Taking your stuff for the "common good."
 

I don't usually post in politics, but this article I read today courtesy of Fark drives me insane:

Sen. Clinton at fund raiser

Here's the relevant quote:
I'm not a hard-core conservative. Despite thinking like one, I've never actually voted for one in the 7 years I've been able to vote. But this quote drives me INSANE. The top tax bracket pays 49% of their income to the government. They pay HALF of what they make. I know a lot of people in that bracket. They're not bad people, they don't oppress anyone. And yet they are required to give a full HALF of their paycheck to the government.

The government! The same institution that, year after year, proves that what it does best is squander money. On behalf of the common good? Fuck the common good! The government wouldn't know what that was if it hit them in the ass, and this Democrat wants to take more money to get this done?

And when the hell did we vote and change this to a socialist nation anyhow?

The out-of-context quote is referring to rolling back the Bush tax cut, which all economists know is inevitable. We currently have the largest deficit in American history and all reasonable persons know that this cannot last.

...Hillary Clinton told several hundred supporters -- some of whom had ponied up as much as $10,000 to attend -- to expect to lose some of the tax cuts passed by President Bush if Democrats win the White House and control of Congress.

"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

Damn that socialist !

I'm going to suggest that the rich be happy that they give so much to the government. The rich do get pretty good representation/protection for their money. The poor are the army grunts, workers in the factories and the consumers of the rich's products. The poor in essence protect and grow the assets of the rich. In turn, the rich provide for the poor, at least enough that the poor don't kill the rich and take their assets. The rich should be happy to pay 49% of their income; they get to keep the other 51% of the millions and no violent worker's rebellion occurs.

Here's an interesting quote from a well-known socialist about the aforementioned tax cuts:

Look, that's plain ridiculous. You're basically saying that the rich owe that money to the poor, and if they don't pay up, they should be turned on/assaulted/killed and have all of their assets taken. How can you possibly justify that? I just as well turn this on its head:

The rich are the entrepreneurs, investors, and creators of all of the poor's products. The rich in essence make possible and provide the assets of the poor. In turn, the poor work for the rich, at least enough that the rich don't throw the poor into work camps and withhold their assets. The poor should be happy to only pay less than 15% of their income; they get to keep the other 85+% to use as they choose, unlike the rich, and no institutionalized slavery occurs.

Wow, that sounded really intelligent. Thanks for playing.

I don't think the quote is out of context, I read the whole article. I suppose what I object to most is the assumption that the government knows best, and that even if it did, could effectively do anything about it. This has been proven wrong over and over again, both in domestic efforts and abroad, for at least the last 50 years. When will people give up this pipe dream?

Before advocating taking more money away from any taxpayer, perhaps the government should do a better job managing what it does seize.

I find it quite appalling that the government would fail the requirements of Sarbanes Oxley if it were subject to the same standards of accounting controls.

Uncle Sam's Audit Gap

If Uncle Sam were a public company, the feds would be all over it about accounting. Six years after Congress completed the most sweeping reform of federal financial management in 40 years, 83% of the federal agencies subject to it aren't in full compliance with the law.

The accounting is so bad that no one knows how much it's costing taxpayers in erroneous payments and inefficiency. Reports from the U.S. General Accounting Office indicate that $100 billion annually wouldn't be unreasonable. That's equal to an Enron (otc: ENRNQ - news - people )--or a tax cut--every year.

Before we look at those big money problems, something less problematic but less known and very awkward deserves attention.

The chief arbiter of auditing isn't audited. Action last week by the U.S. Senate and the Securities and Exchange Commission seems certain to bring federal oversight of the accounting profession with the assistance of the SEC. Yet the SEC, which administers securities-related fees that last year totaled $2 billion, doesn't produce audited financial statements of its own operations, as do 36 of the most significant federal agencies.

The SEC and 25 other independent agencies aren't subject to federal law requiring audited financials similar to those of public companies. Still, a dozen of those agencies, including the Federal Communications Commission and Federal Trade Commission, have provided them.

The issue isn't possible accounting shenanigans, just good business practice. Maintaining audited financials is essential to efficient management.

The SEC also is the only agency that doesn't have a top-level management position equivalent to chief financial officer. As required of all agencies, it has an inspector general who can conduct audits. But responsibility for financial management and accounting is with the office of comptroller, which lies at the bottom of the SEC organization chart.

The SEC blames lack of budget authorization for its audit absence. Of course, keeping public-company accounting in line should be the priority. But it's just plain embarrassing that the SEC doesn't practice what it regulates.

Pending legislation would require audited financials from the SEC and all other agencies having budget authority greater than $25 million. The SEC recently told lawmakers that's a good idea. But it noted that in addition to funding problems, its regulatory power over accounting makes it difficult to contract with outside accountants to prepare for audits, as do other smaller agencies.

That's a ludicrous excuse. The SEC lives and breathes auditing. It might have to hike headcount. But it certainly has the institutional know-how. And funding presumably could be found in the huge 66% increase in the SEC's budget--to $766 million--proposed by accounting oversight legislation that the Senate passed last week.

Now, about that $100 billion of problems among the 24 major agencies currently audited by law.

Since 1997, the U.S. Treasury has reported federal accounts on a combined basis, with an overall accounting opinion issued by the General Accounting Office. 2001 was the fifth consecutive year that the GAO was unable to judge "whether the consolidated statements are fairly stated in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles." The GAO says that "the government did not maintain adequate systems or have sufficient, reliable information."

One result is erroneous payments, either via plain mistakes or vulnerability to fraudulent claims. Estimates just for Medicare, food stamps and earned income tax credit refunds alone totaled $21 billion in 2001. Estimates, much less exact amounts, for the entire government are unknown. $100 billion would be 19% of Uncle Sam's $515 billion net operating cost last year.

The fine print of the tidy-looking Financial Report of the United States Government reveals painfully basic accounting deficiencies. For example, to make the statements balance, there's a $17.3 billion decrease to net operating cost labeled "unreconciled transactions." That's up from $4.8 billion in 2000.

According to the GAO, a major reason is failure of agencies to accurately reconcile their records of disbursements to the Treasury's records of actual payments. That's as basic as reconciling a checkbook with bank statements.

The balance sheet is equally crude. The negative $6.5 trillion total net position isn't derived via balanced accounting entries. Instead, the $7.4 trillion of liabilities is simply subtracted from $926 billion of assets. And the GAO reported that substantial amounts of government-owned plant, equipment and inventories, on the books at $491 billion, couldn't be verified to exist or have their value substantiated.

Though 16 of the 24 major agencies required to provide audited financials received a "clean" opinion, the GAO found it often was achieved only by "extensive ad hoc procedures" and "billions of dollars in adjustments"--much like a taxpayer organizing a shoebox of financial documents on April 14.

Just preparing a tax return or audited financials isn't financial management. That requires accurately maintaining records on a current basis. The auditors of 20 of the 24 federal agencies deemed the financial management systems significantly deficient in meeting federal requirements enacted in 1996.

The Department of Defense, whose $764 billion cost for 2001 (including retiree health benefits) is by far the largest of any agency, is the major offender.* Intramural rivalry has created a rat's nest of 1,100 financial systems. A $200 million two-year plan announced in April aims to design an integrated architecture of just 100 systems. Implementation will take at least four more years.

Elsewhere, some meaningful progress has been made. The number of agencies able to attain clean audit opinions has tripled since 1996. And the GAO reports significant improvement in tracking loan programs at key agencies such as the Department of Agriculture.

A priority of President Bush's management agenda is more aggressive implementation of federal financial management laws enacted between 1990 and 1996. But the goal of having the government operate as if it's Uncle Sam Inc. is up against the politics of spending money, not saving it, and the ability to literally paper over the consequences of sloppy accounting.

It's much easier to raise the debt limit, dip into the Social Security trust fund and otherwise jigger appropriations. In fact, apart from the critical aspects of disclosure and nefarious intent, the techniques of politicos have much in common with the public-company accounting shenanigans they now seek to end.

Now that's a progressive attitude. All you're saying is that the poor owe something to the rich for being wealthy...that makes sense.

Again, we must be so thankful that the rich don't just enslave us all. Aren't they benevolent? We could be working in the salt mines!
But you provided no context, hence out of context.

Bush is not for small government. He is spending money like a drunken sailor, has formed a new branch of the government and wants to create new exceptions to our personal liberties. Desn't that stink of "the government knows best?"

I would agree that you are right, except the rich are in the overwhelming minority and would lose an all-out class war, badly. I didn't say that the situation I described was morally correct; however, the situation is realistic. If the rich don't provide for some social welfare, bloody revolutions will occur. I have history as a MAJOR factor in favor of my position, what do you have ?

Wonderwench,

I agree with your assessment of the problem of government waste. Of course, creating a new branch of government is not the right way to go about saving money.

"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

Biggest problem is the fallacy of the government giving you back your own money they confiscated from you in the first place.

We have an enormous budget problem right now. I wouldn't pin it all on the Executive Branch - Congress spends an unforgiveable amount on pork. Both parties are complicit in this abuse.

I for one, am just relieved that at least SOMEONE in my government is willing to accept that we are in trouble, and attempt to fix it. Yes, I am in N.Y.

Wow cthulu23, way to miss the sarcasm. :rolleyes: On a serious note, are you then suggesting that the rich automatically owe something to the poor?

i'll tell you what i think on that, shades, though you did not ask me:
i would think that anyone who extracts profit from the social system should be willing to contribute something to the maintenance of the system. since historically private philanthropies and churches were totally unable to provide anything like this, system maintenance occurs through taxation. the idea that capitalist markets, left to themselves, would provide for the greater social good is also a fantasy, not supported by even the slightest historical analysis.
the way in which the thread was framed is entirely within the purview of the planet limbaugh, a funny little world in which capitalism is not a social formation, taxes are simply taking your stuff, the sky is green and people walk upside down.

The idea that the state is better able support people better than themselves has been proven to be far more of a fallacy than that Capitalism Is Utopia.

The disproof of your claims, roachboy, lie in the vastly higher standards of living in countries with some semblence of a free market vs. those that are centrally planned - and in the higher rates of employment and standards of living in those countries with a lower tax burden.

I never said that but, since you brought it up, I have to agree with Roachboy. Those that benefit most from this society should be obligated to help support it. This is not a historically controversial statement.

Shades, I think history lesson might be in order.

Once a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, America was going through a period called the Guilded Age. The Guilded Age had the rich who exploited workers and co-opted the political process for their own financial gain. The Guilded Age is a great example that business are simply in business to make money and will pay workers the lowest wages possible. Workers lived in horrid housing conditions and had little chance for advancement. Eventually, workers saw that their labor was making the factory owner rich and the laborer was recieving almost nothing. The workers decided that this was quite unfair and something had to be done...

This situation has happened in almost every industrializing country and one of two outcomes are possible. Either, social justice/welfare programs are put in place to placate the poor's anger and improve their situation, or worker's rebellions WILL OCCUR, not "might", WILL.

The rich get to keep their wealth and the perks it brings in a capitalistic society (good legal council, political influence, material posessions, good education for their offspring), in exchange for paying for social welfare programs.

The rich WILL pay for social welfare because they have the most to lose in a worker's rebellion, and the loss to social welfare is significantly less than in a revolution (money, status, life, ect). Practicality not ideology.

So what is a fair ratio? According to the Tax Foundation, in 2001, the following income groups paid the corresponding share of total federal income taxes:

- The top 1% - 33.9%
- The top 5% - 53.3%
- The top 10% - 64.9%
- The top 25% - 82.9%
- The top 50% - 96.1%
- The bottom 50% - 3.9%

Link

The top 50% of taxpayers pay nearly all of the federal income tax. How much more concentrated does it need to be to make you think it is "fair"?

Don't you think it is plausible that as fewer and fewer taxpayers pay for the government we are making the problems of elite control even worse? If The Rich are paying the entire bill, don't you see how they might think they should determine all of the rules by which they operate? All such concentration does is exacerbate class warfare and divisiveness.

Wow, I never realized that the rich pay so much in taxes. I guess the rich really are getting raked over the coals on April 15th.

http://www.faireconomy.org/images/In...Worth_2001.gif
http://www.faireconomy.org/images/In..._Net_Worth.gif
http://www.faireconomy.org/images/In...2-98_small.gif
http://www.faireconomy.org/images/In...ual_Retire.gif
http://www.faireconomy.org/research/wealth_charts.html

The graphs are from the Levy Institute at Bard college.

http://www.levy.org/2/index.asp?

So what is your point, other than that The Rich are Rich?

The tax rate on the wealthiest Americans, as well as corporations, has declined sharply since the 1950's. If anything, more and more taxpayers (ie - the poor) or shouldering more of the tax burden, although they are the least able to afford it. See Ctizens for Tax Justice for details.

Just out of curiosity then, what should the tax burden be on The Rich? Should we go back to upper brackets of 90%?

How many of the lower income jobs would go away, btw, if we sucked capital out of the private sector and handed it over to the government (which cannot account for billions and billions and billions of the money it already confiscates)?

I think that corporations should pay more of their share...there are many Fortune 500 companies that pay no taxes at all, although they reap great benefits from out society.

I don't necessarily feel that individual tax rates need to go up any higher, but it doesn't make sense to me that the lowest brackets, who have been losing income. should pay more of the taxes than those that have been accruing more wealth. Where's the fairness in that?

i just reread my post, and sure enough i didnt say anything about central planning---i could if you like, should it be germain at some point---but i just isnt now.
what i did say about the inability of capitalism on its own, without the intervention of the state, to provide even a semblance of social equity is not disputable. read anything about the actual history of capitalism, and you see it is true. of course, it might jar loose some of the limbaugh-specific sophistries you like to trot out, wonderwench, so i suspect you will safely protect yourself from any untoward facts and go on your way. i salute your passing.

cthulhu, what does "Fair Share" mean? Please define it.

roachboy, salute away. I hope your arm doesn't get tired waiting for me to pass away. I don't intend that little maneuvre for many years hence.

Read anything about the history of peoples who have lived in systems other than free markets, and you will see a rather dismal way of living short, brutish lives. The wrongs you attribute to Capitalism were actually performed by people who violated the concept of voluntary, informed exchange. Fraud, coercion and the like are abuses which should be addressed by the law. These are a far cry, however, from micro-managing lawful conduct, which is the trend.

I never watch, read or listen to Rush Limbaugh, btw. Just thought I should clear up that little misperception on your part.

Hmmm...nowhere did I mention "Fair Share." I said "more of their share," which I guess you could define as greater than zero. Or is that socialistic?

Given that these corporations pay employees who pay income taxes, a vast amount of their revenue ends up in the tax coffers.

There are many Fortune 500 companies which go through periods of net losses. How would you go about assessing taxes on them? How many lay-offs would you be willing to tolerate so that the government could collect taxes from money-losing entities?

naturally, you misread what i wrote again. wonderwench.

this is getting tiresome.

No, I read it quite clearly: the little jabs in which you accuse me of being a ditto-head and of ducking out of the conversation if I don't agree with your "facts". I was wordplaying with the "I salute your passing" comment, but I see you did not grok it.

In a way, nanofever, I'm gratified that the best response you can come up with is thinly veiled sarcasm and blatantly false claims.

Your view of history is entirely wrong, laughably so. Nowhere on Earth have the poor risen up and taken over a nation, or even launched a rebellion that lasted for more than a few months. I suppose you were thinking of Russia or China, but only the most credulous person could think that those people were enjoying a "people's revolution" and not living under an ungloved iron fist. You may have been thinking of England's Protestant revolution, but that was quickly hijacked by the corrupt who always wield power, then ceded back to the monarchy, so that hardly counts either.

As for roachboy, like I said, I've never voted for a Republican, but you can still pretend I listen to Limbaugh if it makes you feel better. I like how anyone who isn't agreeing with you is a Limbaugh fan, nice polar world you live in.

I'm not against the government providing some social services, but it does an abysmal job with what it has. Millions upon millions of dollars are just plain lost. Have you ever lost a million dollars? I hardly think the solution is to hand the government more money, and I hardly think taking more money from someone who already gives half of their money to the government is right. Think about it- until next week, you'd have been working for Uncle Sam since the New Year. Tax businesses better, close corporate loopholes by all means. Preferably, make the government actually spend its money somewhat wisely. But it just isn't right to take more than half of a man's salary, I don't care how many millions he makes.

Money that was provided by the workers, not the company.

Quote:

There are many Fortune 500 companies which go through periods of net losses. How would you go about assessing taxes on them? How many lay-offs would you be willing to tolerate so that the government could collect taxes from money-losing entities?

You tax them based on their profits, maybe? Just like they used to be taxed?

Taxing business is not a radical idea....should corporate entities be exempt from the social contract? They have the same rights as you are I, they should have the same obligations.

The logic that says "eventually my money will interact with the government, so I don't have to pay taxes" is total bullshit. Given that a good number of corporations outsource jobs, the logic descends to a new, lower level of bullshit. If a corporation doesn't generate any revenue, it doesn't have to pay taxes - kinda of like the unemployed. However, the CEOs will still get taxes on personal income to avoid any loophole tactics.

shades--come on---first, the "taking your stuff for the common good" as a way of understanding taxation in general and the problems with the bush tax cut in particular is straight limbaughland--doesnt matter if you listen to him or just mime the discourse, the source is the same. as a way of thinking about what taxation is, it gets you precisely nowhere. it give you no way of thinking about why taxation was developed in its modern form, what the problems/conflicts that drove it might have been. take some responsability for your terminology.
if you do not agree with it, dont use it.

fact is that profit would not be extractable without a minimal degree of socail stability. the redistribution of wealth is fundamental to that stability. anyone who has read **any** history of capitalism in the empirical world would understand this.

that you do not like taxes is fine--but it is not a coherent view of what taxation does.

and i could not care less how you vote.

nanofever,

Do you understand the difference between revenue and profits? Income taxes are based upon net income after the deduction of allowable expense deductions. If you want to drive even more outsourcing of jobs, then by all means, assess taxes on revenue.

As to the benefits of corporations being located in a geography, just ask any small town about how it fares when a large plant goes out of business. There is a multiplier effect of having thriving businesses in an economy. We should be doing more to encourage them to stay than adopting policies which exacerbate relocation.

There is plenty of empirical data, btw, which disproves the negative impact of outsourcing. A small fraction of job loss is due to it. I'd still prefer, however, to encourage the creation of jobs in the domestic economy by not worsening the situation for employers.

She actually said that she intended to take their things (~stuff) for the common good, not me. I never said I didn't like taxes period, I said taking more than half of your income is a fucking crime. Before you respond this time, try to read what I wrote instead of just ascribing a generally far, far, right point of view to me then tearing it down.

And why the fixation with Limbaugh? Did he run over your dog or something?

gee, silly me--i thought that you selective quotation aimed distorting what clinton said, combined with the title you gave to the thread you created, combined with the rant about taxes and the horrible plight endured by the wealthy and the implication of the irrationality of the state pointed in a particular political direction.

again, it makes no difference to me whether you occupy that a far right position or if you simply reproduce all the discourse, even as you disavow the position. because the discourse is itself intellecutally and politically bankrupt, i feel no compunction about holding you to account for its use. and dont pretend that there was no political motive behind your opening gambit on the thread.
it would just be pathetic.

as for limbaugh--well he is just a fountain of emptiness and for me not much more than a placeholder really. this idiotic view of taxation--which comes down to a rather snippy claim (taxes suck, man...like they really suck) with no analytic value whatsoever is something that i associate with him. maybe because he has been trafficking in it for years. but there i go again---who knows--- maybe beneath every point-for-point reproduction of his position there always lurks a powerful and independent thinker like yourself. i should obviously be more careful.

btw my dog is fine. i am sure that if he cared, he would be happy about your inquiry concerning his health. he doesnt seem to care about alot of the things i say to or about him either. on this at least, we are in the same general position. huskies are the great leveller, dog-wise

I'm fine with assessing corporate tax by revenue and not profit, even if it does cause outsourcing. Since "plenty of empirical data, btw, which disproves the negative impact of outsourcing", I don't see a problem here.

/please people, re-read your posts before shooting yourself in the foot with contradictory advocacy - in the same freaking post.

Shader- Roachboy covered what I was going to say about Capitalistic theory and the role of government in *stable* capitalism.

Again roachboy, I'm glad it's all black and white for you. How silly of me to misinterpret a statement about a Senator's intention to take more money from people directly and employ it for the common good, which the government is uniquely unqualified to do. I never said that all taxes were bad, I said excessively high individual taxes are. I'm tired of seeing politicians take shots at easy targets like "the rich" and "evil companies" just to pander to the lowest common denominator around election time.

In your spirit, I'm going to ascribe an argument to you that you didn't make. roachboy, why do you think that people should give all of their money to the government? It's pathetic and disingenuous to claim that the government is the source of all opportunity, and therefore deserves all of the rewards that any opportunity produces. When your next post is elevated past sophomoric debate tricks, I'll respond.

I'm glad your dog is fine.

French rebellion, remember when they cut off all the rich people's heads?

but i didnt say that. shades--i didnt say anything like that at any point---but whatever--this is tedious----look, the main point i wanted to make was the point i started with--read the part up to the limbaugh thing and forget about the rest, if it makes you feel less attacked. you want to talk about that, then fine, lets talk about it.

as things went on this thread, i got diverted by wonderwench into side issues, and then ended up in this goofball exchange with you---the commentary about limbaugh was a side thing from the outset----a shorthand way of referring to an entire school of idiot views of taxation----i maintain my position about how you framed your arguments throughout, but find my committment to much beyond that slipping away----maybe its just late, maybe its that i started watching "the fog of war" and find myself alternating between being stuck in a kind of strange fascination with macnamara and a visceral dislike of philip glass, maybe its that this is not getting anywhere and seems unlikely to---i am not sure---but there we are.

btw--just to say it--none of this is personal, so far as i am concerned. hope you understand that.

roachboy, fair enough. But I'd rather see businesses taxed and held to tax laws, no loopholes, than see individuals have to pay up. I'm pretty sure that corporations make more money than the CEOs that work for them (most times, sadly not always, SCO) so it just makes more sense to go to them for the money.

As I'm not a politician and don't work for one, I'm not sure I can have political reasons for doing things per se. Seeing as how both parties are Hellbent on taking as much money as spending it as fast as they can lately, I don't think it's politically biased of me one way or the other to oppose higher individual taxes. Perhaps that's the proper way to frame the question that started in my head with that article- is the government wrong to raise individual taxes, when they're already at such a high percentage, while allowing businesses all kinds of loopholes and allowing money to be funneled and misspent and just plain lost? I say, no.

Side note- French Revolution? What, seriously? They cleared out some monarchy, got saddled with bureaucrats and petty nobles who quickly solidified their power base, did a bad job of running the place, and let Napoleon take over. How was that a success? I can't help but notice that the poor in France aren't exactly running the show these days, and haven't been for quite some time.

A little bit of over-generalization there, wouldn't you say?

Deficits do not pose a problem for our economy (in fact they help it--somebody gets to keep the interest), interest rates pose the problem.

It is still being argued in the economic realm, but:

You CANNOT state "largest deficit" without stating the corresponding interest rate. We are not paying off the deficit (and we probably never will) we are making payments on the national debt. That being said, if the the deficit were decreased by 25% but the interest rose 15% (not a real number--just an example) we would actually being paying more.

We are a Free-Market system and must stay that way to sustain growth. Tax increases, never, ever, ever, ever cause growth in a Free-Market, they hinder it. The logic behind it is simple; the money must come from somewhere. Tax increases will always trickle down to the consumer--always. This has a negative affect on the demand. Demand goes down, supply goes down, prices go up again, yada, yada, yada.

Free the money in the economy and the system WILL ALWAYS seek equilibrium. It is a slow process but that is the nature of the beast.

That being said, we ABSOLUTELY MUST KEEP government spending in check (which it isn't now).

Very simple equation to market growth:

Lower tax rates + gov't spending cannot increase by more than 4% = Healthy Economy. If the spending by the government is kept in check, we will be o.k.

BTW - I keep up with economic news and I haven't heard any economist state anything like the line quoted above. The only negative I am hearing is in regards to the spending increases--a problem of the President and Congress (both parties).

There is a reason there is so much good news coming out regarding the economy. The last thing we should do is stifle it.

*gets off of soapbox and shuts up*

*gets back up on the soapbox, because I am a dumbass and forgot something*

We can go back and forth, each side having points.

I would actually like to provide a solution, one that has proven itself.

An amendment to the Constitution that puts a cap on gov't spending and budget increases.

We have it here in Colorado and its called TABOR (Taxpayer Bill Of Rights). Almost every state got hurt in the recession, but Colorado got hurt less because of TABOR.

Here is a link to a local thinktank regarding TABOR

http://www.independenceinstitute.org...le.aspx?ID=998

It is the only way to curb the growth of the gov't--politicians will not do it. We, the people, have to set the limits and make them come to us and ask for more. That way they have to prove their case to us - or - no money.

*gets back down off of soapbox and puts it away for the night*

Jesus Christ, people. I'm a big old firebrand around here and this argument is making me nervous. Stop bickering.

The solution of "The government should spend less" is a great idea and all, but even if we did manage to cap spending the rich should still pay more because they have more money to pay. Stuff has to get paid for -- welcome to the country. It's a group effort. We all have to give our strength to the nation. In this case, that means money. United we stand, unless it means we don't get all of our $4 million paycheck -- thank god most of our $2 million bonus isn't taxable!

So our huge deficit isn't the problem, it's government spending? Isn't one the consequence of the other?

Even Alan Greenspan noted that our current budgetary situation needed to change, although he said we should cut social security rather than roll back the tax cuts and decrease Bush's insane spending level. He never misses an opportunity to flex his objectivist muscles.

Even the National Review sees the inevitability of tax increases....How long are the poor and middle-class supposed to wait for the supply-side trickle down? They've seen their real wages shrink for the last twenty years.

Thats because the poor who took over the country became the rich. I never said it was a success, but you said the poor have NEVER taken over a country. Also, you can add Cuba and Boliva and a number of other South American and African countries. The point I was making is that the poor do rise up and kill the rich every once in a while.

If you start taxing revenue instead of profit, be prepared for businesses to fail. The job loss will not be due to outsourcing; it will be due to lack of positive cash flow generation.

Off topic: There is an interesting book, Poisons of the Past, in which the author theorizes that the French Revolution was largely the result of ergot poisoning. The French peasants ate a mainly rye based diet; ergot is a mould which is much like LSD and grows on rye.

Excellent posts, poco-vino! I hope you get on the soap box more often!

This is reminiscent of the theory that the Roman empire fell due to their heavy use of leaded glass. Like the ergot theory, it is interesting but it oversimplifies the argument and ignores many other historical factors.

Yes, it is an oversimplication. It is worthwhile to consider, however, the implications for societal development when a large portion of the population is "poisoned".

I think that the standard list of causes for the French Revolution sound much more plausible...see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_revolution#Causes
What exactly is the iomplication for the ergot theory...that revolution can only be born from irrational minds?

Anyway, we are starting to drift far away from the original conversation here.

I will address it in a new thread. It is a rather intersting theory.

Back on topic

*soapbox is in place*

In regards to Bartlett's column on raising taxes; he seems to be going to different directions at one time. I have read his previous articles and they do not really match up well with the one you posted.

1) Bartlett is a supply-sider, of sorts. I have never heard of a supply-side economist proposing raising taxes (doesn't mean it hasn't/won't happen, it just goes against the grain of the theory/Laffer Curve). The only time a supply-side economist will back raising taxes is when the marginal tax-rate is to the left of the equilibrium point. You loose your membership card in the Supply-Side Club if you propose taxes going to the right of equilibrium.

That said, his comments a) do not make much sense and b) do not match previous opinions of his.

Bruce Bartlet: "I think the first President Bush somehow convinced himself that tax increases were what caused the economy to grow in the 1980s and was disappointed when the economy didn't rebound immediately after he raised taxes."

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/b...20030530.shtml

Bruce's article just a few months prior, entitled "Get on with the tax cuts"

They will work and save less and put more effort into saving taxes. All other things being equal, a reduction in marginal tax rates with average rates unchanged will always lead to increased output.

Bottom line: While your comment was well-stated and correct, the source was ambiguous. Imagine if you will, two months from now, in a different thread, I propose raising taxes. Would you not call me a hypocrite?

The only way I could legitimately make that statement would be to follow it up with a lengthy discussion explaining why my views changed. I would have to hear Bruce's side to fully understand the dramatic change, unless he was trying to mean something different.

....and yes, a deficit can be cause by increase gov't spending (which was half my point).

Another cause of a deficit is the economy rebounding from a recession. You can pretty much take it to the back that a deficit increase will follow a recovery from a recession.

Our current economy falls into both categories.

*back* - bank,

sorry 'bout that..

In regards to:

That is not an accurate statement

Real Wage Chart

It hasn't been the greatest, but the record does not reflect your statement.

Your chart only covers the last decade. I'd like to see a percentage figure from the late 70's (the start of a general wage decline) to now.

I'll try and find one after I get home.

From what I remember:

70's was in the positive
80's - not so good, but mostly in the + column
90's - very good, but not as good as the 70's
early 2000 - good
Lately - not as good, still mostly in the + column.

Do not take this as fact, I am regurgitating from memory.

I saw a few instances of decline, but I never saw an average decline, everything I saw was an average (albeit minimal) growth.

"Real Wages 1947 - 2001"


Real Wage Chart - 1947-2001

I am not familiar with this group, so I cannot attest to its validity (accurate, skewed, etc)

What people like Hillary Clinton don't understand is that the wealthy don't just sit on top of a huge pile of cash and cackle gleefully. They invest that cash in new business opportunities that create economic growth, more jobs, and a higher standard of living.

It sickens me, the condescending attitude that liberals have that makes them think THEY can make better use of YOUR money than YOU can.

Like Michael Moore, Hillary thinks that Americans are the "stupidest people in the world," but that she's somehow above the rest of us, and therefore fit to rule above us, telling us how to live our lives.

Also, this tendency of trying to pass tax burden off on corporations strikes me as particularly short-sighted.

If you make corporations pay higher taxes, who do you think is really going to pay? Corporations are going to make their money whether you like it or not. If they pay higher taxes, they'll raise their prices to compensate. Who will be hurt most? The guy at the bottom.

Corporations aren't owned by Satan, believe it or not. They're owned in small bits and pieces by everyday people like you and me, assuming you're smart enough to save and invest some of your money instead of blowing it on depreciating consumer goods. :)

i would be interested in this "theory" about the french revolution....please start another thread.

forget about the above...sorry folks....its already up.

If you look at the graph that accompanies the chart, you can see that real wages peaked about halfway through the measured period and have experienced a general decline since then. This fits with the numbers that I have read in many different sources.

Although the wages of median wage earners has nosed up occasionally, it has not kept pace with the spectacular gains made by the hightest wage earners.

I do not argue that at all. I did, however, argue your usage of the word "shrink". To me, the increase in wages should not involve the gov't, it is more personal responsibility.

My income has gone up over 100% in the last five years. I don't credit the gov't nor do I blame them when I am not making what I want. It is up to me.

However, we both have different ideologies regarding the matter....

How about we agree to disagree?

You paint a very unbalanced and inaccurate portrait here. Can we put aside the ridiculous steretypes of cackling socialists and stop putting words in mouths? There are enough straw men flying around this forum.

The tax burden has been increasingly distributed on the backs of the poor and the middle class. I guess its fine for the government to appropriate their money. Someone's got to pay, right? Why not make it those that are least able to afford it?

As I said earlier, if we take supply-side to it's logical extreme, than corporations and the rich should pay no money in taxes and normal wage earners should have stagnant incomes. Does that make sense to you?

cthulhu,

You are making a mistake in assuming that the population of the levels of income is static. People move up or down the income levels after various stages of their careers.

There is another option: descope the government to essential services and let the poor and working classes keep more of what they earn.

Although I am happy to agree to disagree, I feel that I have to point out that governement policies on employment, taxation and hundreds of other issues can have a profound effect on your pocketbook. "Liberals" aren't the only ones who have an interest in cinfluencing those policies, and I think our economic situation today is a reflection of twenty years of supply-side.

Sure, social mobility is a reality, but i would posit that most Americans tend to stay in the same income class. I'll see if I can dig up some numbers.

Edit: follow this link for a look at american social mobility (from Google Answers no less...how could they be wrong?)

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=291907

Of course, there is no easy answer to the question, but this quote says a little:

Of course, we can debate the real meaning of these numbers if we want to.

Always an interesting idea, but what services do we define as "essential" and what, exactly, do we cut?

That would probably be another thread entirely....and a messy one at that!

That topic defintely requires a separate thread, fully equipped with drop cloths.

That was funny wonderwrench, I actually chuckled.

I think the problem is, when you tax the rich too much, they can't afford another Hummer, whereas if you tax the poor too much they can't afford to put dinner on the table.

You just can't win, can you?

Think beyond what the rich buy. Who makes what the rich buy? What jobs are created by their ability to invest disposable income in new business opportunities?

As much as liberals scream about supply-side economics, they work. We saw a huge economic boom after the Reagan tax cuts, and we're seeing another one now after the Bush tax cuts.

Liberals have all sorts of good intentions and good theories. The problem is that their theories and intentions can't hold up to the first touch of reality. They live in academic white towers and tell the world how it ought to be, but they don't seem to know the first thing about human nature.

My wife said it best during a conversation we had last night: "Don't they realize that nobody will work hard if they can't get rich?"

Today's liberalism is a philosophy with admittedly good intentions. They want everything to be "fair." Apparently, Momma never told them the harsh truth: "Life isn't fair."

There are going to be some rich folks, there are going to be some poor folks. In trying to work for the "common good" as Hillary puts it, you may provide some relief in the short term, but the true catalyst for economic growth lies in supply-side.

The Soviet Union tried to take something from its people for the common good. Try to find them on a recent map and see how well that turned out. Leftist "make everything fair" policy just can't compete with an economy where people have the chance of reaping vast rewards for hard work.

Can those discussing Real Wages here please define the term and the components which are included and excluded in its calculation?

Additionally, please offer any thoughts on how/why it is possible that despite the alleged real decrease in wages people can afford higher and higher priced goods. After all aren't homes and cars significantly more expensive than they were in the 70's and yet we don't see too many people driving around in cars that are decades old or homes that are rotting to the ground?

Before someone jumps on you about inflation, it's not so much a matter increasing cost for houses and cars (and other new things we enjoy these days, like internet and cell phones). The issue is value. Our homes and cars and gadgets are loaded down with things that seemed like science fiction twenty years ago, and today we take them for granted.

Heck, drive down a street in a poor neighborhood these days.... what do you see? A DSS dish on every roof and obese people talking on cell phones. We're hardly starving here. Our poor are pretty well off. :)

I don't mean to snipe, but maybe you don't see too many. Try going to north Philly. You'll see plenty of decrepit row homes and those people who do have cars are driving rusting junkbuckets from the early 80s at best.

Compared to the poor in other nations, maybe. Our poor aren't living in shacks made out of sheet metal without running water or electricity. Things still aren't good for them.

Do you believe that is representative of the nation? How about the prices of those row homes? Have they gone up or down in the last 30 years?

People are missing important points about the economy and buying power of the American consumer (and yes that even includes those in N. Philly) :D .

Economic points can not be made in isolation. There are very real and specific reasons that economic indicators say things and there is no possible way to draw conclusions based on one or two or even three or four economic "truths" without integrating a number of long and short term trends. Assumptions about the meaning of "Real Wages" is just one example of how most economic discussions are flawed. People don't even take the time to investigate the meaning behind the statistic and they take even less time to evaluate the reasons behind the trend.

The reductio ad absurdum of egalitarianism (equality of situation) is slavery. Those that advocate it intend to be the masters.

The poor in America today live better and healthier lives than kings did in the Dark Ages.

i always enjoy it when conservatives argue against equality. it kinda runs against the formal freedoms written into the constitution, doesn't it? and the whole "all men are created equal" business in the declaration? i guess for them, "all men" only refers to "all people who meet certain economic criteria"--and **that** is the mirror of arguments advanced long ago to justify slavery in fact.

the argument about the relative material well-being of the poor in america at this point--relative to the 10th century say--is also absurd---it makes no sense historically, no sense ethically.
the systems of material production in the two epochs are incommensurate. it would be like comparing the qualities of a pint of chocolate ice cream to those of an ocean liner (well the both have mass, so they are the same.....huh?).

what would you prefer, absolute abjection? how can you possibly argue that the effects of this redistribution of wealth--the lifting of american capitalism from the barbarism of unregulated capitalism---is a bad thing? and on what possible basis can you conclude that the result of the effects of a redistribution of wealth is the absolute elimination of poverty when the obvious fact of the matter is that poverty remains relational (you know, relative), that poverty remains structural? how can you possibly believe that the social system that capitalism sits on, that it draws from, that enables business to extract profit AT ALL is not better served if that system as a whole is better off economically? and what do you do with the fact that the poor in america live worse than the poor in any other industrialized country--that the rate of illiteracy in america, for example, remain well behind those of cuba, that the levels of infant mortality remains the highest in the industrialized world and on and on and on?

i know what conservatives do--they blame the poor.
but to what end?

doesn't capitalism promise a better life for all? obviously on its own, capitalism only delivers a better life for a few--so there is a redistribution of wealth. something that came about in response to SOCIAL CONFLICT CAUSED BY THE RADICALLY SKEWED DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH

seriously, the focus on whining about the "plight" of the wealthy (o boo hoo! those persecuted wealthy folk--the only social class whose formal and substantive freedom conicide--boy that must be a burden--and that they have to give back to the system--MY GOD WHAT A HORROR!) and specious arguments about the effects of corporations having to plow money back into the system to maintain directly or indirectly (direct through maintenance of wage levels in general, indirectly through the relation of these wage levels to access to consumer dredit, the bubble upon whihc the whose american system operates) seem both politically naieve and ethically repugnant. for fucks sake, the arguments have slid to a level behind that of even henry ford--hardly a great humanitarian, who understood that the 10-dollar day (principle of relatively high wages pegged to patterns of regular increase) enabled the extension of credit and the expansion of the consumer base? that relative affluence for all was a recipe for exanded productivity, expanded demand, etc.

You misunderstand the concept of equality. It concerns equality under the law - not equality of condition.

For an insightful piece on what equality of condition means, try reading Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron".

http://penguinppc.org/~hollis/personal/bergeron.shtml

As to the comment that historical comparisons do not make sense, I dispute that contention. The fact that The Rich invested in technological and medical advancements is why even The Poor in the U.S. do not die in epidemics of malaria and are able to store food safely in refrigerators.

real wages
pl n
(Economics) wages evaluated with reference to their purchasing power rather than to the money actually paid

Does that answer your question? Seems like a reasonalbe assessment of economic ranking to me.

I find it hard to understand how a general decline in the purchasing power of the middle and lower classes can be spun as economic success. Why has this decline coincided with periods of economic growth? Where is the promised trickle-down? I hate to repeat the same thing over and over, but no one has so far answered that question. Supply-side is supposedly a way to generate wealth for all citizens...where is it?

There's one definition, now how about the rest of what I asked? What's included in it? What's not? What other factors impact it? Does this one indicator really tell a comprehensive story about what's happening in the economy?

I fail to see the regality in hunger.

Real wages does not necessarily equate to purchasing power and is not the sole determinant of wealth.

I do not agree that there has been a general decline in purchasing power. The average size of houses has increased substantially. The range and quality of consumer goods has been significantly augmented: computers, cellphones, plasma TV, high tech sneakers. The problem is that many people have an entitlement attitude regarding consumption.

Case in point: Here in Oaktown, I see "Poor Minority Kids" wearing the inevitable $150 pairs of Nikes. Living beyond one's means is nonsensical at any income level.

I will agree with you that the average family does have to work harder to maintain its lifestyle - but the reason is due to the doubling of the total tax burden over the past half century. Instead of huffing and puffing about The Evil Rich, I'd rather reign in unfettered government growth.

It is the inflation adjusted value of a person's wages, nothing more or less, and is a standard economic measurement. Why do you consider it an inaccurate mesure? What is it failing to state?

I never used the term "Evil Rich," so could we please dispense with the stereotypes?

You may not believe that purchasing power has declined, but US government statistics seem to confirm it. In traditional argumentation, it would be up to you to gather some supporting evidence for your statement....anecdotal evidence is not acceptable.

Although the shift in the tax burden to the poor and middle class has undoubtedly hurt their purchasing power, don't you think that the decline in wages might also have an effect?

As I've said before, I'm all for scaling back aspects of the government, but I suspect that we would differ on where to cut the budget.

Take a look at the two pie charts reflecting expenditures for the Median American Family for 1958 and 1998. With technological and process advancements, the ratios of income spent on food declined from 21.4% in 1958 to 8.9% in 1998.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/prmedianfamily.html

The total tax burden increased from 17.9% in 1958 to 39% in 1998. The only other categories which show an increase are recreation and medical expenses (and other).

I would hazard a guess that the increase in recreation expenses is due to the numerous options currently available and that those of medical care and taxes reflect the inefficiencies and interference of government regulation and scope.

By definition, "real wages" equate to the purchasing power of a person's salary. This is not the sole determiner of wealth, as investments, inheritance and other factors do play a part, but such factors are not very relevant to the poor or middle class.

While it is a standard measure, every measure has it's pros and cons. In this case the measure fails on a couple of levels. First, it does not count overtime wages. With increasing costs of benefits businesses have gone to overtime more and more. Additionally, wages are basically the mean taken of all workers surveyed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The more workers there are the lower that mean will be (unless of course the economy's need for workers outstrips the supply and "new" workers are being paid substantially despite a relative lack of skills and this has not been the case for the majority of the time period we're looking at). Both the number of workers and the amount of overtime have been increasing over the last several decades pushing the "real wages" down.

Now, as far as buying power. Buying power is more a factor of wealth and wealth is built on a number of things besides income. Certainly, at times, income is more closely tied to wealth but at other times it isn't. For instance, home value contributes heavily to wealth but home ownership is not confined only to the wealthy as about 70% of Americans own their own home.

Now, let's throw the stock market into this. It used to be a wealthy man's game but today you see people from Wall Street tycoons to janitors riding the bus with investments in the market. Access to the market in the form of direct stock purchases, 401ks and other investment accounts make it possible for millions to benefit over the long term without anything more being put into their paychecks.

So we are in agreement that the tax burden has been shifted onto the backs of the middle class. I've been saying that since this thread started.

These stats are representative of the "median" household, and do not apply to impoverished households. You aren't suggesting that there are 4 million Americans who go hungry because they spend too much money on recreation are you?

Hey, what a coincidence. I lived in North Philly (Elkins Park, actually) until just last year, when I was driven out of the state by suffocating taxes (yes, high taxes drive away the people they're aimed at, thereby reducing government revenue, but that's an example of short-sighted liberalism for another day).

Know what I noticed about those decrepit row homes? DSS dishes on almost every one. And for every junked-out rustbucket, there was a Cadillac Escalade with all those weird ghetto customization things on it.

But that's just one tiny part of the world. The average home size in the United States is now 2,200 square feet, up from 1,400 square feet in 1970, according to the National Association of Home Builders. That's a pretty phenomenal increase.

Also consider that more Americans now own their own home than ever before.

Where in Philly are ya?

No, the tax burden has grown for everyone. At the same time that The Rich have paid a larger share of federal taxes, state, county and local taxes have exploded.

Instead of focusing on shifting the burden to The Rich, it is better to ask why government has grown so much faster than would be justified by inflation and population growth. This is especially important to ask in light of the opposite trend of improved efficiency in the private sector.

Ooh, speaking of tax burden, I keep hearing about the huge tax burden on the lower class on this board....

Stick this in your pipe and smoke it:

http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls

Bottom line:

In 2001, the top 50% of wage earners paid over 96% of income tax

That means the bottom HALF of us are paying less than 4% of the total tax load.

The top 1% of earners paid over 33%.