of the income. I didn’t mean to suggest that the top 9% should only pay 9% of income taxes – obviously, they should account for more, since they have higher income.
It’s countering the idea that having more money than other people indicates that you’re a godlike being who deserves all you have and got it all on your own by your personal virtue, and therefore that any attempt to require you to pay more than other people for the upkeep of our society is punishing you, motivated by jealousy, and the equivalent of the Holocaust.
I was specifically harking back to an earlier discussion of the estate tax in which I referred to Warren Buffett’s views on the matter (though I misremembered Somalia rather than Bangladesh). But no doubt Buffett is also spouting obvious irrelevancies and is best ignored.
It’s countering the idea that having more money than other people indicates that you’re a godlike being who deserves all you have and got it all on your own by your personal virtue, and therefore that any attempt to require you to pay more than other people for the upkeep of our society is punishing you, motivated by jealousy, and the equivalent of the Holocaust.
I was specifically harking back to an earlier discussion of the estate tax in which I referred to Warren Buffett’s views on the matter (though I misremembered Somalia rather than Bangladesh). But no doubt Buffett is also spouting obvious irrelevancies and is best ignored.
Catsy: I know you’re hardly a wild-eyed liberal, but I’d like you to spend some time thinking through the logical implications of the line of reasoning that led you to your position on universal health care. See whether and how it applies to other services and safety nets, and the need for them. I’d honestly be surprised if you hadn’t had thoughts along that line before, but I’d be interested to hear where they led you.
Oh, no good could come of that… 😉
Seriously though – I’m not against services or safety nets, I’m not someone who thinks they should pay no taxes at all. I’ve used food stamps in the past and I ate plenty of WIC cheese growing up. I’ve needed those services myself so I’m not against them. Seeing a need for them, I have to agree that they have to be funded somehow…
But I also think that throwing more $ at a problem is not always the answer. I prefer to focus initially on reducing waste and overhead. If you do that first, and make the process transparent so I can really see that you did your best – then when you tell me you still need more money for the program I’ll be less likely to resist. But we don’t tend to do that much…
Catsy: I know you’re hardly a wild-eyed liberal, but I’d like you to spend some time thinking through the logical implications of the line of reasoning that led you to your position on universal health care. See whether and how it applies to other services and safety nets, and the need for them. I’d honestly be surprised if you hadn’t had thoughts along that line before, but I’d be interested to hear where they led you.
Oh, no good could come of that… 😉
Seriously though – I’m not against services or safety nets, I’m not someone who thinks they should pay no taxes at all. I’ve used food stamps in the past and I ate plenty of WIC cheese growing up. I’ve needed those services myself so I’m not against them. Seeing a need for them, I have to agree that they have to be funded somehow…
But I also think that throwing more $ at a problem is not always the answer. I prefer to focus initially on reducing waste and overhead. If you do that first, and make the process transparent so I can really see that you did your best – then when you tell me you still need more money for the program I’ll be less likely to resist. But we don’t tend to do that much…
Cool. Who’s making that argument?
Cool. Who’s making that argument?
Maybe there’s something I don’t get about this argument, if you can even call it an argument, but it doesn’t seem to actually make a point. If the point is that we’re fortunate to be where we are, WHO IS ARGUING COUNTER TO THAT?
Slarti,
The point being made is that the great financial success achieved by people in stable, functioning societies is (largely) not possible outside those societies. The more success one has, the more one has benefited from the framework in which one realized that success. It’s not some moralization over being or not being a goat-herder. It’s just a way of illustrating that people don’t build success in a vacuum, that they’ve benifited greatly from the rule of law and, dare I say, governement regulatory structures. How many wealthy people in the US got to be wealthy without the corporation or a banking system or record-keeping bureaucracies or the stock market or courts or police protection or a highway system or my dirty underwear. (Oh, wait, scratch that last one.)
Maybe there’s something I don’t get about this argument, if you can even call it an argument, but it doesn’t seem to actually make a point. If the point is that we’re fortunate to be where we are, WHO IS ARGUING COUNTER TO THAT?
Slarti,
The point being made is that the great financial success achieved by people in stable, functioning societies is (largely) not possible outside those societies. The more success one has, the more one has benefited from the framework in which one realized that success. It’s not some moralization over being or not being a goat-herder. It’s just a way of illustrating that people don’t build success in a vacuum, that they’ve benifited greatly from the rule of law and, dare I say, governement regulatory structures. How many wealthy people in the US got to be wealthy without the corporation or a banking system or record-keeping bureaucracies or the stock market or courts or police protection or a highway system or my dirty underwear. (Oh, wait, scratch that last one.)
So tax wise were returning to the horrifying Clinton years with a top marginal rate around 39%. I didn’t vote for him first time around but the Clinton era was probably the best period economically outside the Eisenhower/Kennedy era that I have experienced in my lifetime. Frankly I don’t think the top 15% who are going to be paying the higher rates topping out at this figure could give a damn provided the economy gets moving again and there is a consequent improvement in asset values.
So tax wise were returning to the horrifying Clinton years with a top marginal rate around 39%. I didn’t vote for him first time around but the Clinton era was probably the best period economically outside the Eisenhower/Kennedy era that I have experienced in my lifetime. Frankly I don’t think the top 15% who are going to be paying the higher rates topping out at this figure could give a damn provided the economy gets moving again and there is a consequent improvement in asset values.
Although plenty of people come by wealth in societies that are not functioning as well…pirates and drug cartels to name two potential career paths where you make it on your own merit, despite the lack of infrastructure and effective social controls.
Although plenty of people come by wealth in societies that are not functioning as well…pirates and drug cartels to name two potential career paths where you make it on your own merit, despite the lack of infrastructure and effective social controls.
Because of, I’d suggest.
Because of, I’d suggest.
Maybe there’s something I don’t get about this argument, if you can even call it an argument, but it doesn’t seem to actually make a point. If the point is that we’re fortunate to be where we are, WHO IS ARGUING COUNTER TO THAT?
The point is this Slartibartfast. Why is a progressive tax structure licit? It’s because the riches possessed by the rich were not created, John Gault-like, by their own efforts alone.
Maybe there’s something I don’t get about this argument, if you can even call it an argument, but it doesn’t seem to actually make a point. If the point is that we’re fortunate to be where we are, WHO IS ARGUING COUNTER TO THAT?
The point is this Slartibartfast. Why is a progressive tax structure licit? It’s because the riches possessed by the rich were not created, John Gault-like, by their own efforts alone.
As usual our friend from ABQ nails the point. If happiness is log(money), then a progressive tax system is a flat tax system.
This is a *great* way of putting it. I’d add “where money < some large number". Above a certain amount, happiness plateaus.
As usual our friend from ABQ nails the point. If happiness is log(money), then a progressive tax system is a flat tax system.
This is a *great* way of putting it. I’d add “where money < some large number". Above a certain amount, happiness plateaus.
Slarti,
That is true. I bet the heads of the drug cartels get brought down to size by suggesting that they only managed to procure their wealth because they weren’t born in America, where the infrastructure would not have provided such an opportunity.
Slarti,
That is true. I bet the heads of the drug cartels get brought down to size by suggesting that they only managed to procure their wealth because they weren’t born in America, where the infrastructure would not have provided such an opportunity.
Maybe there’s something I don’t get about this argument, if you can even call it an argument, but it doesn’t seem to actually make a point. If the point is that we’re fortunate to be where we are, WHO IS ARGUING COUNTER TO THAT?
I am also not sure why you seem to be unclear on what is a relatively straightforward point. The issue, contrary to your summary, is not that we are fortunate to be where we are. At least, that is not the key issue. It is that wealth is not created in a vacuum. When one makes arguments about what counts as class warfare and “eating the rich” based upon the notion that their personal wealth is being unfairly burdened by taxation, it is sometimes helpful to complicate this point by making it clear that their ability to accumulate the wealth they are so proud of depends a great deal on that same taxation.
How much is too much? How little is too little? Well that’s really the meat of the debate isn’t it? But when one writes a long personal anecdote that seems to laments the raiding of their wealth and ascribes all of that wealth to their own personal heroism, it seems entirely reasonable to me to point out that there is a great deal more to the question of how to construct a tax policy then how one feels about their own little pile of money.
Maybe there’s something I don’t get about this argument, if you can even call it an argument, but it doesn’t seem to actually make a point. If the point is that we’re fortunate to be where we are, WHO IS ARGUING COUNTER TO THAT?
I am also not sure why you seem to be unclear on what is a relatively straightforward point. The issue, contrary to your summary, is not that we are fortunate to be where we are. At least, that is not the key issue. It is that wealth is not created in a vacuum. When one makes arguments about what counts as class warfare and “eating the rich” based upon the notion that their personal wealth is being unfairly burdened by taxation, it is sometimes helpful to complicate this point by making it clear that their ability to accumulate the wealth they are so proud of depends a great deal on that same taxation.
How much is too much? How little is too little? Well that’s really the meat of the debate isn’t it? But when one writes a long personal anecdote that seems to laments the raiding of their wealth and ascribes all of that wealth to their own personal heroism, it seems entirely reasonable to me to point out that there is a great deal more to the question of how to construct a tax policy then how one feels about their own little pile of money.
I think that utilitarianism, act- or otherwise, is wrong. I have thought so ever since my first intro ethics course.
Out of sheer curiosity – and with a promise not to derail the thread further – what could possibly be in an intro to ethics course to put you off utilitarianism so completely?
I think that utilitarianism, act- or otherwise, is wrong. I have thought so ever since my first intro ethics course.
Out of sheer curiosity – and with a promise not to derail the thread further – what could possibly be in an intro to ethics course to put you off utilitarianism so completely?
Why is anyone still engaging DDD?
I’m not engaging the troll: I’m mocking it. In verse.
Why is anyone still engaging DDD?
I’m not engaging the troll: I’m mocking it. In verse.
Anyone who can create wealth from nothing without any help at all is a magician and has my admiration. I don’t think any of us are claiming, though, that they’ve done any such thing.
Anyone who can create wealth from nothing without any help at all is a magician and has my admiration. I don’t think any of us are claiming, though, that they’ve done any such thing.
I don’t think any of us are claiming, though, that they’ve done any such thing.
AAAHHHHHHH!!!
(slams head on desk, repeatedly)
I don’t think any of us are claiming, though, that they’ve done any such thing.
AAAHHHHHHH!!!
(slams head on desk, repeatedly)
Although plenty of people come by wealth in societies that are not functioning as well…pirates and drug cartels to name two potential career paths where you make it on your own merit, despite the lack of infrastructure and effective social controls.
Then again, these people don’t get end up with a higher marginal tax rate. They get shot.
Although plenty of people come by wealth in societies that are not functioning as well…pirates and drug cartels to name two potential career paths where you make it on your own merit, despite the lack of infrastructure and effective social controls.
Then again, these people don’t get end up with a higher marginal tax rate. They get shot.
Anyone who can create wealth from nothing without any help at all is a magician and has my admiration. I don’t think any of us are claiming, though, that they’ve done any such thing.
That’s fine. But does that mean that there’s no point to this?
When one makes arguments about what counts as class warfare and “eating the rich” based upon the notion that their personal wealth is being unfairly burdened by taxation, it is sometimes helpful to complicate this point by making it clear that their ability to accumulate the wealth they are so proud of depends a great deal on that same taxation.
Anyone who can create wealth from nothing without any help at all is a magician and has my admiration. I don’t think any of us are claiming, though, that they’ve done any such thing.
That’s fine. But does that mean that there’s no point to this?
When one makes arguments about what counts as class warfare and “eating the rich” based upon the notion that their personal wealth is being unfairly burdened by taxation, it is sometimes helpful to complicate this point by making it clear that their ability to accumulate the wealth they are so proud of depends a great deal on that same taxation.
BINGO!
So, this is really a discussion about fairness, and not so much an abstract discussion of some quantitively undefineable debt to society and species?
Great. We can talk about fairness, even though fairness is subjective. We can even talk about how yes, in order to live and do business in the United States, you have certain tax obligations under the law, and no amount of griping is going to change that those tax laws exist. It’s a choice, living here; a particularly easy choice if you have the money to choose to live elsewhere.
But the you-have-it-better-than-a-Nigerian-goatherder kinds of discussions don’t lead anywhere. Which is fine, if you think you’re trying to shut down a troll, but I think the best approach to that is not reply in the first place.
Or maybe I’m still not getting it. It wouldn’t be the first time.
BINGO!
So, this is really a discussion about fairness, and not so much an abstract discussion of some quantitively undefineable debt to society and species?
Great. We can talk about fairness, even though fairness is subjective. We can even talk about how yes, in order to live and do business in the United States, you have certain tax obligations under the law, and no amount of griping is going to change that those tax laws exist. It’s a choice, living here; a particularly easy choice if you have the money to choose to live elsewhere.
But the you-have-it-better-than-a-Nigerian-goatherder kinds of discussions don’t lead anywhere. Which is fine, if you think you’re trying to shut down a troll, but I think the best approach to that is not reply in the first place.
Or maybe I’m still not getting it. It wouldn’t be the first time.
Slart, do you perhaps have cleek’s pie filter installed so that you’re getting a d’d’d’dave-free version of the thread?
Slart, do you perhaps have cleek’s pie filter installed so that you’re getting a d’d’d’dave-free version of the thread?
Ah: your taxes are protecting you from the ravening masses. Well, those taxes are also protecting the ravening masses from you, in a way that a Somali goatherder’s aren’t.
I’d also suggest that higher marginal tax rates may not particularly enhance dave’s ability to make a profit. This is about taxes in the margins, no? Or do you see dave’s objection to be something like all taxes are theft?
Ah: your taxes are protecting you from the ravening masses. Well, those taxes are also protecting the ravening masses from you, in a way that a Somali goatherder’s aren’t.
I’d also suggest that higher marginal tax rates may not particularly enhance dave’s ability to make a profit. This is about taxes in the margins, no? Or do you see dave’s objection to be something like all taxes are theft?
the you-have-it-better-than-a-Nigerian-goatherder kinds of discussions don’t lead anywhere.
Well, do you believe tht progressive taxation is legitimate? If so, then I’m not arguing with you. If not, then explain how the rich, who beefit from living in our society to a greater degree than most, ought not to pay a larger share of the expenses of that society.
the you-have-it-better-than-a-Nigerian-goatherder kinds of discussions don’t lead anywhere.
Well, do you believe tht progressive taxation is legitimate? If so, then I’m not arguing with you. If not, then explain how the rich, who beefit from living in our society to a greater degree than most, ought not to pay a larger share of the expenses of that society.
Sure. The question is fairness, though, isn’t it? And fairness is at the root of dave’s objections, as far as I can see.
The rich pay a larger share even if taxes are flat. The only way everyone pays the same share is if taxes are fixed-sum, which isn’t on the agenda of any organized group that I’m aware of.
Sure. The question is fairness, though, isn’t it? And fairness is at the root of dave’s objections, as far as I can see.
The rich pay a larger share even if taxes are flat. The only way everyone pays the same share is if taxes are fixed-sum, which isn’t on the agenda of any organized group that I’m aware of.
So, this is really a discussion about fairness, and not so much an abstract discussion of some quantitively undefineable debt to society and species?
Among other things. It’s more a discussion about what works, in a reasonably fair way. When responding to someone claiming that something is unfair, should the response be “too bad” or more like “here’s why it’s not terribly unfair”?
Ah: your taxes are protecting you from the ravening masses.
Not exactly. Your taxes support a system in which you can operate with some degree of predictability, benefit from existing infrastructure and institutions, and with reduced risk. It’s not just a moat around a castle. It’s bedrock on which the castle sits.
So, this is really a discussion about fairness, and not so much an abstract discussion of some quantitively undefineable debt to society and species?
Among other things. It’s more a discussion about what works, in a reasonably fair way. When responding to someone claiming that something is unfair, should the response be “too bad” or more like “here’s why it’s not terribly unfair”?
Ah: your taxes are protecting you from the ravening masses.
Not exactly. Your taxes support a system in which you can operate with some degree of predictability, benefit from existing infrastructure and institutions, and with reduced risk. It’s not just a moat around a castle. It’s bedrock on which the castle sits.
“IWS – I’m not seeing anything in your argument that shows that rich people are unable to pay for the spending. You seem to be supporting the argument that the proposed tax rates won’t cover the spending.
As to the fairness thing, I’d ask this: you stated that 9% of filers payed 62% of income taxes. What percent of the income did those filers make?”
To answer your second point first, I answered in another post, but they accounted for approximately 50% of taxable income.
To your first point: I stand corrected. They can pay for the spending. I don’t believe that the proposed tax rates and ‘deduction reduction’ will generate the required funds, though.
That said, I haven’t had time to do more than skim highlights of the proposed budget and at this time find myself without hard numbers upon which to base an argument. I’m off to WhiteHouse.gov to start digging through the proposed 2010 budget now.
“IWS – I’m not seeing anything in your argument that shows that rich people are unable to pay for the spending. You seem to be supporting the argument that the proposed tax rates won’t cover the spending.
As to the fairness thing, I’d ask this: you stated that 9% of filers payed 62% of income taxes. What percent of the income did those filers make?”
To answer your second point first, I answered in another post, but they accounted for approximately 50% of taxable income.
To your first point: I stand corrected. They can pay for the spending. I don’t believe that the proposed tax rates and ‘deduction reduction’ will generate the required funds, though.
That said, I haven’t had time to do more than skim highlights of the proposed budget and at this time find myself without hard numbers upon which to base an argument. I’m off to WhiteHouse.gov to start digging through the proposed 2010 budget now.
Great. We can talk about fairness, even though fairness is subjective. We can even talk about how yes, in order to live and do business in the United States, you have certain tax obligations under the law, and no amount of griping is going to change that those tax laws exist. It’s a choice, living here; a particularly easy choice if you have the money to choose to live elsewhere.
Oy! The choice is not about where to live. That is not the point of the examples that people are raising. I feel silly rephrasing this over and over but you still seem to be missing the mark. The choice is not about where to live or about whether to gripe about taxes or not. The choice is about whether one properly understands the purpose and effect of tax policy on the very concept of wealth.
This conversation is not difficult to trace Slartibartfast:
4d made some comments suggesting that Obama’s rhetoric on taxation was akin to Nazism and eat the rich type rhetoric. He then followed up, as he is wont to do, with a long personal anecdote, that was meant to convey that his wonderful efforts to make life better for everyone with all the wealth he has worked so hard to achieve were being complicated by this sort of class warfare. KCinDc pointed out as many others have to 4d with little success or even acknowledgement, that contrary to what he seems to believe, his wealth would likely not even exist except in a society that was structured around similar tax policy. You replied that that was irrelevant. It wasn’t.
The point that you seem to keep missing is not that we have it better than a Nigerian goatherder. I have no opinion on whether “we” do or not and what I would guess is that goatherders in general exist within a tax regime that is just as “fair” as ours. The point is that discussions of “fairness” need to acknowledge that the discussion involves a lot more than who has more or less money. It needs to acknowledge that there is a correlation between the potential for wealth and the degree to which we fund that society in which that wealth exists. 4d seems consistently oblivious to this point and thus others continually feel the need to remind him.
Great. We can talk about fairness, even though fairness is subjective. We can even talk about how yes, in order to live and do business in the United States, you have certain tax obligations under the law, and no amount of griping is going to change that those tax laws exist. It’s a choice, living here; a particularly easy choice if you have the money to choose to live elsewhere.
Oy! The choice is not about where to live. That is not the point of the examples that people are raising. I feel silly rephrasing this over and over but you still seem to be missing the mark. The choice is not about where to live or about whether to gripe about taxes or not. The choice is about whether one properly understands the purpose and effect of tax policy on the very concept of wealth.
This conversation is not difficult to trace Slartibartfast:
4d made some comments suggesting that Obama’s rhetoric on taxation was akin to Nazism and eat the rich type rhetoric. He then followed up, as he is wont to do, with a long personal anecdote, that was meant to convey that his wonderful efforts to make life better for everyone with all the wealth he has worked so hard to achieve were being complicated by this sort of class warfare. KCinDc pointed out as many others have to 4d with little success or even acknowledgement, that contrary to what he seems to believe, his wealth would likely not even exist except in a society that was structured around similar tax policy. You replied that that was irrelevant. It wasn’t.
The point that you seem to keep missing is not that we have it better than a Nigerian goatherder. I have no opinion on whether “we” do or not and what I would guess is that goatherders in general exist within a tax regime that is just as “fair” as ours. The point is that discussions of “fairness” need to acknowledge that the discussion involves a lot more than who has more or less money. It needs to acknowledge that there is a correlation between the potential for wealth and the degree to which we fund that society in which that wealth exists. 4d seems consistently oblivious to this point and thus others continually feel the need to remind him.
I’d also suggest that higher marginal tax rates may not particularly enhance dave’s ability to make a profit. This is about taxes in the margins, no? Or do you see dave’s objection to be something like all taxes are theft?
I don’t know whether a higher marginal tax rate will help dave or not and that is precisely the point. His anecdote only serves to highlight his own narrow view of his particular pile of money and elides the question of how tax policy might effect that wealth in any larger economic context.
I’d also suggest that higher marginal tax rates may not particularly enhance dave’s ability to make a profit. This is about taxes in the margins, no? Or do you see dave’s objection to be something like all taxes are theft?
I don’t know whether a higher marginal tax rate will help dave or not and that is precisely the point. His anecdote only serves to highlight his own narrow view of his particular pile of money and elides the question of how tax policy might effect that wealth in any larger economic context.
Based on 2004 tax rates (I have not redone this since then):
When you include Social Security taxes to income, doesn’t it make it so some lower income people pay a higher marginal tax rate than higher income people? For example, if someone is self employed (but really anybody because whether the employer pays half for you or you pay it is still your money in my opinion) and making exactly the maximum taxable income for Social Security ($87,900), I think he pays a higher rate than someone making taxable income of $250,000. Doesn’t this argue for removing the cap on Social Security taxes or at least ensuring that the progressive tax system covers at least as much as the combined rate of payroll taxes? Wouldn’t that be more “fair?”
Rough Math:
Income tax schedule:
$0 to $14,300: 10% of the amount over $0
$14,300 to $58,100: $1,430.00 plus 15% of the amount over 14,300
$58,100 to $117,250: $8,000.00 plus 25% of the amount over 58,100
$117,250 to $178,650: $22,787.50 plus 28% of the amount over 117,250
$178,650 to $319,100: $39,979.50 plus 33% of the amount over 178,650
$319,100 to no limit: $86,328.00 plus 35% of the amount over 319,100
$87,900 taxable income
Income tax = 8,000 + 25%(87900-58100) < 7,450> = 15450
+ Social Security tax 12.4%(87,900) = 10899.6
15450+10899.6
= $26349.6 = Total taxes equals 30% of $87,900
Tax rate is 25% from 87,900 to 117, 250. = 7337.5 + 26349.6 = 33687.1 = 28.7 % rate on $117,250.
Tax rate is 28% from 117,250 to $178,650 = 17192 + 33697.1= 50889.1 = 28.5% rate on $178,650.
Tax Rate is 33% from 178,650 to 319,100 = 46348.5 + 50889.1 = 97237.6 = 30.5% rate on $319,100.
$250,000 23545.5+ 50889.1= 74434.6 = 29.7% of $250,000
$275,000 31795.5 + 50889.1 = 82684.6 = 30.06% of $275,000
So it appears to me that someone making up to $250,000 taxable dollars a year is paying a lower percentage of income taxes than someone making $87,900 taxable dollars per year. Again, the rates have changed since 2004, but I suspect there is still a sweet spot of income where your overall rate is lower with a higher income than the current cap on SS taxes.
Especially since I believe that many people against a progressive tax also think that social security is unsustainable and the social security taxes are essentially a general fund tax anyway.
Not to mention that capital gains certainly ought to cover the same rate as income.
Based on 2004 tax rates (I have not redone this since then):
When you include Social Security taxes to income, doesn’t it make it so some lower income people pay a higher marginal tax rate than higher income people? For example, if someone is self employed (but really anybody because whether the employer pays half for you or you pay it is still your money in my opinion) and making exactly the maximum taxable income for Social Security ($87,900), I think he pays a higher rate than someone making taxable income of $250,000. Doesn’t this argue for removing the cap on Social Security taxes or at least ensuring that the progressive tax system covers at least as much as the combined rate of payroll taxes? Wouldn’t that be more “fair?”
Rough Math:
Income tax schedule:
$0 to $14,300: 10% of the amount over $0
$14,300 to $58,100: $1,430.00 plus 15% of the amount over 14,300
$58,100 to $117,250: $8,000.00 plus 25% of the amount over 58,100
$117,250 to $178,650: $22,787.50 plus 28% of the amount over 117,250
$178,650 to $319,100: $39,979.50 plus 33% of the amount over 178,650
$319,100 to no limit: $86,328.00 plus 35% of the amount over 319,100
$87,900 taxable income
Income tax = 8,000 + 25%(87900-58100) < 7,450> = 15450
+ Social Security tax 12.4%(87,900) = 10899.6
15450+10899.6
= $26349.6 = Total taxes equals 30% of $87,900
Tax rate is 25% from 87,900 to 117, 250. = 7337.5 + 26349.6 = 33687.1 = 28.7 % rate on $117,250.
Tax rate is 28% from 117,250 to $178,650 = 17192 + 33697.1= 50889.1 = 28.5% rate on $178,650.
Tax Rate is 33% from 178,650 to 319,100 = 46348.5 + 50889.1 = 97237.6 = 30.5% rate on $319,100.
$250,000 23545.5+ 50889.1= 74434.6 = 29.7% of $250,000
$275,000 31795.5 + 50889.1 = 82684.6 = 30.06% of $275,000
So it appears to me that someone making up to $250,000 taxable dollars a year is paying a lower percentage of income taxes than someone making $87,900 taxable dollars per year. Again, the rates have changed since 2004, but I suspect there is still a sweet spot of income where your overall rate is lower with a higher income than the current cap on SS taxes.
Especially since I believe that many people against a progressive tax also think that social security is unsustainable and the social security taxes are essentially a general fund tax anyway.
Not to mention that capital gains certainly ought to cover the same rate as income.
I think you’re not hearing me, brent. I completely get the argument. What I don’t see is why you think it’s relevant. dave is objecting to tax increases, not taxation. He might object to all taxation, but I don’t think he’s said as much.
I think you’re not hearing me, brent. I completely get the argument. What I don’t see is why you think it’s relevant. dave is objecting to tax increases, not taxation. He might object to all taxation, but I don’t think he’s said as much.
Ah: your taxes are protecting you from the ravening masses. Well, those taxes are also protecting the ravening masses from you, in a way that a Somali goatherder’s aren’t.
hairshirthedonist already put it pretty clearly but I would simply add that it ought to be fairly obvious that a society that is structured and subsidized by government in the way that ours is is not just about protection from violence.
Ah: your taxes are protecting you from the ravening masses. Well, those taxes are also protecting the ravening masses from you, in a way that a Somali goatherder’s aren’t.
hairshirthedonist already put it pretty clearly but I would simply add that it ought to be fairly obvious that a society that is structured and subsidized by government in the way that ours is is not just about protection from violence.
dave is objecting to tax increases, not taxation.
Yes, but he’s objecting specifically to a proposed tax increase on the wealthy (by some definition). That’s why it’s relevant to discuss how one gets to be wealthy in the first place. Why would he have to be opposed to taxes in general for that to be relevant?
dave is objecting to tax increases, not taxation.
Yes, but he’s objecting specifically to a proposed tax increase on the wealthy (by some definition). That’s why it’s relevant to discuss how one gets to be wealthy in the first place. Why would he have to be opposed to taxes in general for that to be relevant?
dave is objecting to tax increases, not taxation. He might object to all taxation, but I don’t think he’s said as much.
The point, Slartibartfast, is the reasons that he gives for objecting to those tax increases. Try it this way: If I were to make the opposite argument that the tax rate was too low because I have too much extra income at the end of the month and that I believe that my discretionary income would be much better spent on some specific public project. Would you be incorrect if you pointed out that there are communist societies where a similar type of economic structure is in place and that there are many advantages to the type of “excess” income we have here as opposed to those types of societies? Or would that be irrelevant?
dave is objecting to tax increases, not taxation. He might object to all taxation, but I don’t think he’s said as much.
The point, Slartibartfast, is the reasons that he gives for objecting to those tax increases. Try it this way: If I were to make the opposite argument that the tax rate was too low because I have too much extra income at the end of the month and that I believe that my discretionary income would be much better spent on some specific public project. Would you be incorrect if you pointed out that there are communist societies where a similar type of economic structure is in place and that there are many advantages to the type of “excess” income we have here as opposed to those types of societies? Or would that be irrelevant?
On the one hand, we have dave objecting to going from 35% to 40% bracket, and on the other hand we have some of you suggesting that dave has some so-far unspecified thanks to pay to society just for it being there for him, and that he should just stop complaining.
Which isn’t a bad suggestion, but it sort of gives dave the argumentative advantage in that he’s got at least expressed some opinion on where his threshold of unfair lies.
dave ought to be more grateful. Groovy. How much more grateful ought dave to be?
On the one hand, we have dave objecting to going from 35% to 40% bracket, and on the other hand we have some of you suggesting that dave has some so-far unspecified thanks to pay to society just for it being there for him, and that he should just stop complaining.
Which isn’t a bad suggestion, but it sort of gives dave the argumentative advantage in that he’s got at least expressed some opinion on where his threshold of unfair lies.
dave ought to be more grateful. Groovy. How much more grateful ought dave to be?
I suspect society would grind to a Soviet-like halt if employees in general only did as much as they had to, to avoid getting fired.
I think there are a lot of heroes out there.
Thank you.
dave ought to be more grateful. Groovy. How much more grateful ought dave to be?
About 5 percent, give or take, for that portion of his blessings that about 95% of the population of this country doesn’t share.
I suspect society would grind to a Soviet-like halt if employees in general only did as much as they had to, to avoid getting fired.
I think there are a lot of heroes out there.
Thank you.
dave ought to be more grateful. Groovy. How much more grateful ought dave to be?
About 5 percent, give or take, for that portion of his blessings that about 95% of the population of this country doesn’t share.
I don’t think gratitude is the issue. From my point of view, I’m simply trying to point out why a more progressive tax structure is not as unfair as dave seems to think. Why is that so complicated? I guess we could simply talk numbers, elimating the need for qualitive characterizations of taxation schemes, but we’d have to provide analyses of lots of data for it to mean anything, if it really would mean anything in any case. (I’d like to propose a smooth curve with a continuous first derivative for tax rate versus income. I don’t like the quantized brackets.)
I don’t think gratitude is the issue. From my point of view, I’m simply trying to point out why a more progressive tax structure is not as unfair as dave seems to think. Why is that so complicated? I guess we could simply talk numbers, elimating the need for qualitive characterizations of taxation schemes, but we’d have to provide analyses of lots of data for it to mean anything, if it really would mean anything in any case. (I’d like to propose a smooth curve with a continuous first derivative for tax rate versus income. I don’t like the quantized brackets.)
How much more grateful ought dave to be?
Well, I thought that the system worked real well back during the Eisenhowever administration.
How much more grateful ought dave to be?
Well, I thought that the system worked real well back during the Eisenhowever administration.
Good lord, now even Daniel Larison is acknowledging that income inequality is problem:
H/T John Cole
Good lord, now even Daniel Larison is acknowledging that income inequality is problem:
H/T John Cole
dave ought to be more grateful. Groovy. How much more grateful ought dave to be?
Its clear that we aren’t getting through to each other and I think I have done my best to clarify the issue so I guess there is no point in continuing. I will merely point out for the record that you say you get my point but your summary I cited above doesn’t even come close to understanding what the central issue is here in my estimation. This has absolutely nothing at all to do with dave’s level of gratitude but if that isn’t clear by now then I am not capable of making it any more clear.
dave ought to be more grateful. Groovy. How much more grateful ought dave to be?
Its clear that we aren’t getting through to each other and I think I have done my best to clarify the issue so I guess there is no point in continuing. I will merely point out for the record that you say you get my point but your summary I cited above doesn’t even come close to understanding what the central issue is here in my estimation. This has absolutely nothing at all to do with dave’s level of gratitude but if that isn’t clear by now then I am not capable of making it any more clear.
Slarti,
Tax increases are relative, just like fairness. “Increase” implies a change, not a level. An argument that’s strictly about change, as opposed to level, would seem pertinent no matter what level we start from. If the top marginal rate were only 10%, what makes you think d’d’d’dave would not be arguing against an “increase” to 15%?
Now, I can honor an argument that says our current tax structure is optimal, and therefore changes to it, in either direction, are undesirable. But that kind of argument is NOT what I’m hearing from the likes of d’d’d’dave.
–TP
Slarti,
Tax increases are relative, just like fairness. “Increase” implies a change, not a level. An argument that’s strictly about change, as opposed to level, would seem pertinent no matter what level we start from. If the top marginal rate were only 10%, what makes you think d’d’d’dave would not be arguing against an “increase” to 15%?
Now, I can honor an argument that says our current tax structure is optimal, and therefore changes to it, in either direction, are undesirable. But that kind of argument is NOT what I’m hearing from the likes of d’d’d’dave.
–TP
“Higher taxes penalize people for being successful.”
SFAIK, no one in this thread has said that, but the phrase does seem to be the unspoken basis for complaints about higher taxes.
Not onerous, mind you. Not 95%, not 75%; not even 50%. Just 33% to 39.5%; OK, let’s round that up to 40%.
40% taxation is ‘punishing success.’
Which leads me to wonder, as I always do during these kinds of discussions, what does that make those of us who *are* paying taxes?
Failures? Losers? Chumps?
Tell me, is it only failures who pay for the nation’s defense? Only failures pay to keep Congress, the Federal Courts, and the Federal Treasury going?
Only losers pay for nationwide public education? national highways?
Only chumps pony up to pay for environmental policies? upkeep for our national parks,and salaries for the Park Rangers?
Seems kid of odd to me, relegating responsibility for keeping the nation safe and functioning to a bunch of chumps.
“Higher taxes penalize people for being successful.”
SFAIK, no one in this thread has said that, but the phrase does seem to be the unspoken basis for complaints about higher taxes.
Not onerous, mind you. Not 95%, not 75%; not even 50%. Just 33% to 39.5%; OK, let’s round that up to 40%.
40% taxation is ‘punishing success.’
Which leads me to wonder, as I always do during these kinds of discussions, what does that make those of us who *are* paying taxes?
Failures? Losers? Chumps?
Tell me, is it only failures who pay for the nation’s defense? Only failures pay to keep Congress, the Federal Courts, and the Federal Treasury going?
Only losers pay for nationwide public education? national highways?
Only chumps pony up to pay for environmental policies? upkeep for our national parks,and salaries for the Park Rangers?
Seems kid of odd to me, relegating responsibility for keeping the nation safe and functioning to a bunch of chumps.
But I also think that throwing more $ at a problem is not always the answer. I prefer to focus initially on reducing waste and overhead. If you do that first, and make the process transparent so I can really see that you did your best – then when you tell me you still need more money for the program I’ll be less likely to resist. But we don’t tend to do that much…
That is a large part of Obama’s plan. (Check out what he says about accountability and transparency.
“We cannot overstate the importance of this effort. We are asking the American people to trust their government with an unprecedented level of funding to address the economic emergency. In return, we must prove to them that their dollars are being invested in initiatives and strategies that make a difference in their communities and across the country. Following through on our commitments for accountability and openness will create a foundation upon which we can build as we continue to tackle the economic crisis and the many other challenges facing our nation.”
But I also think that throwing more $ at a problem is not always the answer. I prefer to focus initially on reducing waste and overhead. If you do that first, and make the process transparent so I can really see that you did your best – then when you tell me you still need more money for the program I’ll be less likely to resist. But we don’t tend to do that much…
That is a large part of Obama’s plan. (Check out what he says about accountability and transparency.
“We cannot overstate the importance of this effort. We are asking the American people to trust their government with an unprecedented level of funding to address the economic emergency. In return, we must prove to them that their dollars are being invested in initiatives and strategies that make a difference in their communities and across the country. Following through on our commitments for accountability and openness will create a foundation upon which we can build as we continue to tackle the economic crisis and the many other challenges facing our nation.”
Great. That’s what you’re fastening on. I believe I’ve also used the words obligation and debt in reference to his purported (and I say: completely unquantifiable) burden to society for being his assistant in making him rich, with no comment from you. If you don’t like any of those words, feel free to offer one of your own.
Or not. I’m done with this.
Great. That’s what you’re fastening on. I believe I’ve also used the words obligation and debt in reference to his purported (and I say: completely unquantifiable) burden to society for being his assistant in making him rich, with no comment from you. If you don’t like any of those words, feel free to offer one of your own.
Or not. I’m done with this.
That sounded extremely annoyed, on reread, but it should be amended to sound tired and a little frustrated, with a dash of getting some last-minute software changes put in.
That sounded extremely annoyed, on reread, but it should be amended to sound tired and a little frustrated, with a dash of getting some last-minute software changes put in.
“Brett: your word is my command! I’m a Kantian. I think that utilitarianism, act- or otherwise, is wrong. I have thought so ever since my first intro ethics course.”
Cool! So, how do you square progressive taxation, or indeed any form of taxation other than fee for service, with the demand that people not be used purely as means to an end?
I don’t think progressive taxation is “fair”, but fairness isn’t the only value, and it’s several kinds of catagory errors to collapse justice and practicality and mercy into “fairness”.
Justice demands that people pay for what they get, and get what they pay for. (IMO, anyway.) Mercy says, “That’s too hard on the poor.”, and practicality says, “You can’t squeeze blood out of a stone.”
So that’s two values against one, in favor of taxing some people more than they, according to justice, ought to be paying.
But we take that money from them, not because they “owe” it in any moral sense, that’s confusion. We take it from them in spite of their not owing it, and they do have a valid gripe.
“Brett: your word is my command! I’m a Kantian. I think that utilitarianism, act- or otherwise, is wrong. I have thought so ever since my first intro ethics course.”
Cool! So, how do you square progressive taxation, or indeed any form of taxation other than fee for service, with the demand that people not be used purely as means to an end?
I don’t think progressive taxation is “fair”, but fairness isn’t the only value, and it’s several kinds of catagory errors to collapse justice and practicality and mercy into “fairness”.
Justice demands that people pay for what they get, and get what they pay for. (IMO, anyway.) Mercy says, “That’s too hard on the poor.”, and practicality says, “You can’t squeeze blood out of a stone.”
So that’s two values against one, in favor of taxing some people more than they, according to justice, ought to be paying.
But we take that money from them, not because they “owe” it in any moral sense, that’s confusion. We take it from them in spite of their not owing it, and they do have a valid gripe.
That sounded extremely annoyed, on reread, but it should be amended to sound tired and a little frustrated, with a dash of getting some last-minute software changes put in.
FWIW I appreciate the efforts you’ve made to comment here. Perhaps this thread has gotten overly long and that is making everybody cranky.
I blame the pagination.
That sounded extremely annoyed, on reread, but it should be amended to sound tired and a little frustrated, with a dash of getting some last-minute software changes put in.
FWIW I appreciate the efforts you’ve made to comment here. Perhaps this thread has gotten overly long and that is making everybody cranky.
I blame the pagination.
I’m off to WhiteHouse.gov to start digging through the proposed 2010 budget now.
May you seek more than vindication and find more than affirmation :).
I’m off to WhiteHouse.gov to start digging through the proposed 2010 budget now.
May you seek more than vindication and find more than affirmation :).
I’m proposing a tax scheme based on the inverse tangent, asymptotic at -5% and 50% with an x intercept at $8k (for individuals) and inflection point at $300k. If my visualization is correct, that would put someone making $592k at 45%. How about it?
I’m proposing a tax scheme based on the inverse tangent, asymptotic at -5% and 50% with an x intercept at $8k (for individuals) and inflection point at $300k. If my visualization is correct, that would put someone making $592k at 45%. How about it?
So, how do you square progressive taxation, or indeed any form of taxation other than fee for service, with the demand that people not be used purely as means to an end?
Fee for service doesn’t work — flat out Does. Not. Work. — with cooperative needs: police, firetrucks, roads, etc. It doesn’t matter if you use a utilitarian framework, or any other, some services can’t be provided on any Pay-per-Use basis.
So, how do you square progressive taxation, or indeed any form of taxation other than fee for service, with the demand that people not be used purely as means to an end?
Fee for service doesn’t work — flat out Does. Not. Work. — with cooperative needs: police, firetrucks, roads, etc. It doesn’t matter if you use a utilitarian framework, or any other, some services can’t be provided on any Pay-per-Use basis.
I believe I’ve also used the words obligation and debt in reference to his purported (and I say: completely unquantifiable) burden to society for being his assistant in making him rich, with no comment from you.
One last try: Its not about what dave owes. It has nothing to do with his feelings or attitudes. To look at it as even being an argument about what dave claims is his particular accumulation of wealth is to miss the point entirely.
Tony P put it pretty clearly I think. dave doesn’t want to pay more taxes and that is an entirely unremarkable sentiment. But if one is trying to make an argument about what ought to be the optimal tax code, then it is not especially helpful to try and make that case from the extraordinarily narrow example of one person who thinks he might have less money after the tax increase. That is because what creates wealth for dave or anyone else in any society is far more complicated set of equations than that. dave’s situation and his particular resistance to the tax increase provides us very little information because it is quite easy to imagine a circumstance in which he is charged far less in taxes but in which his surrounding economic environment would leave him with far less wealth. That is the point of the hypothetical and it doesn’t seem like an especially complicated or controversial argument to me. But it is one that dave consistently seems to simply ignore when he tells of his elaborate investments and how the nazi-like tax increase of 3% is going to ruin all of that and make life worse for all those people he is helping. Whether he feels grateful or obliged or indebted to pay more taxes is entirely beside the point. Whether his arguments appreciate the scope of the debate around changes to tax policy is.
If you don’t like any of those words, feel free to offer one of your own.
I have. I have offered plenty of my own words and yet here we are. My fault I am sure but I think many others have made the case quite a bit more clearly than I have. My only suggestion at this point is to try some of those like the one I linked to TonyP above or hairshirthedonist’s.
I believe I’ve also used the words obligation and debt in reference to his purported (and I say: completely unquantifiable) burden to society for being his assistant in making him rich, with no comment from you.
One last try: Its not about what dave owes. It has nothing to do with his feelings or attitudes. To look at it as even being an argument about what dave claims is his particular accumulation of wealth is to miss the point entirely.
Tony P put it pretty clearly I think. dave doesn’t want to pay more taxes and that is an entirely unremarkable sentiment. But if one is trying to make an argument about what ought to be the optimal tax code, then it is not especially helpful to try and make that case from the extraordinarily narrow example of one person who thinks he might have less money after the tax increase. That is because what creates wealth for dave or anyone else in any society is far more complicated set of equations than that. dave’s situation and his particular resistance to the tax increase provides us very little information because it is quite easy to imagine a circumstance in which he is charged far less in taxes but in which his surrounding economic environment would leave him with far less wealth. That is the point of the hypothetical and it doesn’t seem like an especially complicated or controversial argument to me. But it is one that dave consistently seems to simply ignore when he tells of his elaborate investments and how the nazi-like tax increase of 3% is going to ruin all of that and make life worse for all those people he is helping. Whether he feels grateful or obliged or indebted to pay more taxes is entirely beside the point. Whether his arguments appreciate the scope of the debate around changes to tax policy is.
If you don’t like any of those words, feel free to offer one of your own.
I have. I have offered plenty of my own words and yet here we are. My fault I am sure but I think many others have made the case quite a bit more clearly than I have. My only suggestion at this point is to try some of those like the one I linked to TonyP above or hairshirthedonist’s.
Jeff: That is a large part of Obama’s plan.
It’s a large part of what he said. So far, not so much. 5 days online, etc. – not so far.
I’m still holding out hope though.
And change even…
Jeff: That is a large part of Obama’s plan.
It’s a large part of what he said. So far, not so much. 5 days online, etc. – not so far.
I’m still holding out hope though.
And change even…
this is a Democratic meme of the last the decade (or so) that troubles me. (my bold, if it all works):
so middle class money is suppose trickle down? all those hard-working doctors and lawyers are going to shop in the Tenderloin? Or will the Tenderloin evict the poor, marginalizing them to the up-and-coming Fresno Favela?
I suspect that some social science studies have shown that a happy population is one with an expanding middle class.
but I’m with the old Left who use to argue (and I thought Bill Clinton did) that it is our interest you to get money into pockets of the poor, if only to expand the consumers in the market.
how does taking care of the middle class reduce the number below the poverty line?
this is a Democratic meme of the last the decade (or so) that troubles me. (my bold, if it all works):
so middle class money is suppose trickle down? all those hard-working doctors and lawyers are going to shop in the Tenderloin? Or will the Tenderloin evict the poor, marginalizing them to the up-and-coming Fresno Favela?
I suspect that some social science studies have shown that a happy population is one with an expanding middle class.
but I’m with the old Left who use to argue (and I thought Bill Clinton did) that it is our interest you to get money into pockets of the poor, if only to expand the consumers in the market.
how does taking care of the middle class reduce the number below the poverty line?
Long term strategy and gradualism, probably. Don’t spook everyone if’n you move too fast…
Long term strategy and gradualism, probably. Don’t spook everyone if’n you move too fast…
but I’m with the old Left who use to argue (and I thought Bill Clinton did) that it is our interest you to get money into pockets of the poor, if only to expand the consumers in the market.
how does taking care of the middle class reduce the number below the poverty line?
In 19th Cen. England the term “middle class” referred to people who while not amongst the truly rich, were nonetheless prosperous enough that they could afford to hire domestic servants, which meant that they were either extremely well paid urban professionals, or were independently wealthy and able to live off of modest investment incomes.
We have a term for folks like that here in the US, we call them “upper middle class”; the useage of the term has shifted.
Today “middle class” (unqualified) is American-speak for what in other parts of the world is called “working class” with those more prosperous folks mentioned above tacked onto the top end of the category to round things off. We don’t like to use terms like “proletariat” or admit that we have a true working class which is quite large in the US, because to do so offends our sense of exceptionalism.
but I’m with the old Left who use to argue (and I thought Bill Clinton did) that it is our interest you to get money into pockets of the poor, if only to expand the consumers in the market.
how does taking care of the middle class reduce the number below the poverty line?
In 19th Cen. England the term “middle class” referred to people who while not amongst the truly rich, were nonetheless prosperous enough that they could afford to hire domestic servants, which meant that they were either extremely well paid urban professionals, or were independently wealthy and able to live off of modest investment incomes.
We have a term for folks like that here in the US, we call them “upper middle class”; the useage of the term has shifted.
Today “middle class” (unqualified) is American-speak for what in other parts of the world is called “working class” with those more prosperous folks mentioned above tacked onto the top end of the category to round things off. We don’t like to use terms like “proletariat” or admit that we have a true working class which is quite large in the US, because to do so offends our sense of exceptionalism.
It’s a large part of what he said. So far, not so much. 5 days online, etc. – not so far.
The quote I posted was a memo to all the agencies. I see no reason not to believe it.
Did you visit the web-site?
It’s a large part of what he said. So far, not so much. 5 days online, etc. – not so far.
The quote I posted was a memo to all the agencies. I see no reason not to believe it.
Did you visit the web-site?
OCSteve: I’m not at all happy with Obama’s “eat the rich” rhetoric.
Not having watched the speech to Congress, or whatever recent Obama statements you’re referencing, I could use some specifics of this rhetoric.
But the actual things he’s proposing to do are exactly what he said he would do in every stump speech he made during the campaign: a tax cut for everyone making less than $250,000, and paying for univeral health care access with tax increases for those making more than that (a lot of which, I assumed, would simply be the expiration of the Bush tax cuts).
OCSteve: I’m not at all happy with Obama’s “eat the rich” rhetoric.
Not having watched the speech to Congress, or whatever recent Obama statements you’re referencing, I could use some specifics of this rhetoric.
But the actual things he’s proposing to do are exactly what he said he would do in every stump speech he made during the campaign: a tax cut for everyone making less than $250,000, and paying for univeral health care access with tax increases for those making more than that (a lot of which, I assumed, would simply be the expiration of the Bush tax cuts).
“Fee for service doesn’t work — flat out Does. Not. Work.”
Works for a lot of stuff, doesn’t work for some other stuff. (Didn’t I say as much?) But that wasn’t the question. Just because something “works” doesn’t mean a theory of ethics permits it.
“Fee for service doesn’t work — flat out Does. Not. Work.”
Works for a lot of stuff, doesn’t work for some other stuff. (Didn’t I say as much?) But that wasn’t the question. Just because something “works” doesn’t mean a theory of ethics permits it.
hairshirthedonist: I’m proposing a tax scheme based on the inverse tangent
Having read all the way through, this is a substantive idea that I can get behind. Couple it with treating all income equally and shift to cover the budget.
von: point 2 on the other page.
It isn’t just the SE tax. It’s covering your own health care, not having the backup of unemployment insurance, having to resort to a lawyer to get paid and having no employment security beyond your own reputation. That’s tough for a family of four on $250K in Chicago. It’s tough for a single person in NYC on less than $50K. Add in school loans and life looks less rosy. If Freelancers Union is right, 30% of the workforce is freelance. You’d think we’d be able to get something done about this. Something could include compelling employers to cover those costs regardless of an employees status (status is not a good description) or a shift of payroll taxes etc. from employer to employee. Either would be a more ‘fair’ situation.
Just as an aside, I also read d’d’d’dave’s several first comments as boiling down to “rich people are rich because they are special”. I thought that the various permutations of “rich people are rich because they’ve got more money, no one is special” pretty much made sense.
hairshirthedonist: I’m proposing a tax scheme based on the inverse tangent
Having read all the way through, this is a substantive idea that I can get behind. Couple it with treating all income equally and shift to cover the budget.
von: point 2 on the other page.
It isn’t just the SE tax. It’s covering your own health care, not having the backup of unemployment insurance, having to resort to a lawyer to get paid and having no employment security beyond your own reputation. That’s tough for a family of four on $250K in Chicago. It’s tough for a single person in NYC on less than $50K. Add in school loans and life looks less rosy. If Freelancers Union is right, 30% of the workforce is freelance. You’d think we’d be able to get something done about this. Something could include compelling employers to cover those costs regardless of an employees status (status is not a good description) or a shift of payroll taxes etc. from employer to employee. Either would be a more ‘fair’ situation.
Just as an aside, I also read d’d’d’dave’s several first comments as boiling down to “rich people are rich because they are special”. I thought that the various permutations of “rich people are rich because they’ve got more money, no one is special” pretty much made sense.
I’m afraid Judd Gregg did a great job on NPR tonight spinning that above 250K bracket as anything but the ruling elite:
The idea of having small business owners pay for a new insurance plan is not going to fly.
I’m afraid Judd Gregg did a great job on NPR tonight spinning that above 250K bracket as anything but the ruling elite:
The idea of having small business owners pay for a new insurance plan is not going to fly.
How much of them are already paying for health insurance right now? (Not a rhetorical question; I think it’s pertinent to see if it’s a good idea or not).
How much of them are already paying for health insurance right now? (Not a rhetorical question; I think it’s pertinent to see if it’s a good idea or not).
Alternative frame:
Alternative frame:
does that tell us how, if not by trickling down, our helping the middle class is going to reduce the number of people below the poverty line and in turn boost the numbers of consumers in the marketplace?
(Truly, everybody, with me, you’re free to define categories any way you want, providing that afterward you don’t conclude that in order to reach our teleological ends, the members in the category must be gassed, purged, etc..)
does that tell us how, if not by trickling down, our helping the middle class is going to reduce the number of people below the poverty line and in turn boost the numbers of consumers in the marketplace?
(Truly, everybody, with me, you’re free to define categories any way you want, providing that afterward you don’t conclude that in order to reach our teleological ends, the members in the category must be gassed, purged, etc..)
Redwood, I think you are looking at the term middle class as a statistical notion, and dealing with the middle class will always exclude the lower class. I’d suggest that the term middle class has always had a definition that makes it seem like everyone from the lower class could, somehow, make it into the middle class. When viewed as a mathematical construct, it is idiotic, but it’s like the line about Lake Woebegone, ‘where all the children are above average’. In fact, a quick google, shows that this is the name of the effect.
Redwood, I think you are looking at the term middle class as a statistical notion, and dealing with the middle class will always exclude the lower class. I’d suggest that the term middle class has always had a definition that makes it seem like everyone from the lower class could, somehow, make it into the middle class. When viewed as a mathematical construct, it is idiotic, but it’s like the line about Lake Woebegone, ‘where all the children are above average’. In fact, a quick google, shows that this is the name of the effect.
How does Gregg explain how small businesses managed to exist in the Clinton years?
How does Gregg explain how small businesses managed to exist in the Clinton years?
Just one comment to “d’d’d’dave”…
If you want to invoke personal credibility, you have to sign your name. When people link to news stories and other facts, those sources usually have identifiable writers, who take responsibility for what they write. If you want people to take your stories seriously, you have to either sign your name or link to someone who does. Anonymously, you can make a logical case, express emotion, and generally say what you want, but making an argument that depends on us believing what you write wastes your time and ours, unless you sign your name. Network anonymity has only that one disadvantage.
Just one comment to “d’d’d’dave”…
If you want to invoke personal credibility, you have to sign your name. When people link to news stories and other facts, those sources usually have identifiable writers, who take responsibility for what they write. If you want people to take your stories seriously, you have to either sign your name or link to someone who does. Anonymously, you can make a logical case, express emotion, and generally say what you want, but making an argument that depends on us believing what you write wastes your time and ours, unless you sign your name. Network anonymity has only that one disadvantage.
Can we please stifle the “small business” bullpuckey?
I’ve been self-employed for 16 years now. I am a small business. And I have always done my own tax returns. And I say Republicans are either blithering idiots or bald-faced frauds on this subject.
Personal income taxes apply to personal income. That’s the bottom line on Schedule C, not the top line. It’s what’s left in my own pocket after expenses like paying employees, a.k.a. “creating jobs”.
Quick: if my small business grosses $1 million a year, how will my income tax bill change when Obama lets Dubya’s tax rates revert back to Clinton’s rates? If you did not instantly answer “Not enough data”, you have no clue what you’re talking about.
Okay, let’s say I pay $200K for materials, rent, and so forth, and I have 10 workers who each cost me $50K per year. So my personal income — the income that I “pay taxes on at personal rates”, is $300K. So Obama will “raise my taxes.”
Now, why in bleeping hell shouldn’t he? I mean: what makes my $300K personal income from my “small business” more sacred than your $300K salary from a “big” business?
Please understand, the numbers above are hypothetical. (I can only dream of a $300K personal income. You’d have to raise the top marginal tax rate to about 90% before I’d stop dreaming of it.) That should be no surprise. Sole-prop small business owners who make $300K in personal income are as rare as Republicans who talk honestly about small business taxes.
Still, let’s say my $1M business is chugging along with 10 workers, I’m personally pulling $300K out of it, and Obama “raises my taxes” by $50K — the cost of one worker.
One thing I could do is fire one of my workers to make up for my extra taxes. But I have not been paying those workers to sit around and do nothing. To first order, reducing my workforce will reduce the gross income I can generate. So my personal take still goes down.
Another thing I could do is this: hire another worker. If my personal take is going to drop by $50K anyway, I am better off spending that money to “create a new job” rather than send it to the IRS. Crudely speaking, at a 40% marginal rate on my personal income, the net cost to me of that 11th employee is only $30K. If that 11th $50K worker generates only $30K in extra gross revenue, I break even!
Note that, in this story, the 11th job in my small business doesn’t have to be worth its keep. Without my personal tax increase, I would have no incentive to “create a new job” at $50K unless it resulted in at least $50K more revenue. With my personal tax increase, I have more incentive to hire another worker.
It will not do to suggest that Republicans lie about everything. It will not do to suggest that Republicans are wrong about everything. But when they transparently misrepresent one particular thing I know something about …
–TP
Can we please stifle the “small business” bullpuckey?
I’ve been self-employed for 16 years now. I am a small business. And I have always done my own tax returns. And I say Republicans are either blithering idiots or bald-faced frauds on this subject.
Personal income taxes apply to personal income. That’s the bottom line on Schedule C, not the top line. It’s what’s left in my own pocket after expenses like paying employees, a.k.a. “creating jobs”.
Quick: if my small business grosses $1 million a year, how will my income tax bill change when Obama lets Dubya’s tax rates revert back to Clinton’s rates? If you did not instantly answer “Not enough data”, you have no clue what you’re talking about.
Okay, let’s say I pay $200K for materials, rent, and so forth, and I have 10 workers who each cost me $50K per year. So my personal income — the income that I “pay taxes on at personal rates”, is $300K. So Obama will “raise my taxes.”
Now, why in bleeping hell shouldn’t he? I mean: what makes my $300K personal income from my “small business” more sacred than your $300K salary from a “big” business?
Please understand, the numbers above are hypothetical. (I can only dream of a $300K personal income. You’d have to raise the top marginal tax rate to about 90% before I’d stop dreaming of it.) That should be no surprise. Sole-prop small business owners who make $300K in personal income are as rare as Republicans who talk honestly about small business taxes.
Still, let’s say my $1M business is chugging along with 10 workers, I’m personally pulling $300K out of it, and Obama “raises my taxes” by $50K — the cost of one worker.
One thing I could do is fire one of my workers to make up for my extra taxes. But I have not been paying those workers to sit around and do nothing. To first order, reducing my workforce will reduce the gross income I can generate. So my personal take still goes down.
Another thing I could do is this: hire another worker. If my personal take is going to drop by $50K anyway, I am better off spending that money to “create a new job” rather than send it to the IRS. Crudely speaking, at a 40% marginal rate on my personal income, the net cost to me of that 11th employee is only $30K. If that 11th $50K worker generates only $30K in extra gross revenue, I break even!
Note that, in this story, the 11th job in my small business doesn’t have to be worth its keep. Without my personal tax increase, I would have no incentive to “create a new job” at $50K unless it resulted in at least $50K more revenue. With my personal tax increase, I have more incentive to hire another worker.
It will not do to suggest that Republicans lie about everything. It will not do to suggest that Republicans are wrong about everything. But when they transparently misrepresent one particular thing I know something about …
–TP
Yeah, well, that’s the sleight of hand, conflating business revenue with personal income. Republicans are consistent on this. We saw that with Joe the Plumber
Yeah, well, that’s the sleight of hand, conflating business revenue with personal income. Republicans are consistent on this. We saw that with Joe the Plumber
I thought that what we saw with Joe the Plumber was a fraudulent messenger.
In my observation, small businesses that hire employees (usually BS artists in marketing) to bring in more business are desperate.
Sound small businesses hire employees when the demand for the business’ services/goods is such that, unless they do hire someone, the business will lose customers.
But that’s not always a bad thing.
I thought that what we saw with Joe the Plumber was a fraudulent messenger.
In my observation, small businesses that hire employees (usually BS artists in marketing) to bring in more business are desperate.
Sound small businesses hire employees when the demand for the business’ services/goods is such that, unless they do hire someone, the business will lose customers.
But that’s not always a bad thing.
Tony P
//With my personal tax increase, I have more incentive to hire another worker.//
Why wouldn’t you hire the 11th worker before the rate increase? In fact, why wouldn’t you hire a 12th, 13th etc. up to the market limit where another worker can’t possibly produce enough marginal revenue to justify it under any scenario? Are there capital, personal or other constraints that you haven’t included in this story that could effect that decision and have kept you from adding employees up to the market limit already? Why would those unnamed constraints suddenly go away if the margin tax rate increased?
Tony P
//With my personal tax increase, I have more incentive to hire another worker.//
Why wouldn’t you hire the 11th worker before the rate increase? In fact, why wouldn’t you hire a 12th, 13th etc. up to the market limit where another worker can’t possibly produce enough marginal revenue to justify it under any scenario? Are there capital, personal or other constraints that you haven’t included in this story that could effect that decision and have kept you from adding employees up to the market limit already? Why would those unnamed constraints suddenly go away if the margin tax rate increased?
The project
http://ddddavesproject.blogspot.com/
The project
http://ddddavesproject.blogspot.com/
Why wouldn’t you hire the 11th worker before the rate increase?
He explained this quite clearly.
Why wouldn’t you hire the 11th worker before the rate increase?
He explained this quite clearly.
//He explained this quite clearly.//
I don’t think so.
He asks us to assume that adding a worker increases revenue and pretax-net income. And that he would add an employee if taxes decreased his net take home pay, so that by increasing the scale of his business his net after-tax would be the same. If it is true that simply adding an employee will increase the gross revenue and pre-tax net income then why hasn’t he already added 500 workers? Either the assumption is false or there are other constraints on him. For example, maybe he doesn’t have the time to supervise more workers. Maybe adding workers demands more capital, which he doesn’t have or is unwilling to invest. Maybe he just doesn’t want to make any more personal effort. Whatever the reason: if it was reason enough not to hire and make extra money before the tax rate increase then why will it be more reason to afterwards?
//He explained this quite clearly.//
I don’t think so.
He asks us to assume that adding a worker increases revenue and pretax-net income. And that he would add an employee if taxes decreased his net take home pay, so that by increasing the scale of his business his net after-tax would be the same. If it is true that simply adding an employee will increase the gross revenue and pre-tax net income then why hasn’t he already added 500 workers? Either the assumption is false or there are other constraints on him. For example, maybe he doesn’t have the time to supervise more workers. Maybe adding workers demands more capital, which he doesn’t have or is unwilling to invest. Maybe he just doesn’t want to make any more personal effort. Whatever the reason: if it was reason enough not to hire and make extra money before the tax rate increase then why will it be more reason to afterwards?
For what it’s worth, I’m actually pretty sure at this point that d’d’d’dave is on the level–at least insofar as the development project he described in one of his early posts is to some extent how he described it.
There are a few legible items on the images he posted that allowed me to pinpoint the project’s exact location in Gmaps, with a little analysis of the maps and a stroll through the town’s web site.
It is in fact within 500m of commuter light rail and across the street from the town civic center. And there is in fact a comprehensive redevelopment initiative in that town with recent movement on it. Actually, it looks like a really nice place to live, but that’s neither here nor there.
I can probably even take a pretty reasoned guess at Dave’s real-world identity at this point, but my aim here isn’t to stalk him or out him, just to verify the claims he’s made.
I stake no ground as to whether the entirety of his statements are true, but at this point I have more than enough evidence to give him the benefit of the doubt and a sincere public apology. I’d suggest that people stick to challenging his ideological statements and refrain from gainsaying the things he says about his occupation.
For what it’s worth, I’m actually pretty sure at this point that d’d’d’dave is on the level–at least insofar as the development project he described in one of his early posts is to some extent how he described it.
There are a few legible items on the images he posted that allowed me to pinpoint the project’s exact location in Gmaps, with a little analysis of the maps and a stroll through the town’s web site.
It is in fact within 500m of commuter light rail and across the street from the town civic center. And there is in fact a comprehensive redevelopment initiative in that town with recent movement on it. Actually, it looks like a really nice place to live, but that’s neither here nor there.
I can probably even take a pretty reasoned guess at Dave’s real-world identity at this point, but my aim here isn’t to stalk him or out him, just to verify the claims he’s made.
I stake no ground as to whether the entirety of his statements are true, but at this point I have more than enough evidence to give him the benefit of the doubt and a sincere public apology. I’d suggest that people stick to challenging his ideological statements and refrain from gainsaying the things he says about his occupation.
d’d’d’dave,
I can’t resist quoting Barney Frank here: “I can explain it to you; I can’t understand it for you.” But in all seriousness, let me back up:
My main point was that Republicans shamelessly obfuscate the distinction between gross and net every time they open their yaps about “small business” and “personal rates”.
My subsidiary point was that Republicans who say that a tax increase on the personal income of sole-props making $300K will “cost jobs” are making exactly as much of an “assumption” as you say I am. They ignore “other constraints” exactly as much as I do.
Of course other constraints are involved. But “all else being equal” is the basis for any sort of analysis of marginal effects — disingenuous Republican analysis, my analysis. The difference is, I don’t obfuscate the difference between gross and net.
–TP
d’d’d’dave,
I can’t resist quoting Barney Frank here: “I can explain it to you; I can’t understand it for you.” But in all seriousness, let me back up:
My main point was that Republicans shamelessly obfuscate the distinction between gross and net every time they open their yaps about “small business” and “personal rates”.
My subsidiary point was that Republicans who say that a tax increase on the personal income of sole-props making $300K will “cost jobs” are making exactly as much of an “assumption” as you say I am. They ignore “other constraints” exactly as much as I do.
Of course other constraints are involved. But “all else being equal” is the basis for any sort of analysis of marginal effects — disingenuous Republican analysis, my analysis. The difference is, I don’t obfuscate the difference between gross and net.
–TP
I would in any case propose a moratorium on speculation about dddd’s truthfulness or lack of it. It should not make any difference to his arguments whether they are hypothetical or not.
I would in any case propose a moratorium on speculation about dddd’s truthfulness or lack of it. It should not make any difference to his arguments whether they are hypothetical or not.
Tony P. I’m going to resist looking at the 166% we put on the shelf).
Let’s test the math here:
//Still, let’s say my $1M business is chugging along with 10 workers, I’m personally pulling $300K out of it, and Obama “raises my taxes” by $50K — the cost of one worker.//
~Cost of one worker: $50,000 (given)
~Pre-tax profit attributable to one worker: $30,000. (calculated. $300k/10. Assumes the labor of owner produces no share of the net profit)
~Incremental taxes due to Obama’s rate increase: $50,000 (given)
~Implied incremental rate increase: 16.6% (calculated as $50k / $300k)
//One thing I could do is fire one of my workers to make up for my extra taxes.//
~Pre-tax profit not earned when worker is fired: $30,000 (see above)
~’Extra’ taxes not paid when worker is fired: $50,000 (given)
~Implied ‘extra’ tax rate: 166% (calculated as $50k / $30k. Does not even factor in taxes saved on base rate before Obama’s ‘extra’ rate increase). Looks like the after-tax net has actually increased: lose $30k but gain $50k.
Hmmm? Not sure how this works. But let’s put that confusion on a shelf and move on.
//But I have not been paying those workers to sit around and do nothing. To first order, reducing my workforce will reduce the gross income I can generate. So my personal take still goes down.//
This makes sense because $270k personal take is less than $300k personal take. $270k being calculated as $300k (given) minus $30k (see above). I am assuming still that ‘personal take’ is a pre-tax number.
//Another thing I could do is this: hire another worker. If my personal take is going to drop by $50K anyway, I am better off spending that money to “create a new job” rather than send it to the IRS. Crudely speaking, at a 40% marginal rate on my personal income, the net cost to me of that 11th employee is only $30K. If that 11th $50K worker generates only $30K in extra gross revenue, I break even!//
~Implied marginal rate before Obama’s ‘extra’ rate increase: 23.4% (calculated as 40% minus 16.6%
~Post-tax position after Obamas extra tax rate increase if no hiring or firing taxes place: $180k. (calculated as $300k less $120k of taxes. Taxes are $300k x 40% (given)).
~Pre-tax personal take after hiring an 11th worker who brings in $30k of gross revenues but costs $50k in compensation: $300k +$30k – $50k = $280k.
~Post-tax position after hiring 11th worker: $168k. (calculated as $280k less $112k of taxes. Taxes are $280k x 40% (given)).
Hmmm. This doesn’t quite work either. In fact, for Tony P to be in a post-tax position of $180k after hiring the 11th worker, the worker must bring in $50k in gross revenues; enough to match his compensation.
//Note that, in this story, the 11th job in my small business doesn’t have to be worth its keep.//
I think I’ve shown that this is a false statement.
//Without my personal tax increase, I would have no incentive to “create a new job” at $50K unless it resulted in at least $50K more revenue.//
I agree.
//With my personal tax increase, I have more incentive to hire another worker.//
I agree. But it is not for the reason you have given. You have an incentive to hire 2.76 more employees; and they each must be just as profitable as the original 10. If you don’t, your after-tax position will be $50,000 less than it was before the increase.
~Your after-tax position before the ‘extra tax’ increase was $229,800. This is calculated as $300k minus taxes of $300k x 23.4% (see above).
~To have an after-tax position after the ‘extra tax’ increase you’d have to have pre-tax income of $383,000. This is calculated as $383k minus taxes of $383k x 40% (see above).
~You’ll need to hire 2.76 workers x $30k gross profit per worker to increase your pre-tax income to $383k.
You ended by saying:
//It will not do to suggest that Republicans lie about everything. It will not do to suggest that Republicans are wrong about everything. But when they transparently misrepresent one particular thing I know something about …//
I think I’ll just leave that alone.
You said early in the comment:
//I can only dream of a $300K personal income.//
I think we can see why.
Tony P. I’m going to resist looking at the 166% we put on the shelf).
Let’s test the math here:
//Still, let’s say my $1M business is chugging along with 10 workers, I’m personally pulling $300K out of it, and Obama “raises my taxes” by $50K — the cost of one worker.//
~Cost of one worker: $50,000 (given)
~Pre-tax profit attributable to one worker: $30,000. (calculated. $300k/10. Assumes the labor of owner produces no share of the net profit)
~Incremental taxes due to Obama’s rate increase: $50,000 (given)
~Implied incremental rate increase: 16.6% (calculated as $50k / $300k)
//One thing I could do is fire one of my workers to make up for my extra taxes.//
~Pre-tax profit not earned when worker is fired: $30,000 (see above)
~’Extra’ taxes not paid when worker is fired: $50,000 (given)
~Implied ‘extra’ tax rate: 166% (calculated as $50k / $30k. Does not even factor in taxes saved on base rate before Obama’s ‘extra’ rate increase). Looks like the after-tax net has actually increased: lose $30k but gain $50k.
Hmmm? Not sure how this works. But let’s put that confusion on a shelf and move on.
//But I have not been paying those workers to sit around and do nothing. To first order, reducing my workforce will reduce the gross income I can generate. So my personal take still goes down.//
This makes sense because $270k personal take is less than $300k personal take. $270k being calculated as $300k (given) minus $30k (see above). I am assuming still that ‘personal take’ is a pre-tax number.
//Another thing I could do is this: hire another worker. If my personal take is going to drop by $50K anyway, I am better off spending that money to “create a new job” rather than send it to the IRS. Crudely speaking, at a 40% marginal rate on my personal income, the net cost to me of that 11th employee is only $30K. If that 11th $50K worker generates only $30K in extra gross revenue, I break even!//
~Implied marginal rate before Obama’s ‘extra’ rate increase: 23.4% (calculated as 40% minus 16.6%
~Post-tax position after Obamas extra tax rate increase if no hiring or firing taxes place: $180k. (calculated as $300k less $120k of taxes. Taxes are $300k x 40% (given)).
~Pre-tax personal take after hiring an 11th worker who brings in $30k of gross revenues but costs $50k in compensation: $300k +$30k – $50k = $280k.
~Post-tax position after hiring 11th worker: $168k. (calculated as $280k less $112k of taxes. Taxes are $280k x 40% (given)).
Hmmm. This doesn’t quite work either. In fact, for Tony P to be in a post-tax position of $180k after hiring the 11th worker, the worker must bring in $50k in gross revenues; enough to match his compensation.
//Note that, in this story, the 11th job in my small business doesn’t have to be worth its keep.//
I think I’ve shown that this is a false statement.
//Without my personal tax increase, I would have no incentive to “create a new job” at $50K unless it resulted in at least $50K more revenue.//
I agree.
//With my personal tax increase, I have more incentive to hire another worker.//
I agree. But it is not for the reason you have given. You have an incentive to hire 2.76 more employees; and they each must be just as profitable as the original 10. If you don’t, your after-tax position will be $50,000 less than it was before the increase.
~Your after-tax position before the ‘extra tax’ increase was $229,800. This is calculated as $300k minus taxes of $300k x 23.4% (see above).
~To have an after-tax position after the ‘extra tax’ increase you’d have to have pre-tax income of $383,000. This is calculated as $383k minus taxes of $383k x 40% (see above).
~You’ll need to hire 2.76 workers x $30k gross profit per worker to increase your pre-tax income to $383k.
You ended by saying:
//It will not do to suggest that Republicans lie about everything. It will not do to suggest that Republicans are wrong about everything. But when they transparently misrepresent one particular thing I know something about …//
I think I’ll just leave that alone.
You said early in the comment:
//I can only dream of a $300K personal income.//
I think we can see why.
I disagree in principle. When someone uses a personal anecdote to directly support their argument, that makes the veracity of said anecdote very much germane to the discussion.
I disagree in principle. When someone uses a personal anecdote to directly support their argument, that makes the veracity of said anecdote very much germane to the discussion.
“There are a few legible items on the images he posted that allowed me to pinpoint the project’s exact location in Gmaps, with a little analysis of the maps and a stroll through the town’s web site.”
Is the name “Del Webb” relevant, or have I gone astray?
“There are a few legible items on the images he posted that allowed me to pinpoint the project’s exact location in Gmaps, with a little analysis of the maps and a stroll through the town’s web site.”
Is the name “Del Webb” relevant, or have I gone astray?
So, this is really a discussion about fairness
Yes. That is exactly right.
We have a progressive income tax in this country.
There is a perfectly logical argument that a progressive rate is unfair, because the tax is levied at different rates for different people.
There is a perfectly logical argument that a progressive rate is fair, because the marginal benefit that rich people get from each additional dollar is generally less that what poorer folks get.
Where people land on this generally depends on how much money they have. Not always, but often enough that the word “generally” applies.
The top marginal rate, and the income level at which it kicks in, has been tweaked and tuned for as long as we have had an income tax at all. My bold prediction is that it will continue to be tweaked and tuned, for as long as we have an income tax.
We’re tweaking it again.
As I make it out, dave has two complaints.
One is that an increase in the top marginal rate is going to cost him money. That’s highly likely to be true. All I can say is sometimes policy goes your way, and sometimes it doesn’t. The change that is actually proposed, and which might actually become law, is not going to crush anyone.
Next time we mess around with the rates, maybe it’ll go your way. Bon chance.
If I may sort of read between the lines, dave’s second complaint is that lots of people have negative attitudes toward wealthy people, and he feels this is unfair.
True, and true. Lots of folks have negative attitudes towards wealthy people, and it is unfair.
Lots of people have negative attitudes towards every conceivable group of people in the world. It’s all unfair.
C’est la vie.
As far as the *public policy question* goes, IMVHO the modest increase in the top marginal tax rate, along with the decrease in the rates for everyone else, is a pretty good idea for the present circumstances. When those change, we will no doubt revisit it.
But the level of changes we’re talking about, relative to the range of rates and points at which they kick in that we’ve had over the last 100 years, come damned close to noise.
If that small of an adjustment is going to make the overall situation better, I say it’s a great idea.
So, this is really a discussion about fairness
Yes. That is exactly right.
We have a progressive income tax in this country.
There is a perfectly logical argument that a progressive rate is unfair, because the tax is levied at different rates for different people.
There is a perfectly logical argument that a progressive rate is fair, because the marginal benefit that rich people get from each additional dollar is generally less that what poorer folks get.
Where people land on this generally depends on how much money they have. Not always, but often enough that the word “generally” applies.
The top marginal rate, and the income level at which it kicks in, has been tweaked and tuned for as long as we have had an income tax at all. My bold prediction is that it will continue to be tweaked and tuned, for as long as we have an income tax.
We’re tweaking it again.
As I make it out, dave has two complaints.
One is that an increase in the top marginal rate is going to cost him money. That’s highly likely to be true. All I can say is sometimes policy goes your way, and sometimes it doesn’t. The change that is actually proposed, and which might actually become law, is not going to crush anyone.
Next time we mess around with the rates, maybe it’ll go your way. Bon chance.
If I may sort of read between the lines, dave’s second complaint is that lots of people have negative attitudes toward wealthy people, and he feels this is unfair.
True, and true. Lots of folks have negative attitudes towards wealthy people, and it is unfair.
Lots of people have negative attitudes towards every conceivable group of people in the world. It’s all unfair.
C’est la vie.
As far as the *public policy question* goes, IMVHO the modest increase in the top marginal tax rate, along with the decrease in the rates for everyone else, is a pretty good idea for the present circumstances. When those change, we will no doubt revisit it.
But the level of changes we’re talking about, relative to the range of rates and points at which they kick in that we’ve had over the last 100 years, come damned close to noise.
If that small of an adjustment is going to make the overall situation better, I say it’s a great idea.
//My main point was that Republicans shamelessly obfuscate the distinction between gross and net every time they open their yaps about “small business” and “personal rates”.//
Cite please.
//My subsidiary point was that Republicans who say that a tax increase on the personal income of sole-props making $300K will “cost jobs” are making exactly as much of an “assumption” as you say I am. They ignore “other constraints” exactly as much as I do.
//Of course other constraints are involved.//
coupled with
//I can only dream of a $300K personal income.//
Suggests that the desire to make more exists but something unmentioned constrains you from hiring more workers today.
You insist on //all else being equal// ergo if Obama raised your rates you would continue to be constrained from hiring more workers.
//My main point was that Republicans shamelessly obfuscate the distinction between gross and net every time they open their yaps about “small business” and “personal rates”.//
Cite please.
//My subsidiary point was that Republicans who say that a tax increase on the personal income of sole-props making $300K will “cost jobs” are making exactly as much of an “assumption” as you say I am. They ignore “other constraints” exactly as much as I do.
//Of course other constraints are involved.//
coupled with
//I can only dream of a $300K personal income.//
Suggests that the desire to make more exists but something unmentioned constrains you from hiring more workers today.
You insist on //all else being equal// ergo if Obama raised your rates you would continue to be constrained from hiring more workers.
I don’t think so. My guess could be wrong, but I prefer not to engage in public speculation about anonymous people’s real life identities. In retrospect I probably should’ve just left that paragraph out; it wasn’t relevant to the point I was making.
I don’t think so. My guess could be wrong, but I prefer not to engage in public speculation about anonymous people’s real life identities. In retrospect I probably should’ve just left that paragraph out; it wasn’t relevant to the point I was making.
“My guess could be wrong, but I prefer not to engage in public speculation about anonymous people’s real life identities.”
I wasn’t speculating about the person; I was speculating about the place. I’m thinking a certain Southwestern state, but, as I indicated, I could also be wrong.
“My guess could be wrong, but I prefer not to engage in public speculation about anonymous people’s real life identities.”
I wasn’t speculating about the person; I was speculating about the place. I’m thinking a certain Southwestern state, but, as I indicated, I could also be wrong.
I mean, Del Webb has been dead for thirty-four years, after all. I was referring to one of his communities, which are in a whole bunch of states.
I mean, Del Webb has been dead for thirty-four years, after all. I was referring to one of his communities, which are in a whole bunch of states.
I think the idea is to drop it, Gary
I think the idea is to drop it, Gary
//As I make it out, dave has two complaints.
One is that an increase in the top marginal rate is going to cost him money….
If I may sort of read between the lines, dave’s second complaint is that lots of people have negative attitudes toward wealthy people, and he feels this is unfair.//
This is not exactly my position. It is true it will cost me money. Paying extra money will not effect my standard of living much. (your marginal benefit notion). I have enough true friends so that your second item doesn’t penetrate my shell very often. And I’m sure people can make some valid complaints about me too.
My position is closer to: 1) people think money in rich hands is idle money that the people don’t benefit from. I keep trying to point to real world benefits the people are receiving from my use of money now that they will lose if I pay more taxes. They are arguing for a benefit without counting the cost to them. They truly think that if it costs me, or people like me, that it doesn’t cost them. Then later, when the consequences I was pointing at actually do effect them, they say: ‘those rich folks have conspired against us again.” and 2) I am strongly anchored to your first definition of fair. So much so that I can’t even associate the word ‘fair’ with the second. I understand marginal benefit but to me that is a separate issue than fair. And so it irritates me when someone says ‘fair’ and means the second definition. I’m completely okay with someone saying: ‘it’s not fair but we’re going to do it anyway.” But to try to convince me it’s fair is like saying up is down and down is up. This second complaint (my inability to accept variances in word definitions) is obviously my problem and not someone elses.
//As I make it out, dave has two complaints.
One is that an increase in the top marginal rate is going to cost him money….
If I may sort of read between the lines, dave’s second complaint is that lots of people have negative attitudes toward wealthy people, and he feels this is unfair.//
This is not exactly my position. It is true it will cost me money. Paying extra money will not effect my standard of living much. (your marginal benefit notion). I have enough true friends so that your second item doesn’t penetrate my shell very often. And I’m sure people can make some valid complaints about me too.
My position is closer to: 1) people think money in rich hands is idle money that the people don’t benefit from. I keep trying to point to real world benefits the people are receiving from my use of money now that they will lose if I pay more taxes. They are arguing for a benefit without counting the cost to them. They truly think that if it costs me, or people like me, that it doesn’t cost them. Then later, when the consequences I was pointing at actually do effect them, they say: ‘those rich folks have conspired against us again.” and 2) I am strongly anchored to your first definition of fair. So much so that I can’t even associate the word ‘fair’ with the second. I understand marginal benefit but to me that is a separate issue than fair. And so it irritates me when someone says ‘fair’ and means the second definition. I’m completely okay with someone saying: ‘it’s not fair but we’re going to do it anyway.” But to try to convince me it’s fair is like saying up is down and down is up. This second complaint (my inability to accept variances in word definitions) is obviously my problem and not someone elses.
d’d’d’d’d’etc.: You are upset that the rich are denigrated. OK. But way up at the start of this thread, days ago, *you* came out with the following:
//ESPECIALLY for the rich,// Emphatic bastards. How DARE they excel. We will rise as a people as we devour those who excel! Strive ye people for mediocrity. Strive for ordinariness.
By direct apposition, you suggest, therefore, that “the rich” are equivalent to “those who excel” – and the rest of us, who are not rich, are mired in mediocrity and ordinariness.
I do not in any way agree with this: it is stupid sub-Randian cant.
You may well have made your own money through your own “excellence” – we are not in a position to judge that. But every study of wealth in America, AFAIK, shows that the one thing the rich “excel” at, far above all others, is in choosing to be born to rich parents.
And I resent – greatly – the implication that such “excellence” is to be respected above the qualities shown by others in society who have NOT chosen their parents so wisely, nor dedicated themselves to the pursuit of wealth as the summum bonum
I realize there is not much point in saying this to you, because anyone who assumes a direct equivalence between wealth and excellence is living in a different moral and intellectual universe from mine.
But since you keep on posting here, I thought I should at least mention it before I retire again from the pointless conversation.
d’d’d’d’d’etc.: You are upset that the rich are denigrated. OK. But way up at the start of this thread, days ago, *you* came out with the following:
//ESPECIALLY for the rich,// Emphatic bastards. How DARE they excel. We will rise as a people as we devour those who excel! Strive ye people for mediocrity. Strive for ordinariness.
By direct apposition, you suggest, therefore, that “the rich” are equivalent to “those who excel” – and the rest of us, who are not rich, are mired in mediocrity and ordinariness.
I do not in any way agree with this: it is stupid sub-Randian cant.
You may well have made your own money through your own “excellence” – we are not in a position to judge that. But every study of wealth in America, AFAIK, shows that the one thing the rich “excel” at, far above all others, is in choosing to be born to rich parents.
And I resent – greatly – the implication that such “excellence” is to be respected above the qualities shown by others in society who have NOT chosen their parents so wisely, nor dedicated themselves to the pursuit of wealth as the summum bonum
I realize there is not much point in saying this to you, because anyone who assumes a direct equivalence between wealth and excellence is living in a different moral and intellectual universe from mine.
But since you keep on posting here, I thought I should at least mention it before I retire again from the pointless conversation.
“But every study of wealth in America, AFAIK, shows that the one thing the rich ‘excel’ at, far above all others, is in choosing to be born to rich parents.”
On success.
“But every study of wealth in America, AFAIK, shows that the one thing the rich ‘excel’ at, far above all others, is in choosing to be born to rich parents.”
On success.
dr ngo
First, it is a pointless conversation because people want to try finding fault with the details rather than accept the broader point. The broader point being that $1 in additional taxes taken from me for the public benefit reduces my direct expenditures for the public benefit by at least $2. Frank laid it out very well back in october (see Liberal japonicus’ reference). ps: Frank’s numbers were correct.
Second, some are born wealthy. I was not. My parents were intelligent, charming, loyal to one another, etc. but they were not wealthy. They were solidly middle class. My father was a colonel in the army. It is a more or less distinguished occupation but it does not produce wealth. I started out in 1983 with $4,000 i had saved over the course of two years from my $18,600 per year job. (My peers were buying things while I was saving.) I supplemented that with a $2,000 loan from my parents. It was very helpful but not a large number. Enough of the barefoot through the snow stories…
Third, out of thousands of words that i’ve written you hang onto the word ‘excel’. I suppose ‘stand out’ would have been a more accurate choice of words. I mean standout in the sense of ‘noticeable’ rather than in the sense of ‘special’. Aside from that, pointing to one who excels is not to say that the ones not pointed at don’t excel. It is not even a value judgement about which pursuits are more ‘excellent’ than others. I’m afraid that is in your own mind.
Fourth, there is excellence in every walk of life. There are excellent teachers of piano to 7 year-olds. There are excellent cleaners of toilets. If society values each pursuit equally, why is it that society requisitions a higher proportion from the wealthy than from the piano teacher and the janitor. The wealthy are required to pay 35% of their marginal fruits whereas the piano teacher is not required to give up 35% of his/her piano teaching to the public nor is the janitor required to give up 35% of his/her cleaning tine to the public.
Again, this is pointless. From October, when I first appeared as Frank, until now, the finest progressives just CANNOT accept that a dollar taken from me for the public benefit is two dollars taken from the public benefit. It is measurably inefficient.
Finally, I have become convinced that progressives are more interested in the equality of a population’s standard of living than the absolute value of the standard of living. They are pursuing policies that will decrease the mean, median, and mode standard of living in favor of equality. To exaggerate: if we all lived in equal squalor they’d be happier than if 70 percent were above squalor and 30% were in the squalor.
dr ngo
First, it is a pointless conversation because people want to try finding fault with the details rather than accept the broader point. The broader point being that $1 in additional taxes taken from me for the public benefit reduces my direct expenditures for the public benefit by at least $2. Frank laid it out very well back in october (see Liberal japonicus’ reference). ps: Frank’s numbers were correct.
Second, some are born wealthy. I was not. My parents were intelligent, charming, loyal to one another, etc. but they were not wealthy. They were solidly middle class. My father was a colonel in the army. It is a more or less distinguished occupation but it does not produce wealth. I started out in 1983 with $4,000 i had saved over the course of two years from my $18,600 per year job. (My peers were buying things while I was saving.) I supplemented that with a $2,000 loan from my parents. It was very helpful but not a large number. Enough of the barefoot through the snow stories…
Third, out of thousands of words that i’ve written you hang onto the word ‘excel’. I suppose ‘stand out’ would have been a more accurate choice of words. I mean standout in the sense of ‘noticeable’ rather than in the sense of ‘special’. Aside from that, pointing to one who excels is not to say that the ones not pointed at don’t excel. It is not even a value judgement about which pursuits are more ‘excellent’ than others. I’m afraid that is in your own mind.
Fourth, there is excellence in every walk of life. There are excellent teachers of piano to 7 year-olds. There are excellent cleaners of toilets. If society values each pursuit equally, why is it that society requisitions a higher proportion from the wealthy than from the piano teacher and the janitor. The wealthy are required to pay 35% of their marginal fruits whereas the piano teacher is not required to give up 35% of his/her piano teaching to the public nor is the janitor required to give up 35% of his/her cleaning tine to the public.
Again, this is pointless. From October, when I first appeared as Frank, until now, the finest progressives just CANNOT accept that a dollar taken from me for the public benefit is two dollars taken from the public benefit. It is measurably inefficient.
Finally, I have become convinced that progressives are more interested in the equality of a population’s standard of living than the absolute value of the standard of living. They are pursuing policies that will decrease the mean, median, and mode standard of living in favor of equality. To exaggerate: if we all lived in equal squalor they’d be happier than if 70 percent were above squalor and 30% were in the squalor.
The stereotype: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFabjc6mFk4
The reality: http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/s/stanley-millionaire.html
The stereotype: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFabjc6mFk4
The reality: http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/s/stanley-millionaire.html
Multiplier: http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2006/08/multiplier_effe.html
Each dollar spent on housing construction generates $1.27 in additional economic activity.
As Frank showed in October, every $1 of incremental tax beyond what I already pay, means I spend $2 less on housing construction. (Since I borrow another dollar to match my equity contribution to a project)
Ergo, a marginal $1 dollar of taxation to me reduces economic activity by $2.54 (calculated as $1 x 2 x 1.27). Obama’s folks have claimed that their spending creates a 1.6 multiple. 2.54 is better than 1.6.
ref: http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jan2009/db20090127_702149.htm
[Ed: dave’s link takes us here.]
Multiplier: http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2006/08/multiplier_effe.html
Each dollar spent on housing construction generates $1.27 in additional economic activity.
As Frank showed in October, every $1 of incremental tax beyond what I already pay, means I spend $2 less on housing construction. (Since I borrow another dollar to match my equity contribution to a project)
Ergo, a marginal $1 dollar of taxation to me reduces economic activity by $2.54 (calculated as $1 x 2 x 1.27). Obama’s folks have claimed that their spending creates a 1.6 multiple. 2.54 is better than 1.6.
ref: http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jan2009/db20090127_702149.htm
[Ed: dave’s link takes us here.]
The broader point being that $1 in additional taxes taken from me for [what I think is] the public benefit reduces my direct expenditures for [what I think is] the public benefit by at least $2.
In the thousands of words you have written, I don’t believe that you have ever defined what you mean by the public benefit, but it seems clear that what benefits you and what benefits the public are largely congruent in your mind. The people on this board whose opinions I respect are those who are willing to come to the question of public benefit and accept that it may not be what it seems at first glance.
Simply using the figures in your exaggeration, 30% of the population living in squalor is the price we pay for 70% of the population living at a higher standard. How ‘squalor’ and ‘higher standard’ are defined and how much ‘squalor’ we accept are precisely the crux of the issue, and it is precisely what you avoid. Thus, if 30% of the people are thrown out of their residences because it is necessary to raise the standard for the other 70%, or if the definition of ‘affordable housing’ is such that it leaves some percentage out of luck, that’s just the price we pay for progress. While this might work for an individual community to move people they feel are undesirable out and have them replaced by people who pay more taxes, at some point, some community somewhere else has to absorb those people.
I also think that of the current problems facing the country, I don’t think they can be blamed on your 30% tranche. Note that I am just using your figures and this point doesn’t depend how large or small this group is, though the fact that you are willing to put forward that 1 person out of three may need to live in squalor for the other two to enjoy the full fruits of society is telling.
I’d also point out that this notion of some having to live in squalor is the price that has to be paid so that some can live to their full potential of imported automobiles and the finer things in life is a rather unchristian one at its core. So if you are saying that progressives are adopting a christian standard in their approach to poverty, I’d certainly tend to agree with you.
and thanks for the link to the article and the editor who hyperlinked it. There is no mention I can see of a 2.54 figure.
The broader point being that $1 in additional taxes taken from me for [what I think is] the public benefit reduces my direct expenditures for [what I think is] the public benefit by at least $2.
In the thousands of words you have written, I don’t believe that you have ever defined what you mean by the public benefit, but it seems clear that what benefits you and what benefits the public are largely congruent in your mind. The people on this board whose opinions I respect are those who are willing to come to the question of public benefit and accept that it may not be what it seems at first glance.
Simply using the figures in your exaggeration, 30% of the population living in squalor is the price we pay for 70% of the population living at a higher standard. How ‘squalor’ and ‘higher standard’ are defined and how much ‘squalor’ we accept are precisely the crux of the issue, and it is precisely what you avoid. Thus, if 30% of the people are thrown out of their residences because it is necessary to raise the standard for the other 70%, or if the definition of ‘affordable housing’ is such that it leaves some percentage out of luck, that’s just the price we pay for progress. While this might work for an individual community to move people they feel are undesirable out and have them replaced by people who pay more taxes, at some point, some community somewhere else has to absorb those people.
I also think that of the current problems facing the country, I don’t think they can be blamed on your 30% tranche. Note that I am just using your figures and this point doesn’t depend how large or small this group is, though the fact that you are willing to put forward that 1 person out of three may need to live in squalor for the other two to enjoy the full fruits of society is telling.
I’d also point out that this notion of some having to live in squalor is the price that has to be paid so that some can live to their full potential of imported automobiles and the finer things in life is a rather unchristian one at its core. So if you are saying that progressives are adopting a christian standard in their approach to poverty, I’d certainly tend to agree with you.
and thanks for the link to the article and the editor who hyperlinked it. There is no mention I can see of a 2.54 figure.
LJ
My exaggeration example was not saying that 30% would be lowered in order to raise 70%. I was suggesting that efficiency in the use of money raises the standard of living of the 70% a bit while leaving the 30% where they were. More progress occurs but it is unequally distributed. I was saying that the progressive position values equality more than efficiency and in doing so sacrifices some degree of overall progress. The progressive position leaves everyone at the low value. It does not raise the 70%.
The hyperlink mentions 1.27. I get to 2.54 by multiplying by 2. I even showed my math. Perhaps you missed it. if I keep the marginal tax dollar I pair it with an equal amount of borrowing and spend $2 on housing construction. The two dollars multiplies by 1.27 to 2.54 as it moves through the economy.
One could argue that Obama can borrow a $1 to pair with the tax dollar he takes from me but he will do that anyway. I will not be able to if he takes what would be my equity dollar because i must match borrowing with equity.
Finally, I accept your point that society may want what Obama spends my dollar on more than what I would spend it on generating commerce. We can only speculate. I’ve shown that my dollar would go 100% to employment. I think it is generally accepted that a dollar of pay is better than a dollar of welfare.
LJ
My exaggeration example was not saying that 30% would be lowered in order to raise 70%. I was suggesting that efficiency in the use of money raises the standard of living of the 70% a bit while leaving the 30% where they were. More progress occurs but it is unequally distributed. I was saying that the progressive position values equality more than efficiency and in doing so sacrifices some degree of overall progress. The progressive position leaves everyone at the low value. It does not raise the 70%.
The hyperlink mentions 1.27. I get to 2.54 by multiplying by 2. I even showed my math. Perhaps you missed it. if I keep the marginal tax dollar I pair it with an equal amount of borrowing and spend $2 on housing construction. The two dollars multiplies by 1.27 to 2.54 as it moves through the economy.
One could argue that Obama can borrow a $1 to pair with the tax dollar he takes from me but he will do that anyway. I will not be able to if he takes what would be my equity dollar because i must match borrowing with equity.
Finally, I accept your point that society may want what Obama spends my dollar on more than what I would spend it on generating commerce. We can only speculate. I’ve shown that my dollar would go 100% to employment. I think it is generally accepted that a dollar of pay is better than a dollar of welfare.
LJ
There were two web addresses in my 2:03p comment. The first supports the 1.27 I used for construction spending. The second supports Obama’s 1.6 number for the overall stimulus. The editor hyperlinked only the second one.
LJ
There were two web addresses in my 2:03p comment. The first supports the 1.27 I used for construction spending. The second supports Obama’s 1.6 number for the overall stimulus. The editor hyperlinked only the second one.
“The editor” was me, and I only hyperlinked one because it got truncated by the comments window.
Probably best to learn how to hyperlink, yourself, so that you can make your own points effectively.
“The editor” was me, and I only hyperlinked one because it got truncated by the comments window.
Probably best to learn how to hyperlink, yourself, so that you can make your own points effectively.
“We can only speculate. I’ve shown that my dollar would go 100% to employment. I think it is generally accepted that a dollar of pay is better than a dollar of welfare.”
A lot of people are too young, or too old, or too disabled, to work.
And often a dollar of government spending returns far more dollars in return, too.
“We can only speculate. I’ve shown that my dollar would go 100% to employment. I think it is generally accepted that a dollar of pay is better than a dollar of welfare.”
A lot of people are too young, or too old, or too disabled, to work.
And often a dollar of government spending returns far more dollars in return, too.
How To Link.
How To Link.
Thank you for the correction. I don’t share your assumption that simply multiplying by two based on your assertion of $1 taken away from you and $1 spent on something else is accurate, but the current housing prices do not seem sustainable, and I’m sure that you can’t be arguing that all of the dollars that Obama’s tax revisions will collect are necessarily going to housing. Thus, your multiplier effect is limited to the the theoretical amount of housing stock that can be constructed. As the Obama budget argues for the creation of green retrofitting and the industries to supply such (note that in your link, the multiplier for housing is exceeded by manufacturing), I think that Obama is making the strategic choices that you are unable to.
Also, as others pointed out to you when you were Frank, one must be careful in using personal anecdotes in discussions like this.
Having said that, I would be very interested in knowing more about your work, what safety network you try and create/utilize to make sure that people dislocated by your plans are not put into squalor, and where you would draw the line.
While there might be a philosophical distinction between putting people in squalor or leaving people in squalor, casting out the figure of 1 in 3 indicates that you would tolerate a much larger number of people left behind. Given that the 10% unemployment level is often given as a problematic figure, it seems that even 1 out of 10 might be a problem for the majority of the population.
Thank you for the correction. I don’t share your assumption that simply multiplying by two based on your assertion of $1 taken away from you and $1 spent on something else is accurate, but the current housing prices do not seem sustainable, and I’m sure that you can’t be arguing that all of the dollars that Obama’s tax revisions will collect are necessarily going to housing. Thus, your multiplier effect is limited to the the theoretical amount of housing stock that can be constructed. As the Obama budget argues for the creation of green retrofitting and the industries to supply such (note that in your link, the multiplier for housing is exceeded by manufacturing), I think that Obama is making the strategic choices that you are unable to.
Also, as others pointed out to you when you were Frank, one must be careful in using personal anecdotes in discussions like this.
Having said that, I would be very interested in knowing more about your work, what safety network you try and create/utilize to make sure that people dislocated by your plans are not put into squalor, and where you would draw the line.
While there might be a philosophical distinction between putting people in squalor or leaving people in squalor, casting out the figure of 1 in 3 indicates that you would tolerate a much larger number of people left behind. Given that the 10% unemployment level is often given as a problematic figure, it seems that even 1 out of 10 might be a problem for the majority of the population.
If what d’d’d’dave says is true, why should we limit ourselves to cutting his taxes? Let’s drop them to zero and then give him additional money. All our economic problems will be solved if we just give all the stimulus money to him, since he can achieve a much higher multiplier than anything the government can do with the money.
If what d’d’d’dave says is true, why should we limit ourselves to cutting his taxes? Let’s drop them to zero and then give him additional money. All our economic problems will be solved if we just give all the stimulus money to him, since he can achieve a much higher multiplier than anything the government can do with the money.
JL, KCinDC
I can explain it for you but I can’t understand it for you.
JL, KCinDC
I can explain it for you but I can’t understand it for you.
Nice try at a comeback, but if you don’t understand Obama’s suggestion about creating green industries as a basis for the recovery, it’s you who is having the problems understanding.
Nice try at a comeback, but if you don’t understand Obama’s suggestion about creating green industries as a basis for the recovery, it’s you who is having the problems understanding.
To “d’d’d’dave”:
A very wise person (and a relatively wealthy small business person and former associate of mine) once made a point to me: the clearest evidence for airframe icing, that bane of pilots everywhere, comes from… ice. You can get the forecast, look at the cloud cover, look up the temperature to dew-point spread and make a guess, but if you see ice on a wing, then you know the ice exists.
Likewise, you can talk about investment and incentives and trickle down and multipliers all you like, but the real test of an economic policy comes from the results. For at least eight years, the American government tried to shore up the economy by cutting taxes and claiming to hold the line on spending, not caring about the inequality between rich and poor, and what happened? A trillion plus dollar train wreck happened. You can’t use theories to argue against the facts. Your government, your society tried the low tax, low regulation route, and it failed catastrophically. All of the discussion of the current economic policies needs to happen with that simple fact firmly in mind. President Obama would not now occupy the White House, and his policies would not stand a chance in the Congress American voters would have elected if the Republican policies had succeeded. Forget that, and you can easily drift off in a discussion based on fanciful theories about what should work.
On the fairness of a progressive taxation system, I have two related comments. First, money exists at least partly as a way of apportioning labour. Someone who figures out a way to provide a good or a service without labour will generally do so, and undercut the competition. So a person with more money has, in general, the ability to command the labour of other people. This raises the first argument; if you choose to accumulate the resources to control the labour of other people, should you not also make some contribution on their behalf to the common resources (infrastructure, defence, etc.) that we all need to live? The second comment flows out of that: the market does not have the moral competence to judge human beings, because the market judges commodities, and that word does not apply to human beings.
To “d’d’d’dave”:
A very wise person (and a relatively wealthy small business person and former associate of mine) once made a point to me: the clearest evidence for airframe icing, that bane of pilots everywhere, comes from… ice. You can get the forecast, look at the cloud cover, look up the temperature to dew-point spread and make a guess, but if you see ice on a wing, then you know the ice exists.
Likewise, you can talk about investment and incentives and trickle down and multipliers all you like, but the real test of an economic policy comes from the results. For at least eight years, the American government tried to shore up the economy by cutting taxes and claiming to hold the line on spending, not caring about the inequality between rich and poor, and what happened? A trillion plus dollar train wreck happened. You can’t use theories to argue against the facts. Your government, your society tried the low tax, low regulation route, and it failed catastrophically. All of the discussion of the current economic policies needs to happen with that simple fact firmly in mind. President Obama would not now occupy the White House, and his policies would not stand a chance in the Congress American voters would have elected if the Republican policies had succeeded. Forget that, and you can easily drift off in a discussion based on fanciful theories about what should work.
On the fairness of a progressive taxation system, I have two related comments. First, money exists at least partly as a way of apportioning labour. Someone who figures out a way to provide a good or a service without labour will generally do so, and undercut the competition. So a person with more money has, in general, the ability to command the labour of other people. This raises the first argument; if you choose to accumulate the resources to control the labour of other people, should you not also make some contribution on their behalf to the common resources (infrastructure, defence, etc.) that we all need to live? The second comment flows out of that: the market does not have the moral competence to judge human beings, because the market judges commodities, and that word does not apply to human beings.
There are so many interesting comments here. Personally, I can hardly wait til I have the “option” to buy health insurance at an “affordable” cost… or, heh… since we are going to have guarenteed approval, maybe I should just wait until I am ill and require critical care… and use the money until then to buy nice vacations, and cool stuff!
yeah… I don’t think this will work well… sorry. I would like for it to work well, but I really don’t see it.
There are so many interesting comments here. Personally, I can hardly wait til I have the “option” to buy health insurance at an “affordable” cost… or, heh… since we are going to have guarenteed approval, maybe I should just wait until I am ill and require critical care… and use the money until then to buy nice vacations, and cool stuff!
yeah… I don’t think this will work well… sorry. I would like for it to work well, but I really don’t see it.