Robert Reich Proposes War Tax on the Wealthy

[Kodiak]

Read the USA Today op/ed article here. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-09-14-reich_x.htm)

[DavidJames]

"Repealing a year's tax cut for the top 1% would generate almost enough to cover the entire $87 billion of additional spending on Iraq."

I think this suggestion of his is very reasonable.

[Suddenly]

I think this nicely sums up what I think about the issue:

President Teddy Roosevelt made that case in 1906, arguing that the wartime inheritance tax should continue during peacetime: "The man of great wealth owes a particular obligation to the state because he derives special advantages from the mere existence of government."

[Tmy]

Well when talking about taxes we have to talk fairness (*snicker*).

Lets see. Who benefits most on the war on terror. Id say the rich and corporations. Terror attacks really mess up the stockmarkets and consumer confidence. So yeah, let them pay.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Read the USA Today op/ed article here. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-09-14-reich_x.htm)

Kodiak,

You make it fairly easy by targeting the top 1%...who could argue that!!?? However, making the top 1% slam their wallets shut could have a reverberating negative effect on the economic recovery....but less so I think, than the war itself...so yeah...let's eat the rich! :D

-z

PS: Don't let Malachi have any tho....he'll want to eat ALL of 'em himself! ;)

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Kodiak,

You make it fairly easy by targeting the top 1%...who could argue that!!?? However, making the top 1% slam their wallets shut could have a reverberating negative effect on the economic recovery....but less so I think, than the war itself...so yeah...let's eat the rich! :D

-z

PS: Don't let Malachi have any tho....he'll want to eat ALL of 'em himself! ;)

Personally, I'd be more in favor of a 1% national excise tax with a specific end date written into the law, or a maybe a 1% tariff to last the duration of the occupation.

As far as Malachi is concerned...how does one cook "imperialist pig-dog"?? :roll:

[DaChew]

Hey. What happened to using Iraq's oil to pay for its liberation? Why do we have to pay for it all of a sudden? I thought we were going to turn on the spigot and break the back of OPEC. I was looking forward to buck-ten a gallon gas again. Let's get our oil companies in there, fix those crappy French refineries and get them holes a-gushing oil.

[Tmy]

They cant gett he oil because the pipelines are clogged wh all those formally hidden WMD. And they cant clear them out cause the soilders are bust shaking hands with all the Iraqis who are warmly greeting their liberators. Yep its just like Rumsfeld said would happen.

[Ed]

I'd go for this except for one troublesome thought.

This is sorta like how permanent gun legislation passes. An incident occurs, people knee jerk a response and then you are stuck with it forever and always.

I don't trust for a minute that have a drop dead date written into the law would make any difference at all.

[corplinx]

apparently, invading someone's privacy and violating equal protection for the purpose of paying for government's inability to spend within its means is the only victimless crime liberals approve of

[Tony]

I'm not surprised that Robert "third" Reich would propose such and un-American tax.

[American]

You make the most selfless sacrifice to work endless hours for 20 years, invest in education, take financial risks, immerse yourself in your field....

Your only reward at the end is money and golf. And liberals say you don't deserve it.



Most rich people don't own an oil well by chance, or win the lottery to get there. They have given up their lives and contributed to society in incredible amounts that most people don't wish to sacrifice because of other values and personal interests they have (like family and freetime to ENJOY life like they should).

I can't believe the nerve of democrats to tell a surgeon, for example, that he or she should pay more taxes than a slob with no ambition (which is half the people they pretend to represent).

[Frank Newgent]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-09-14-reich_x.htm
A war tax, properly structured, also would prevent the rich from squirreling away their income in foreign tax shelters. An acquaintance from law school, now a partner in one of Washington's biggest firms, with offices in many countries, recently explained to me one such dodge as we lunched in a swanky restaurant. He and his partners use tax rules to create offsetting taxable gains and losses, then allocate the gains to the firm's foreign partners, who don't pay taxes in the United States. That way, they keep the losses in the United States and shelter their income abroad. A war tax, properly structured, would close such foreign loopholes.
Originally posted by rikzilla
...making the top 1% slam their wallets shut could have a reverberating negative effect on the economic recovery
Wouldn't want to negatively impact the Grand Caymans...

[Tony]

A war tax, properly structured, also would prevent the rich from squirreling away their income in foreign tax shelters. An acquaintance from law school, now a partner in one of Washington's biggest firms, with offices in many countries, recently explained to me one such dodge as we lunched in a swanky restaurant. He and his partners use tax rules to create offsetting taxable gains and losses, then allocate the gains to the firm's foreign partners, who don't pay taxes in the United States. That way, they keep the losses in the United States and shelter their income abroad. A war tax, properly structured, would close such foreign loopholes.

I’m always happy when I hear of people defrauding the police state. To bad the tyrants in charge want to tighten their grip and eliminate yet another freedom.

[peptoabysmal]

Considering that the trillions of dollars of overall debt is mostly due to social spending, following this logic we should be taxing the poor more than the rich.

http://mwhodges.home.att.net/fedcomp.gif

[corplinx]

What I like is how so-called skeptics get lured into this tax the uber-rich nonsense.

What you have in essence is a group being targetted and discriminated against in a minor way.

Why not racially profile in upscale white neighborhoods while your at it?

"BUT THE RICH DONT NEED ALL THAT MONEY" -woo-woo "logic"

[fishbob]

What you have in essence is a group being targetted and discriminated against in a minor way. I think Reiches point was that the wealthy derive the most benefit from the war in Iraq and therefore should pony up more to pay for it. If Reich is correct, then this should be considered equivalent to a user fee on war benefits.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Frank Newgent
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-09-14-reich_x.htmA war tax, properly structured, also would prevent the rich from squirreling away their income in foreign tax shelters. An acquaintance from law school, now a partner in one of Washington's biggest firms, with offices in many countries, recently explained to me one such dodge as we lunched in a swanky restaurant. He and his partners use tax rules to create offsetting taxable gains and losses, then allocate the gains to the firm's foreign partners, who don't pay taxes in the United States. That way, they keep the losses in the United States and shelter their income abroad. A war tax, properly structured, would close such foreign loopholes.


Wouldn't want to negatively impact the Grand Caymans...

I hear about these loopholes but can never pindown how they work. So what happens is somehow gains are tranferred to foreign subs? So they show a profit? What happens when they pay their tax? Tax gets paid. So now these guys have money offshore. Now what? If they want to bring it here they get taxed. So they have to move or go on vacation to spend it?

I am sure there is something to it, it just sounds stupid.

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by Tony
I’m always happy when I hear of people defrauding the police state.
The late Warren Zevon had a song for you:

Seminole Bingo

I'm a junk bond king
And I'm on the run
Me and a friend of mine
We were headed for the sunshine
I got my hands on the wheel
I got gas in the tank
I got a suitcase full of money
From a Luxembourg bank
We didn't stop 'til we got to Big Cypress
Wandered in to the Legion Hall
The sign outside said "Seminole Bingo"
Fell in love with the ping pong balls
And the SEC is far behind
Down in the swamp with the gators and flamingos
A long way from Liechtenstein
I'm a junk bond king playing Seminole Bingo
And my Wall Street wiles
Don't help me even slightly
'Cause I never have the numbers
And I'm losing nightly
I cashed in the last of my Triple B bonds
Bought a double-wide on the Tamiami Trail
I parked it right outside the reservation
Fifteen minutes from the Collier County Jail
And the SEC is far behind
Down in the swamp with the gators and flamingos
A long way from Liechtenstein
I'm a junk bond king playing Seminole Bingo
Well, the SEC is far behind
Down in the swamp with the gators and flamingos
A long way from Liechtenstein
I'm a junk bond king playing Seminole Bingo


written by Warren Zevon and Carl Hiaasen
c. 1995 Zevon Music BMI

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
Considering that the trillions of dollars of overall debt is mostly due to social spending, following this logic we should be taxing the poor more than the rich.

http://mwhodges.home.att.net/fedcomp.gif

So you don't think that social programs help the rich?

How exactly then do you explain that over the past 20 years the rich have gotten dramatically richer and the poor poorer if alll these programs are helping the poor and costing the rich?

[American]

Originally posted by Malachi151


So you don't think that social programs help the rich?

How exactly then do you explain that over the past 20 years the rich have gotten dramatically richer and the poor poorer if alll these programs are helping the poor and costing the rich?


Social programs do help the rich by keeping dangerous personalities trapped in the welfare system. Trapped along with good people who want no part of the getto life and would like to do better, but can't because they're stuck in the same plantation system that allows degenerates to subsist off of taxpayers. Where would lowlifes go without the state? They'd probably start riots like L.A. and indiscriminantly kill anyone who isn't a member of their street gang.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Malachi151



How exactly then do you explain that over the past 20 years the rich have gotten dramatically richer and the poor poorer if alll these programs are helping the poor and costing the rich?

Half right, and even then you aren't right.

Wealth will always spawn more wealth in a fairly free market economy. So in theory, if the rich aren't getting richer then that should be the exception rather than the norm.

Also, I'm not sure what country you are talking about where the "poor get poorer" but it certainly isn't america.

[Suddenly]

Rickzilla said:
You make it fairly easy by targeting the top 1%...who could argue that!!?? However, making the top 1% slam their wallets shut could have a reverberating negative effect on the economic recovery....but less so I think, than the war itself...so yeah...let's eat the rich!

Here is what I don't get. I assume the money comes from somewhere. That would be X amount of dollars out of someone's pocket. They will presumeably spend X dollars less in the economy. Why does it matter to the overall picture who has less money to spend, the rich or poor? The argument you make seems valid in terms of tax or no tax, not the apportionment of tax.

From Corplinx:
apparently, invading someone's privacy and violating equal protection for the purpose of paying for government's inability to spend within its means is the only victimless crime liberals approve of

Yep. That whole constitutional amendment is a sneaky way to be criminal. Plus, "Equal Protection" comes from the 14th amendment. It doesn't apply to the acts of the federal government, so by definition the federal income tax cannot violate "Equal Protection," as it is an act of the federal government,and not of a state. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/equal_protection.html)

From Malachi151:

So you don't think that social programs help the rich?

How exactly then do you explain that over the past 20 years the rich have gotten dramatically richer and the poor poorer if alll these programs are helping the poor and costing the rich?

There is that. Along with the fact the top tax bracket used to be about 70% up until the 80's. Of course that was with a tax code with an insane amount of loopholes, but when the top rate got chopped by Reagan it still helped those with high incomes, because if nothing else they could quit having to srtucture their investments to avoid tax. That helped.

One other thing about social programs. Much of that money goes to people who have no income, and thus are not really "the poor" we (Pepto and Corplinx, anyway) are wanting to tax. The "working poor" would be the ones paying. Taxing this poor would simply make it harder for people to get off of those benefits (or just say screw it and start selling crack or stealing cars), as it would be an extra obsticle to self-sufficency. This is a pragmatic concern.

While I think brainlessly just handing people money because they don't have any is really really stupid, I think it benefits everyone to have programs that give the poor and the resources and incentive to not be poor anymore. The earned income credit is a good idea, as it only pays to those that work already. Heck, even Reagan thought that a good program. Vocational training and other education also would help. Cheaper to school people whose jobs disappear then send them to the pen once they either stop giving a sh*t or snap under the pressure. I don't know how many ex-coal miners I've seen lose it when the mine closes, and wind up strung out on something and wind up in jail.
It isn't so much a question of fairness and compassion as it is good sense.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Malachi151
How exactly then do you explain that over the past 20 years the rich have gotten dramatically richer and the poor poorer if alll these programs are helping the poor and costing the rich?

I have no problem, and tend to agree, that the rich are getting richer.

What I'd like is evidence that America's poor are getting poorer, as you claim.

[Malachi151]

Social programs do help the rich by keeping dangerous personalities trapped in the welfare system. Trapped along with good people who want no part of the getto life and would like to do better, but can't because they're stuck in the same plantation system that allows degenerates to subsist off of taxpayers. Where would lowlifes go without the state? They'd probably start riots like L.A. and indiscriminantly kill anyone who isn't a member of their street gang.

Partialy right here, but how exactly does welfare "trap" anyone?

Wealth will always spawn more wealth in a fairly free market economy. So in theory, if the rich aren't getting richer then that should be the exception rather than the norm.

Also, I'm not sure what country you are talking about where the "poor get poorer" but it certainly isn't america.

http://www.pbs.org/fmc/book/images/9mone7.gif

Looking at the top graph if you actually measure it you see that the 1960s were the most prosperous time for the bottom 40%. The bottom graph is quite obvious as to what it shows. Due to the fact that the value of money is relative percentage of income is really what is important.

In 1980 the top 1% of tax filers received 8.45% of American AGI (Adjusted Gross Income) and in 2000 they received 20.81% of the national AGI.

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

As you can see here the rate of working poor is dramatically increasing:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/histpov/hstpov18.html

Again, we look at poverty levels:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/histpov/hstpov22.html

Looking at age of people in povety:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/histpov/hstpov15.html

You see that the percentage of working age people in poverty is increasing.

While I think brainlessly just handing people money because they don't have any is really really stupid

I don't think anyone disagrees with that. Social programs do not hand anyone money simply becuase they don't have any, social programs are things like Head Start, career assistance, educational scholarships, free child care for poor single working mothers, etc.

I think it benefits everyone to have programs that give the poor and the resources and incentive to not be poor anymore.

Exactly, and nobody WANTS to be poor. People are poor either because they are not capable in terms of skills and capacity to contribute in a meaningful way, because they do not have access to oppertunity, or because they do not have the desire to achieve more. Of those things the only thing is is majorly determied by genetics is capacity, and even that is only partly so, so pretty much the majority of what leads to people being more poor is environmental, either developmentally, or situationally. Either someone wants to and is capable of achieving more, but they don't have access to oppertunity, or they are not capable or have the desire to achieve more, which is a contition that is caused by a combination of genetics and environment, mostly environment. If we know that environemnt is such a strong factor, then the only way to improve that situaiton is to change the environment, the only way to do that is through social spending.

It isn't so much a question of fairness and compassion as it is good sense.

Its both.

The data speak for themselves and need no interpretation. You have two facts. Social spending as a percentage of what we spend our natinal income on has increased. At the sme time the rich have gotten dramatically richer. There is no need to prove cause and effect to inorder to prove this statement wrong:

Considering that the trillions of dollars of overall debt is mostly due to social spending, following this logic we should be taxing the poor more than the rich.

the fact is that as social spending has increased so has the wealth of the wealthy.

Another fact that needs to be pointed out is that the Savings and Loan bailout of the late 80s cost us 1.4 TRILLION dollars. That is about a quarter of our national debt. The S&L scandal was a huge mix of whitecollar crime that very people were penalized for, it put a huge burden on all us, it is still stealing from every American in the form of interest on our national debt, and the men to "took" the money are not only free, most of them never saw jail time, many of them are actually politicians right now including the Bush family, and virtually all the palyers were rich people. The S&L scandal is the single most costly crime in WORLD history, and it seriously hurt our country, YET because of the fact that all the players involved are big men in hihg places, this crime has NEVER been properly punished and never been fully explained to the American public. Even still whitecollar crime is more damaging to the American economy and accounts for more dollars stolen every year than other types of crime, yet it is still largely unpenalized even with the big attention it got with Enron and WorldCom.

[Kodiak]

Malachi

Your graphs shows the poorest 40%, but only the wealthiest 5%. Why? Why not use the wealthiest 40% to match? The answer is because the differences would be less obvious, dramatic, and thus, useful to you.



But even taking the graphs as you present them...

After throwing trillions and trillions of working class dollars (and the rich are part of the working class...) at poverty since the creation of the "New Deal" and the evolution of the modern welfare state, the graphs show us:

1. Since 1929, the wealthy saw their average income double while the poor saw their average income triple.

2. Since 1929, the % of total income decreased 9%, going from 30% to 21% for the wealthy, while it increased 1% for the poor, going from 13% to 14%.

[Malachi151]

Your graphs shows the poorest 40%, but only the wealthiest 5%. Why? Why not use the wealthiest 40% to match? The answer is because the differences would be less obvious, dramatic, and thus, useful to you.

Umm.. I didn't make those graphs first of all, you can see the data here:

http://www.pbs.org/fmc/book/9money7.htm

and secondly that is a totally standard way for economists to look at income distributiuon.

Looking at the bottm 40% vs the top 40% doesn't tell you a whole lot of anything. All it would do is show an even larger shift because obviously the top 40% will acount for more income than just the top 5%. The graph would be more dramatic, but less informative, so you are totally wrong. Pretty much every single income distribution graph shows income for the top 5% as representing the wealthy, which is actually not right anymore, it should show the top 1% only.

After throwing trillions and trillions of working class dollars (and the rich are part of the working class...) at poverty since the creation of the "New Deal" and the evolution of the modern welfare state, the graphs show us:

1. Since 1929, the wealthy saw their average income double while the poor saw their average income triple.

2. Since 1929, the % of total income decreased 9%, going from 30% to 21% for the wealthy, while it increased 1% for the poor, going from 13% to 14%.

Umm.. hello, do you even know how to read a graph or what the heck you are looking at?

The whole point of the graph is to show change over time. It is showing that between the 1950s and 1970s income disparity decreased and that during that time the bottom 40% actually made a larger portion of AGI than the top 5%, since the 70% though that trend has been reversing. It is now reapproaching the conditions that led to the Great Depression. All of the economic progress made from the 40s through the 70s is now being lost.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Malachi151
Umm.. I didn't make those graphs first of all...

Umm...you posted them. Either defend them or admit they're flawed.


Originally posted by Malachi151
Looking at the bottm 40% vs the top 40% doesn't tell you a whole lot of anything. All it would do is show an even larger shift because obviously the top 40% will acount for more income than just the top 5%. The graph would be more dramatic, but less informative, so you are totally wrong.

Umm...if the top 5% was changed to the top 40% you would include families making less money than the original group. That means that the average income of the "rich" group (the blue line in the first graph) would be lower, and thus closer to the "poor" group. Thus the "less dramatic and useful".


Originally posted by Malachi151
Umm.. hello, do you even know how to read a graph or what the heck you are looking at?

The whole point of the graph is to show change over time.

I though that is what is meant by the term "Since 1929 (to present)..." :confused:

I understand why you need to focus on only certain parts of the graphs you presented.

Do you care to refute what I originally posted?

"...the graphs show us:

1. Since 1929, the wealthy saw their average income double while the poor saw their average income triple.

2. Since 1929, the % of total income decreased 9%, going from 30% to 21% for the wealthy, while it increased 1% for the poor, going from 13% to 14%."

[Malachi151]

Umm...if the top 5% was changed to the top 40% you would include families making less money than the original group. That means that the average income of the "rich" group (the blue line in the first graph) would be lower, and thus closer to the "poor" group. Thus the "less dramatic and useful".

Ahh, there is two graphs, the bottom one is the mian one I am concerned with so I assumed that was what you were talking about.

If you look at the first graph it would still make very little sense to do it that way, in fact even less. The best possible way to show the graph would be to graph something like the bottom 40%. The top 40%, the top 30% the top 20% the top 10 % the top 5% the top 2% the top 1% and the top 0.5%.

The just kept it simple with only two series.

It would do very little good to graph the top 40% though because those incomes range hugely between about $30,000 and tens of millions of dollars. Lumping all those together and taking an average does not show you where income trends are occuring. The more granularity the better.

The object of the graph is to show the income trends among the wealthy as opposed to the poor. They are defining the wealthy as the top 5% and the poor as the bottom 40%. Personally I think the wealthy should be defined as the top 1%, but that's besides the point.

I don't know what to tell you about your problem with the graph, you simply don't understand graphs apparently or how to analyze data apparently.

Here is another graph of a similar type of data:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/this_w3.gif

I'm sure that the graph that I origionally posted and this one are all made from the same data source, the US government. You can feel free to tell them that for the past 50 or 100 years they have been analyzing the wrong data :p

This is MEAN data, not average, so its a little different, but here again you can compare the top 5% to the bottom 40%, as well as the bottom 20%, 60%, 80%, and top 20%.

1. Since 1929, the wealthy saw their average income double while the poor saw their average income triple.

Certianly, it shows that improvements for the poor have a positive net result for everyone, which again is WHY, getting back to the original point, social spending helps everyone. Improving conditions and income for the poor as not resulted in a loss for the wealthy, however, as we saw leading up to the Great Depression, cutting social spending andsuch resulted in catastrophy for everyone.

2. Since 1929, the % of total income decreased 9%, going from 30% to 21% for the wealthy, while it increased 1% for the poor, going from 13% to 14%.

Yes, unfortunately a lot of progress has been lost. In theory the best situation in an ideal world would be that every 1% earned 1% of income. That would be true democracy, freedom, and equality. Unfortunately we still have a long way to go to achieve that dream and most of the work of the post War era has now been lost in that regard.

As you can see in the 50s 60s and 70s, often regarded as the time of the pinnacle of American civilization and now looked back on fondly by many people due to the economic security and freedom enjoyed by such a large portion of Americans, the bottom 40% recieved even more of the AGI than they do now, and the top 5% much less. Unfortunately that is no longer the case.

We are now back on the road towards a Depression era society. :(

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Malachi151


Ahh, there is two graphs, the bottom one is the mian one I am concerned with so I assumed that was what you were talking about.

If you look at the first graph it would still make very little sense to do it that way, in fact even less. The best possible way to show the graph would be to graph something like the bottom 40%. The top 40%, the top 30% the top 20% the top 10 % the top 5% the top 2% the top 1% and the top 0.5%.

The just kept it simple with only two series.

It would do very little good to graph the top 40% though because those incomes range hugely between about $30,000 and tens of millions of dollars. Lumping all those together and taking an average does not show you where income trends are occuring. The more granularity the better.

The object of the graph is to show the income trends among the wealthy as opposed to the poor. They are defining the wealthy as the top 5% and the poor as the bottom 40%. Personally I think the wealthy should be defined as the top 1%, but that's besides the point.

I don't know what to tell you about your problem with the graph, you simply don't understand graphs apparently or how to analyze data apparently.

Here is another graph of a similar type of data:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/this_w3.gif

I'm sure that the graph that I origionally posted and this one are all made from the same data source, the US government. You can feel free to tell them that for the past 50 or 100 years they have been analyzing the wrong data :p

This is MEAN data, not average, so its a little different, but here again you can compare the top 5% to the bottom 40%, as well as the bottom 20%, 60%, 80%, and top 20%.



Certianly, it shows that improvements for the poor have a positive net result for everyone, which again is WHY, getting back to the original point, social spending helps everyone. Improving conditions and income for the poor as not resulted in a loss for the wealthy, however, as we saw leading up to the Great Depression, cutting social spending andsuch resulted in catastrophy for everyone.



Yes, unfortunately a lot of progress has been lost. In theory the best situation in an ideal world would be that every 1% earned 1% of income. That would be true democracy, freedom, and equality. Unfortunately we still have a long way to go to achieve that dream and most of the work of the post War era has now been lost in that regard.

As you can see in the 50s 60s and 70s, often regarded as the time of the pinnacle of American civilization and now looked back on fondly by many people due to the economic security and freedom enjoyed by such a large portion of Americans, the bottom 40% recieved even more of the AGI than they do now, and the top 5% much less. Unfortunately that is no longer the case.

We are now back on the road towards a Depression era society. :(

Thank you for addressing my claims and better explaining your own. :)

[Tmy]

Lots of "social programs" really benefit the rich. For example Section 8. Sectio 8 pays like 30% of a poor persons rent. The poor guy doesnt even see the money. It goes straight to the landlord/owner. So the landlord gets to rent out an apartment at an inflated market rate cause the govt is filling the gap.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Malachi151


This is MEAN data, not average, so its a little different, but here again you can compare the top 5% to the bottom 40%, as well as the bottom 20%, 60%, 80%, and top 20%.

The mean is the average



Certianly, it shows that improvements for the poor have a positive net result for everyone, which again is WHY, getting back to the original point, social spending helps everyone. Improving conditions and income for the poor as not resulted in a loss for the wealthy, however, as we saw leading up to the Great Depression, cutting social spending andsuch resulted in catastrophy for everyone.

Just so I understand. Are you claiming that a reduction in social spending brought on the great depression?



Yes, unfortunately a lot of progress has been lost. In theory the best situation in an ideal world would be that every 1% earned 1% of income.

In words of one syllable, why is this so?

That would be true democracy, freedom, and equality.

You can have true freedom or you can have equality. You are suggesting that what is desired is a society where either everyone is precisely the same and there is no such thing as chance or that you have a government that controls everything. Neither one is possible and anyway, I'm not sure that I would care to live in a society like that

Unfortunately we still have a long way to go to achieve that dream and most of the work of the post War era has now been lost in that regard.

The less well off are worse off now than 50 years ago? Don't buy it. You have any proof?

As you can see in the 50s 60s and 70s, often regarded as the time of the pinnacle of American civilization and now looked back on fondly by many people due to the economic security and freedom enjoyed by such a large portion of Americans, the bottom 40% recieved even more of the AGI than they do now, and the top 5% much less. Unfortunately that is no longer the case.

Why "unfortunate"? Maybe spending is more efficient now. Did you consider that or is the mass of money thrown at a problem the only creiterion, in your mind? Incidentially, you might ask black folks if they had it better in the '50's and '60's.

We are now back on the road towards a Depression era society. :(

I'd love to see the support for that.

As an aside, I think that you take a univariate view of a multivariate world

[jan]

Originally posted by American
You make the most selfless sacrifice to work endless hours for 20 years, invest in education, take financial risks, immerse yourself in your field....

Your only reward at the end is money and golf. And liberals say you don't deserve it.



Most rich people don't own an oil well by chance, or win the lottery to get there. They have given up their lives and contributed to society in incredible amounts that most people don't wish to sacrifice because of other values and personal interests they have (like family and freetime to ENJOY life like they should).

I can't believe the nerve of democrats to tell a surgeon, for example, that he or she should pay more taxes than a slob with no ambition (which is half the people they pretend to represent).

You are a Socialist. A true Libertarian would have claimed that wages are a fair market value. But you insist that wages have to be "just": the more and harder one works, the more she should be paid.

Stalinist! Stalinist!

And if a CEO is working 80 hours a week, maybe his labour is simply just not well organized?

Oh, but we are talking about surgeons. Could it be possible that a surgeon's earnings do depend mainly on his rank in hospital, not on how much he works? (and spare me the burden of responsibility thing, I don't buy it)

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by Malachi151
In theory the best situation in an ideal world would be that every 1% earned 1% of income. That would be true democracy, freedom, and equality. (

Why?

What is unfair about me working twice as long as you for twice the pay if I choose to do so?

What is wrong in me working half as long as you for half the pay if I choose to do so?

What is wrong in me working the same hours for twice the money if I am better at my job than you are at yours?

[Malachi151]

What is unfair about me working twice as long as you for twice the pay if I choose to do so?

Nothing at all.

However in theory this can cause problems, which is why work week laws were created, etc, but overall its perfectly fine.

What is wrong in me working half as long as you for half the pay if I choose to do so?

Nothing at all.

What is wrong in me working the same hours for twice the money if I am better at my job than you are at yours?

Ahhh.. and this finally get's to something. Obviously equality is just a goal to strive for, nothing more. That doesn't not mean that anyone ever expects to each it. As for being better at a job what exactly does that entail? Your skill ata job is compsed of two factors, your genetic traits that make you skilled for that job, and the impact that your environemt has had on you that has determied the types of skills and talents that you have.

Now, we can't do anything, in theory, about the genetic issues, but the majority of differences between individuals in terms of ability are not genetic, they are environmentally caused, and we also know that environment affects genetics, for example people have been getting taller consistantly and it has also been proven that trends in IQ can be effected over generations by environmental effects, for example blacks in America have an average IQ higher than blacks in Africa, studies in South America have shown IQ improvements over the generations under educational programs, etc.

So, that all means that we have the power to improve the characteristics of humanity by how we structure our society. IMO that means that we sould structure our society around trying to produce positive effects for everyone, which in theory, as more and more people receive the same quality, a higher quality, or environmental conditioning, i.e. education, access to oppertunity, etc, that as a population we should be a convergance of ability, as more and more people become equally skilled.

And in fact this is what does happen. Obviously, you take a place like feudal India with the cast system and the people in the lower casts had less ability than those in the higher casts, and as that system has been broken down the abilities of the lower classes have risen.

Same in America. The ability of slaves for achievement was much less than the ability of blacks in modern America. Today blacks are more similar to whites in ability than they were 150 years ago.

As that level of oppertunity and equalty of treatment is extended to all people the equality of ability will follow, this is proven historically to be true.

The problem with this is that it will lead to increased competition as more people become more capable and are all attempting to get their hands on the same small set of leadership positions. This will lead either to a proliferation of leadership positions and a fragmentation of roles, or a necessary breakdown of the role of leadership, or increased struggle and violence.

[American]

Originally posted by jan

You are a Socialist. A true Libertarian would have claimed that wages are a fair market value. But you insist that wages have to be "just": the more and harder one works, the more she should be paid.

A surgeon getting 200,000+ is market value. He worked for it, while the socialists did less intense work.

Oh, but we are talking about surgeons. Could it be possible that a surgeon's earnings do depend mainly on his rank in hospital, not on how much he works? (and spare me the burden of responsibility thing, I don't buy it)

God damn right we're talking about surgeons. More than you will ever be, slacker.

[Theodore Kurita]

Originally posted by DaChew
Hey. What happened to using Iraq's oil to pay for its liberation? Why do we have to pay for it all of a sudden? I thought we were going to turn on the spigot and break the back of OPEC. I was looking forward to buck-ten a gallon gas again. Let's get our oil companies in there, fix those crappy French refineries and get them holes a-gushing oil.


The Iraqi's keep blowing up the Oil Fields is the problem.

Hallaburtion has the contract to "fix" Iraq, including the Oil Wells.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by corplinx
apparently, invading someone's privacy and violating equal protection for the purpose of paying for government's inability to spend within its means is the only victimless crime liberals approve of

No.

We also approve of smoking pot.


Lots and lots of pot.

[Malachi151]

BTW, just to point out the "all social programs" includes Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid and probably school too :hit:

[TragicMonkey]

Like most people, I envy and hate the rich, and will do so until the day when I join them. But that's just my personal envy. There is nothing wrong with merely being wealthy, provided the wealth is acquired honestly and legally. The wealthy who evade taxes deserve no mercy, of course.

I dislike the idea of making special taxes for special groups. If the country needs the money that badly, they can raise everyone's taxes by a small percent. One quarter of one percent of my annual income is a (sigh) smallish amount that I won't miss very much. Nor will Bill Gates miss such a small percentage of his annual income, although naturally his slice is a great deal bigger than mine. But they are equal relative to our incomes. I don't think that's unfair, and I look forward to the day when I can complain about the outrageous amount of tax I pay because it will mean I have an outrageous income.

Apparently, this war is so expensive that the above solution won't pay for it, so this guy wants to invent a super-tax. This would just encourage more of the wealthy to evade their taxes, or even emigrate permanently. Sounds like the proposal is more about inflaming class warfare than about actually raising the money.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by fishbob
I think Reiches point was that the wealthy derive the most benefit from the war in Iraq and therefore should pony up more to pay for it. If Reich is correct, then this should be considered equivalent to a user fee on war benefits. Okay. By that logic, if a wealthy person doesn't benefit from the war, he should not pay the extra tax.

And if he's hurt by the war - say he owns a lot of stock in Halliburton's competitors and in French and German construction companies, he should get a tax rebate.

And of course, if he's unfortunate enough to have a son killed in the war, maybe he should be allowed to not pay any taxes at all for a couple of years. That would be fair, wouldn't it?

What a stupid idea.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Malachi151
So you don't think that social programs help the rich?

How exactly then do you explain that over the past 20 years the rich have gotten dramatically richer and the poor poorer if alll these programs are helping the poor and costing the rich? Let me see if I understand your position correctly:

All these social programs aren't really helping the poor. In fact, the poor are getting poorer because of them.

All these social programs are really helping the rich. In fact the rich are getting richer because of them.

If this is in fact your position, then your solution to this injustice should seem pretty obvious: Repeal all the social programs that are only making the poor poorer and the rich richer.

:big:

[SlippyToad]

Originally posted by corplinx
apparently, invading someone's privacy and violating equal protection for the purpose of paying for government's inability to spend within its means is the only victimless crime liberals approve of Well, you've made about a dozen different logical fallacies here.
Let's start with the first invading someone's privacy. When you're a member of a publicly held company (as most wealthy CEO's are) and you receive special dispensation from society to run a corporation, you do give up the right to keep your salary to yourself. That's how democracy works. There are rights you have, and things you give up in order to have those rights. It's the principle of coopration.

So what about violating equal protection. As I'm sure you're used to hearing, the wealthy receive a tremendous amount of support and assistance from society and our government in order to maintain their finances. In a truly level society, there would be no bending of regulations or special tarrif laws or government contracts (or no-bid government contracts) or tax breaks for a particular activity or corporate bailouts or in fact any assistance at all given to the wealthy. But if you actually read and follow and pay attention to what government does, it's largely for the benefit of business and economy. And as we've repeatedly seen, the wealthy can get away with activites that would put the rest of us in jail or leave us living in a cardboard box pretty quickly, but due to their immense financial resources, they are protected in a way that the rest of us aren't. So in what wa do taxes on the wealthy violate equal protection?

Then there's for the purpose of paying for government's inability to spend within its means. I have to say, there is no doubt in my mind that the people utterly in control of today's government are the wealthy. They are the party entirely in the thrall of the rich. It's interesting that you point this out, because for a lot of small sub-groups, government spending is rapidly disappearing. Schools, first-responders, all sorts of useful researchers; all are suffering from an anemia never before known in our society. However, the big groups, such as social security recipients, and Medicare recipients, are in many cases getting increases, or at least things that look like increases. You probably are unaware of how much government money goes into private corporations in the form of healthcare money, and how much effort is expended by those companies to keep the goods flowing. These corporations are of course run by wealthy individuals who have a vested interest in keeping both their personal taxes low, and the receipts from those same taxes high. Kind of like trying to burn the candle from both ends, isn't it? In short, the wealthy people who run this system are unwilling to balance the budget, not unable to.

Finally the only victimless crime liberals approve of. The victims of this crime are going to be me and my children. Immediately after world war II our society had a national debt burden of about 125% of GDP. For around the next 20 years, tax rates hovered for the wealthy in the 70's and 90's, and somehow our economy managed to boom and prosper. We are running a debt of around 70% of GDP now, but I don't see a lot of willingness by our national leaders to accept that this is a problem and deal with it anytime soon. As you might recall if you've read some history books, WWII was preceded by a period of extreme economic depression. Prior to that was a very long period of the kind of thing you seem to think as the ideal economic setup: rapacious self-interested influence-peddlers in charge of a nearly unregulated economic quagmire, which rapidly consumed itself due to out-of-control greed. I guess that's your definition of freedom, but it isn't my definition of democracy.

[SlippyToad]

Originally posted by Kodiak
What I'd like is evidence that America's poor are getting poorer, as you claim.

They are certainly growing (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/sep2003/pov-s13.shtml) in (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/08/26/census.poverty.ap/) population (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/usatoday/20040827/ts_usatoday/censuspovertyrosebymillion)

[SlippyToad]

Originally posted by Tony
I'm not surprised that Robert "third" Reich would propose such and un-American tax. You should debate him on this subject. I'm sure with your scintillating wit and penetrating intellect you could eviscerate his position utterly with a couple of well-chosen phrases like this.

[Tony]

Originally posted by SlippyToad
You should debate him on this subject. I'm sure with your scintillating wit and penetrating intellect you could eviscerate his position utterly with a couple of well-chosen phrases like this.


:D