The Two Americas
 

Much has been made of John Edwards "Two Americas" speech. Yes, there are "Two Americas" - but not in the way he claims. Rather, the Two Americas are made up of those of use who work hard and play by the rules and those who wish to tell the rest of us how to live while setting up separate rules for themselves.

Link

Re: The Two Americas
 

I would have to agree100% with this statement....But probably not in the same context as it was made.




Link [/B][/QUOTE]

I love how the WSJ isn't afraid to slip into pseudo-populist mode when it suits their purposes. I think that anyone with any memory at all can see through this facade.

Anyway, this opinion piece definitely earns that title, as it is long on opinion and severely short on facts. Have Kerry/Edwards come out for middle class tax hikes? (For the record, one of Kerry's economic planks in middle class tax relief) The article implies that they did but gives no supporting facts. They have very few details of Theresa Kerry's finances, but that doesn't stop them from guessing.

This article is nothing but speculation intended to smear the Democratic candidates.

Actually, Kerry and Edwards have campaigned about rolling back the tax cuts, which is a defacto increase on the middle class.

But hey, they have their loopholes to shield their income - so to heck with the rest of us.

I really love how Edwards gamed the system to avoid paying $591K in Medicare taxes. How much blood pressure medication could that have funded?

I see nothing more than another attempt to start an argument over candidates.

I see an attempt to show that the candidates are advocating things for which they themselves are exempt.

And how is that any different from other candidates? Other politicians? It's just convenient because you don't support them.

Anyways, I don't want to carry this further and see this thread ended.

This was an opinion piece with no interest in fairness. It did not get Edward's or Kerries reaction. It comes to conclusions that it cannot support. It makes assumptions about the Kerry economic plan and the future financial actions of the candidates. It is an empty attack piece and does not deserve any further discussion.

Cute. How about that Michael Moore flick, eh?

Edwards' maneuvring to avoid paying nearly $600K in Medicare taxes is a fact, not an opinion. What do you think of candidates who advocate for raising our taxes when they avail themselves of loopholes available only to the extremely wealthy?

Edward's "maneuvering" is an unsourced conclusion in an editorial piece, which are notoriously unreliable. Give me some evidence, some reactions, something more than a single opinion.

I haven't seen the M. Moore movie, but I now know how you like to stereotype those of a different opinion. Thanks.

Edwards tax filings are a matter of public record.

Here are two news reports from non-conservative publications:

NY Times

SF Chronicle

From the NY Times piece:

This is old news, apparently. I think that many people in similar circumstances would just follow the advice of their financial advisors.

Regardless, I'm not a huge fan of tax shelters and I'm sure that this won't be the last that we hear of this story, but you still can't assume that the economic plan of Kerry and Edwards will be designed to minimize their own taxes while maximizing the middle classes. There is no evidence of that.

Then let them clarify their plan. So far, they have communicated generalities about reversing the tax cuts. They have said nothing about closing the loopholes from which they personally benefit. I would like to here some specifics.

I''m sure that they will clarify their points sometime before November. We can continue this discussion then.

Campaign promises aren't about specifics -- they're about vague but flashy propositions that will not be followed through on upon election. Hiding behind ones accountant doesn't excuse Enron executives, and it doesn't excuse Edwards. The sad thing is that if Bush had done what Edwards did, we would see a lot more coverage and scorn of it.

Edwards committed no crime so your analogy is specious. Standard financial practices are hardly cause for scandal.

Leadership is not about doing just what is legal - it is about doing what is right. Edwards' private behavior sets a very poor example when contrasted to his message.

As an Edward's detractor, you are apt to come to that conclusion, just as you are apt to defend George Bush. "What is right" is a relative term.

Similar things can be said about Bush's opinions against affirmitave action. He generally goes with the Republican agenda against affirmitave action while never saying anything about how the only reason he was in Yale was because his family went there.

All in all this article and discussion are pointless.

I thought about it, and yep....Still voting for Kerry. Thanks for playing though!

I've only heard that Kerry will roll back the tax cuts for those making $200,000 and up. That doesn't sound like middle class tax increases to me, sorry.

That depends upon the geography. Take the major metro areas - and $200K is middle class (ie, the combined income of a marketing director and a nurse). Factor in the continuation of the marriage penalty, the alternative minimum tax, and lack of real indexing for inflation - and within a few years, more and more middle class people will creep into the higher tax brackets.

Please, let's not speculate about plans that aren't well defined yet....our arguments are tedious enough.

I am so very tempted....but alas I have promised myself.

the alternative minimum tax is a problem in need of solving, and I did not know that the tax brackets weren't indexed to inflation (which is just common sense). But there is no way you will sell me on a married couple making 200K a year as being middle class. Even in a metropolitan area, with increased housing and living expenses, still puts them smack dab in UPPER middle class. Besides, if this couple has to pay another 4-5 grand in income taxes, I don't really have a problem that, and neither should they - one less vacation overseas subsidizing some other countries' economy, and one more here at home.

Incorrect Sparhawk. In the SF Bay Area, the median price of a home exceeds $500K - this includes condos and homes in the outreaches of commute hell. In Silicon Valley proper, $200K puts a couple solidly in the middle class lifestyle definition - just able to qualify for the mortgage on a 3 bedroom 2 bath tract home.

The housing market in the Bay Area (and all over California) is a bubble waiting to burst. Thankfully, that is not a true indicator of the cost of living there.

Hello? It is an enormous indicator of the cost of living here. Rents are high. Gasoline, thanks to the bright lights in the state legislature, is generally 25%+ higher than the national average, we have some of the highest state income and sales taxes in the nation (as as the "privilege" of property taxes, and on and on.

Whether or not the bubble bursts remains to be seen. The last softening in the NoCal real estate market occured in 1989 after a several year run up. The market went sideways for several years before accelerating in 1996. This contrasts with the declining prices in SoCal when the aerospace industry shed jobs. Considering that SV is rebounding, we may have escaped a true burst.

What I'm saying is that other costs of living are not nearly as inflated as real estate. I thought that property taxes were relatively low there in comparison with the cost of a house.

Prop 13 sets the assessed value of real estate at the original purchase price and then factors in any improvements and a small inflation factor. If one is a long time homeowner, then the property taxes appear lower; for newer home owners, they are quite high. Some argue that we should get rid of Prop 13 because it "discriminates" against more recent home purchasers; the impact of this would be to force many retired and fixed income people out of their homes due to an inability to afford the taxes.

The purchase of which they can then subsidize through tax credits. Here is my violin for that "poor" couple:

-----> . <------

But if you're talking medians, it's pretty worthless to pick out Silicon Valley and the Bay Area - they FAR exceed those of the rest of the country (both income and home value).

Right. Allowing people to keep money that they have earned so that they can purchase a home is a "subsidy".

Everyone that I've worked with in Silicon Valley was solidly middle class and commuted into work as they couldn't afford housing there. As Sparhawk said, SV is not a median housing mearket, even for California.

I know solidly middle class people who do live in San Jose, Fremont, Santa Clara and Mountain View. They live in 1500 square foot homes, drive older cars and live rather frugally so that their children can go to decent schools and they themselves do not have to spend 3 to 4 hours a day commuting. Why should people like that be punished for trying to take care of their families?

They shouldn't. Blame the insane vagaries of the market. Taxes wouldn't be such a problem if prices weren't so damn high.

TBH everytime I go up north it is defenitely true that the prices are insanely high. And do keep in mind this is indeed CA and that Silicon Valley and the Bay Area are hardly representative of the rest of the U.S.

so your position is that the kerry/edwards tax change (that is a long way from happening) is a bad thing because it affects YOUR immediate area?

you are generalizing that that means that it's bad for the american middle class? my understanding is the the true beneficiaries (of the current plan) are the very very rich. kerry/edwards are talking about changing the top end taxes. perhaps that affects the (upper) middle class. would be happy to look at facts that dispute that.


really not sure how you extrapolate "the rest of us" from that.

have you looked at bush/cheney's net worth? they wouldn't be encouraging legislation that benefits them, would they? tell me about leadership again, please.

the original article is a little one sided don't you think? if it was a comparison of GWB and Kerry and their various accounting practices it would be interesting, as it is it's just one side having a dig at the other

yawn

People making $200,000+ per year where I live would be solidly upper class, I wouldn't mind them sharing a little more.

Wonderwench: lol like we should really base the income tax on the silicon valley economy!

200K is Middle Class? In what world do you live in where 200K is Middle Class? 200K is at least lower-Upper Class if not encroaching on Center-Upper Class. I would suggest that you must be on hallucinogenic drugs to believe 200K is middle class, but I am sure some mod would take offence.

Are you honestly trying to paint a pity story for people making 200K a year? If you think those people have a rough time, you need to think how FUCKING POOR people feel when it comes to funding their children's college. UC's are in a pretty massive budget crunch and large scholarships are pretty rare, and funny story, BUT THEY DONT GIVE OUT SCHOLARSHIPS BY THE STANDARD INCOME IN SILICON VALLEY. A FAMILY MAKING 200K WILL HAVE NO FUCKING PROBLEM PAYING FOR 20K PER YEAR FOR A UC.

Wonderwench, perhaps you should check out the bureau of labor statistics census data.
http://ferret.bls.census.gov/macro/0.../new06_000.htm
200k and above is in the top 2% of american households.

http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/coun...iscoCounty.htm
Median family income of San Fran is $68,247
http://www.nynewsday.com/news/local/...,6147807.story
Even in the richest part of NYC, Lexington to Fifth avenues in Manhattan, Median family income is $188,697.
(Citywide is $38,293)

Still below Kerry's 200k threshold.

i do not understand

there must be some therapeutic function to the endelss repetition of the conservative----extreme conservative---non-understanding of taxes as an end in themselves, a form of punishment.

there has to be: because there is nothing substantial about the claim.
there was nothing substantive about it in previous nondebates on the matter.
there is nothing substantive about it here.
there will be nothing substantive about it in any of the next repetitions of the same.

one development here so far:

we get a new empty notion of middle class thrown about: so bill gates is middle class, larry ellis is middle class, people working at mcdonalds are middle class, everyone and everything is middle class--my dog is middle class, my pencil is middle class, andrew carnegie was middle class. people living in small houses in mountainview on 200 grand/year are middle class. those same people living in very very large houses in another part of the country on 200 grand/year are middle class.

except of course for actors the right does not agree with: they are elites. and democrats running for president--they are elites.

but everyone and every thing else is middle class.

interesting.

To be fair, the endless repetitions of those with opposing views are equally unproductive.

Perhaps we are all learning something here.
There are many other aspects of dialog and relationship here on TFP that are not so stultifying as this forum.

To be further fair, it's not entirely our fault. We're living in contentious times. In any event. I'm interested in less doctrinaire approaches to the conundrums posed in Tilted Politics. Hopefully if others are similarly motivated, we may actually create some constructive dialog.

I learned my lesson awhile back......I try very hard to avoid posting in these threads, as they do nothing but annoy me (and make me write things I will regret).

to be honest, art, i find my engagement with politics here flagging ...i wish there was some way to move things to a better level debate-wise...but i also realize that i do not always help matters myself, so up front....

mea culpa.

i was thinking about some kind of reading room thing, so that maybe debates could get routed through a book or series of articles from different viewpoints on a particular topic, so that what often dissolves into snarkiness could get routed through a common referencepoint. if someone feels attacked, they can point to the book or articles. that has been my conclusion so far: that the "bad debates" (in my opinion) float on a thin surface without any obvious way for us to agree to move further.

however, there are often really quite interesting conversations here.....this can be a really interesting place to hang out in.

Thanks for responding in the spirit of cooperativeness, guys.

I'll start a new thread on this.
...something like "constructive engagement".
Thanks.

what about "convergence"?

We should base the income tax so as not to penalize productivity and success. Given the AMT, marriage penalty and lack of indexing for inflation, it is only a matter of time before more and more middle class are classified as The Rich.

It is educational to recall that the original income tax was supposed to apply only to The Rich.

What about this?

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artma...cle_4799.shtml

Cheney Faces Criminal Indictments; Other Illegal Actions Raise Warning Flags at White House

Vice President Dick Cheney faces criminal indictments for illegal activities while CEO of energy giant Halliburton and also illegally intervened to secure a $7 billion no-bid contract for his former employer after his election to office, an analysis by the White House counsel’s office concludes.

The Vice President is currently under investigation by French authorities for bribery, money laundering and misuse of corporate assets while at Halliburton and also faces a U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission probe of a $180 million "slush fund" that may have been used to pay bribes.

Although the White House Counsel analysis is not available to the public because of the secrecy of “attorney-client privilege,” it has generated speculation among senior White House aides who suggest the Vice President should step down as President George W. Bush’s running mate for the November Presidential elections. Such talk has increased in GOP circles lately with former New York Senator Alfonse D'Amato Wednesday calling on Bush to dump Cheney.

Those who have read the analysis say it presents a “devastating” case against the Vice President and concludes Cheney has violated both the “spirit and intent” of federal laws on conflict of interest.

Even worse, Cheney faces indictment by a French court on charges of bribery, money laundering and misuse of corporate assets because of fraud associated with the construction of a $6 billion petrochemical plant built by Halliburton in Nigeria in partnership with Technip, one of France’s largest petrochemical engineering companies.

Cheney is under investigation by Judge Renaud van Ruymbeke, one of France’s famous investigating magistrates. Ruymbeke is a legend in legal circles because of his investigation into French campaign scandals in the 1990s, resulting in multiple indictments and convictions of top officials.

Because of Ruymbeke’s work on the case, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has opened an investigation into a $180 million “slush fund” that the French judge says was used to pay bribes.

London Lawyer Jeffrey Tesler, a consultant to Halliburton, admitted under oath in May that he made payments from the fund to Albert “Jack” Stanley, president of Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown & Root and a longtime friend and associate of Cheney. The payments, Tesler said, were personally approved by Cheney, who headed Halliburton at the time.
Although Cheney left his position at Halliburton before becoming Vice President, his financial disclosure statements show he continues to receive dividends from stock as well as deferred compensation from the company.

At least $5 million in payments to Stanley from the fund were wired to a secret numbered bank account in Zurich which Judge Ruymbeke discovered belonged to the KBR President. Tesler also testified he paid another $350,000 to another KBR executive, William Chaudran, through another secret bank account on the isle of Jersey.

Cheney served as CEO of Halliburton from 1995 until 2000 and approved the Nigerian contract in 1999. Halliburton publicly announced on June 18 it was “severing all ties” with Stanley, admitting he had received “improper personal benefits” while serving as President of KBR. Sources within Halliburton say the company’s internal investigation clearly implicates Vice President Cheney but acknowledge the investigation will remain sealed in light of the company’s $7 billion sweetheart contract with the Pentagon for work in Iraq.

French Judge Ruymbeke, however, is said to be offering Stanley a deal if he implicates Cheney and sources within the French legal system say the judge has more than enough to indict the Vice President on charges of bribery, money laundering and misuse of corporate assets.

The assessment of the White House counsel’s office agrees that Cheney faces “serious legal implications” from the pending French indictments and add that the Vice President’s illegal and unethical lobbying on behalf of Halliburton for the no-bid contract “raises additional questions.”

Cheney, however, is standing firm and recently told Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont to “fuck off” when the Senator questioned him on the Halliburton matters.
According to White House sources, President George W. Bush laughed the matter off at a recent cabinet meeting.
“Fuck ‘em all,” Bush said.

The President’s bravado, however, is not shared by worried White House aides. Some point to the last vice president to step down because of fraud and corruption – Spiro T. Agnew, who served under President Richard M. Nixon, another Republican forced to leave office because of scandal

What an incredibly charming reply.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make with your tirade against people trying to support their families in Silicon Valley.

Here is a little lesson that I learned early in life: Do not begrudge other people their success or circumstances; it only hurts oneself and has very little impact upon them, if any.

Or this:

http://www.livejournal.com/users/jiveturky/185733.html


"I rose our banner (the More Trees, Less Bush one) and he turned to wave to our side of the road. His smile faded, and he raised his left arm in our direction. And then, George W. Bush, the 43rd president of the United States of America, extended his middle finger."

I wish someone could adequately identify Big Brother. I know he pulls all of the strings and manipulates us all as little mindless marionettes - but I have never actually seen him.

Look, the basics are, this is not about a tax increase. That is a very shitty meme that conservative linguists have been very successful at propagating to make any increases in taxes look evil. It is repealing an irresponsible tax cut for families who make 200,000 dollars a year or more. By definition those people constitute the uppermiddle class/rich (Depending on your geography) This is nothing more "burdensome" than what they were paying into the system 3 years ago. They will be exactly the same as they were before Bush. The top 5% of americans currently pay a smaller percentage of their income than everyone below them. They may pay more money, but their relative contribution is smaller.
For the past 3 years we have been spending more money than we are taking in. Kerry has put forth a plan to say "Sorry, but that money that Bush threw at you is necessary to keep this nation, that has been such a benefit to you, floating. We need to reinstate that level of national contribution."

The top 5% pay a larger share of total taxes now than they did 5 years ago. The bottom 50% of taxpayers pay virtually no federal income tax.

The Bush tax cut is one of the factors that has contributed to the economic recovery which is creating jobs for those who make less than $200K per year.

Fast forward a couple of decades under the Kerry definitions. $200K will be worth less than $100K in today's dollars. Given the lack of proper indexing for inflation; many of you who are crowing that Kerry is only targeting The Rich, will see yourselves suddenly so defined. And you will wonder why living in a three bedroom two bath ranch house and driving a 6 year old Toyota Corolla is now seen as rich.

Begrudging success erodes society in general.

Links to sources would be appreciated because otherwise, there is nothing to sift between real facts and mindless drivel.

See, you use your words in a very ambiguously deceitful way.
I already said that the top 5% pay a larger share of total taxes. And larger than they did 5 years ago, sure. But they pay a lower relative Percentage than the rest of the nation as a whole.

The top 50% of the wage earners pay 96.78% of the taxes collected.

Now, the Rich. The top 5%, as I have defined it, pays 53.25% of ALL taxes. Yes 5% of America pays for over 1/2 the tax! Wow! How unfair!

Well, actually, this strikes me as totally fair, since the top 5% of America controls 57.4% of the wealth (at least in 1998):

Take a look at the distribution - the top 20% control more than 80% of the wealth.

The top Top 5% are paying below their fair share. They are paying 53%, when they control 57%.

Wealthy skewed tax cuts are a big culprit for that discrepancy.
And taxes being cut, a big part, are the top 5%'s vast assortment of stock portfolios, (taxes dropped entirely after next year) which for many account for their entire yearly income. Allowing them to live tax free, while I have to pay my share.

So, your issue is not that The Rich pay for a larger share of government - merely that they individually feel more pain by giving up a larger portion of their incomes? How does this benefit society when it results in lower tax receipts and higher deficits?

Even JFK realized that lowering tax rates spurs economic growth, which benefits citizens across income categories.

Before you start tossing out comments without context, why not post the tax rates before JFK lowered them and then post what they were lowered to?

Your comment is meaningless without the numbers. I wonder if you have actually looked at the numbers or if you are mearly repeating something you heard.

Truly spoken by someone who was born into, or currently lives a life of privilege.

Note: You're still out of your mind for thinking 200K is the Middle of the Middle Class.

I worked my way through undergraduate and graduate school; I grew up in a family without much money - but my parents gave me the best of all possible legacies: a sense of responsibility and self-respect.

That aside, here is a lesson:

Link

That story has both good and bad parts...

Good. It shows the wealthy that if they don't play fair they get hurt; that lesson is worthwhile for those with money and a dream of a lower tax rate.

Bad. It left out the part where the poor realize that the rich person is not needed, just their resources. The next event in the story would clearly be the poor having a revolution, killing the wealthest people in the group and ridding themselves of wealthy distinctions. This revolution would keep the problem of class differences from happening to the group again. Problem Solved.

What you say, my answer is far too simple and has no real world validity... kind of like your story, huh ?

Thanks for the chuckle.

You make the mistake in assuming that the resources of The Rich just spontaneously come into existence. If the poor revolt and kill The Rich, they will gorge themselves for a few meals and then be left with a shrinking economy. Don't believe me? - Read about the U.S.S.R.

Hmm? Where did you get that? My issue is that the Rich, though they pay for a larger share of government, they feel less pain than the average man because the rich man pays a smaller percentage of his income than the rest of the nation.
JFK realized that people paying (at the top tax bracket) 91% into the fed was a detriment to the economy. Thus making what you said about JFK a complete waste of time. Because that isn't even in the same galaxy, let alone the ballpark.

"Even JFK realized that lowering tax rates spurs economic growth, which benefits citizens across income categories. "

You know, it's funny you say that. The top marginal rate under Clinton (wherein we had the largest peacetime economic expansion in US history) was up to nearly 40%, after Reagan/Bush dropped it from 50 down to 28 (later up to 31 91-92 when Bush realized the economy was slumping).

In the case of Kennedy the top rate was 91%, inherited from FDR 20 years earlier. In 64 the rate went down to 77% -- but Kennedy was dead by then. We used to tax the living shit out of the rich. They have it much easier now.

All these numbers are marginal rates -- that is to say, the percent you pay on the rest of your income when you pass into the highest income bracket.
Link

Thanks - you clarified that the issue is that The Rich feel more pain - not that they pay for a larger portion of the government.

Why do you want others to feel more pain? Why is paying 50% of one's income not a detriment to the economy if 91% is? Why should the government be in the business of inflicting pain upon people who are successful?

I don't think the rich feel more pain. If you make 319,100(the bottom of the top) you pay, at most 178,650. You walk away with over 125K. You take home 3 times what I make, and I live just fine. That's not pain, and it never will be.

Comparing the economies during the Clinton era to now is specious. Clinton benefited from the Reagan era policies and then the fraudulent dotcom/telecom bubble combined with a real Y2k bubble. Bush has had to deal with the aftermath of the bubbles' bursts, the corporate fraud scandals and the impact of 9/11. Tax policy is not the only determinant of economic performance. A review of the data does reveal that in general, lower marginal tax rates spur growth.

Quoted from another thread:

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 their millions and no violent worker's rebellion occurs.

Are you trying to be goofy, purposefully appearing to misunderstand me?

Anyway, the rich made their money off this country. Keeping this country and it's workers strong is in their own best interest to keep making that money. The government is the worlds biggest insurance policy for a mans riches. The more you have the higher your premiums should be to keep it protected.

Saying that someone else should be happy is pointless, imo. We are all individual beings with the rights to determine the manner and method through which we achieve our own happiness. Forming a mob via the government to "mug" someone else should not be the way to determine that person's mode of being happy.

And now I am done with this thread - we have entered the wash-rinse-repeat cycle, which is no longer productive for discussion.

" A review of the data does reveal that in general, lower marginal tax rates spur growth."

That's not what it reveals at all!
Analysis

Oh dear. You do realize that their is a lag effect for tax changes to have an impact, don't you?

A bit of reading that puts it all in context:

http://www.cato.org/research/article...ds-021114.html

And that's the keystone of the conservative argument -- that everything that works under a Democrat is because of something a Republican did earlier. It goes along well with "you don't understand what I am talking about" "Clinton doesn't count because of various excuses" and "pity the rich."

thanks but no thanks.
this isn't going to continue for long.

it's the methods of personal address here - the way it's being done - stop it.

warnings are going out.