Posted by Tina
A while back I posted a story about the smart people in the Chilean government who decided to privatize their retirement program. Investor’s Business Daily gives us an update on how that plan is doing today:
Pinera’s proposal began with scrapping the payroll tax on the country’s social security system and inviting all workers to take the money they were contributing and move it into a private pension.
Workers would be free to choose the fund, how much to put in, and at what age they would retire, with a minimal safety net built into the design. Past contributions would be refunded to workers by government bond. And anyone who didn’t like the idea was free to remain with the system as it was. It was a huge success: 95% of Chile’s workers chose the private system.
Pinera told the public to expect a compounded 4% rate of return under the private plan. But as of 2010, the average annual rate of return was 9.23%, far higher than promised.
By contrast, the U.S. social security system, which today accounts for a quarter of the U.S. government budget, is slated to give retiring workers in the next decade a 1% to 2% rate of return. And those entering the system today will see a negative return.
This plan was enacted nearly 30 years ago. That means our representatives have had plenty of time to observe and evaluate this model. Why in the world do our representatives refuse to learn from what can clearly be see in front of their very own eyes? Better yet, why did they not take Milton Freidman’s advice 30 years ago? Is this not America, the land of the free?
Why does our government refuse to do what is clearly in the best interest of the people? The obvious answer is that such a plan would encourage and support independence. A follow up question would be, is dependency something we should give the “working poor” when they could be enjoying a 9.23% return on their retirement investment instead? We have given them crumbs, 1%-2% at best, with a bonus,,,a future tax burden on their children and grandchildren that will put them in chains.
SHAME on those in Congress, and across this land, that have clung to the unsustainable US Social Security model and blocked all efforts to privatize our system.
The comparison between “returns” of an invidual private retirement plan and a government Social Security plan is false because Social Security is not an investment system, and there are no profits or returns. Social Security is welfare, a redistribution of wealth, funded by taxes and administered by the government, with all its waste, fraud, and administration fees applied. The big factor you missed is that in the US Social Security system, there are millions of recipients who never paid in a penny, or maybe only a couple of pennies. There are widows, dependent children, disabled people, many in their 20’s, illegal aliens, and scam artists who have never paid a Social Security tax. They have contributed nothing or almost nothing, and that is what their private retirement accounts would reflect. Have you no heart? Where is your community spirit? Are you one of those selfish Republicans that Libby warned us about?
After reading the article, (Good one too) a strong motivation to any concerned American to encourage Congress to follow this Chilean plan would be the reduction of our own pension debt. Chile enjoys a Pension fund debt of just 6% of their GNP compared to the 100% debt of the USA GNP. We suffer with more debt in our country and less return for money invested. However, Chile enjoys more retirement funds, and less taxes to cover Government waste (also called debt) anyone in the USA would love that position, well not everyone, our government leaders tell us we are to stupid to manage money, but and this is the real point in my opinion, it would reduce their ability to raid a cash cow for their own poor spending habits.
Soaps: “The comparison between “returns”…and there are no profits or returns.”
True…it’s not an apples to apples comparison.
“Social Security is welfare, a redistribution of wealth, funded by taxes and administered by the government…”
Yes! Just like the system Chile abandoned in favor of their current system which works much better with 9.23% return on investment!
“Have you no heart? Where is your community spirit?”
Last time I noticed my heart was still doing that rhythmic lub dub thing. My spirit for the community is in tact…I donate to private heart causes. I’m pretty sure I’ll live. (Those among us who are truly unable to care for themselves should be cared for within the community)
“Are you one of those selfish Republicans that Libby warned us about?”
Yes…yes I am!!! Thanks for asking!
Excellent points Harold, and here’s the one we should press through:
“…it would reduce their ability to raid a cash cow for their own poor spending habits.”
Tea Party alert!!!
The devastation wrought upon the nation’s economy in the last ten years should be proof enough to intelligent people that privatizing SS will transfer even more wealth to the already-wealthy.
Ah!
But there will always be the shills and their minions who swallow the line . . . .
Odd, Tina, that you would be so in favor of a system that was established under military rule in a socialist country!
Tina, you asked, why does government operate in a way that is not in the best interest of the people? I wished I had the answer to that one! It’s just my guess, but I think its part lack of imagination, part lack of motivation and part fear of the unknown or change. It’s a given that Congress has many bright people, but its far from a given they assert their intelligence to any degree beyond self interests or partisanship, which tend to overlap each other.
Soaps, you’re right – Social Security is another really bad example of mission creep. It’s gone way beyond anything it was ever intended to do and because the government runs it, it’s easy to fleece by conmen.
Q: “The devastation wrought upon the nation’s economy in the last ten years should be proof enough to intelligent people that privatizing SS will transfer even more wealth to the already-wealthy.”
Some otherwise intelligent people can be incredibly thick when it comes to creating opportunity for the poor. Transfer is a strange word to use here but I’ll let that pass for now.
As for the “devistation to the economy” most was accomplished by idiots in government trying to “help” people and the desperate idiots in high places who chose to accomodate their schemes and/or ride the wave hoping we would survive the crash. It’s not the first time this has happened and it won’t be the last.
A private investment by the working poor would result in a greater return to them personally…making their net worth greater…raising their economic reality and potential…raising their level of independence and hope for same for their children…but you would deny them this because the wealthy would also have an opportunity to get wealthier? What a complete jerk!
Here’s a news flash. You can’t create absolute economic equality. Here’s another, the wealthy do more to create opportunity for the poor so they can rise above their station than any socialist government or program ever has! Some even grab on to that opportunity and go on to become wealthy due to their own hard work, savings and investment. They dd not have this opportunity under the wealth transfer model which doles out crumbs. Those who don’t grab the opportunity are still better off because they must rely on themselves.
You were right about one thing: “But there will always be the shills and their minions…” You would have done well to stop there because many of them reside in government positions; the biggest lie (scam) of all is that the government is here to “help you”.
Look around the world Quentin. People are not and never will be perfect. Crooks and criminals exist in every segment of society. Freedom and the free market backed by the rule of law is the ONLY system that has given human beings the ability to direct their own lives and better themselves and their posterity.
“Odd, Tina, that you would be so in favor of a system that was established under military rule in a socialist country!”
It is odd but there you are. The poor man must have screwed up since he also established the rules that allowed the people to re-establish their republic in 1990. You should lighten up and get down off that high horse…we might be able to discuss what works!
For those interested:
Chile re-established their republic in 1990 after a brief and torturous encounter with a Marxist military government under Pinochet. Even he was smart enough to institute market based economic policy. The system is not perfect (none are) but the government is working. This change has certainly proven to have been a smart move.
http://www.heritage.org/index/country/Chile
Americas economic freedom score is 78.0, only slightly better than Chiles and for the first time, slightly lower than that of Canada! See chart:
http://www.heritage.org/index/
What wealth is being transfered from the poor to the wealthy by privatizing social security?
Seems to me that the only people capable of legally forcing the otherwise not agreed upon transfer of wealth would be… the government.
I’m curious Quentin…how do you think our Founders would have felt about a Federally run program which forced people against their will to put money into a program under the auspices that said program would then support them in their old age?
Then said program, not even acting as an investment program but rather a massive transfer of wealth program, gets placed into a general fund and is only able to remain solvent based off of the prospect of future taxes collected.
I just want to understand this from such an admirer of the Founders as you are. Which one of them would have said that it was conceptually appropriate for the federal government to partake in such a scheme? Which one of them would have preferred a “retirement plan” that forcefully confiscated monies from individuals and then placed them in a government run plan as opposed to the private market?
Please Quentin tell us all which of the Founders you so admire would have suggested, as you have, that people choosing to spend their own money the way they want and on what they want as it pertains to retirement was nothing more than a “transfer from the poor to the wealthy”, that should be opposed?
I have recognized as of late an attempt by those on the progressive left, who have for so long derided and mocked the Constitution, suddenly attempting to convince us all that rather than ridiculing and opposing the constitution , it turns out that their ideals have corresponded all along and they have really been attempting to preserve it! Hence the “I’m a Constitution Voter” bumper stickers from the ACLU. The danger is that sometimes the more bold and obvious the untruth, the more adherents cling to it.
At least Woodrow Wilson, Dewey, etc. were honest about their contempt.
Tina–“Here’s another, the wealthy do more to create opportunity for the poor so they can rise above their station than any socialist government or program ever has!”
Tina, your problem is that you see this as an either/or situation. Both the wealthy and the government have done a lot for me and my family. Without Sam Walton, I wouldn’t have the job I have now; without government aid, I would not be going to college in order to get a better, more rewarding, and higher paying job. Most of us liberals happen to think that the wealthy can still do a fine job running their businesses and providing opportunity, along with having plenty to spare for themselves, if their taxes go back to the rates they were in the late 90s. To you, this idea constitutes nothing less than a Marxist utopia. This framing may help paint even your opposition’s most moderate positions as extreme, but it does little to promote reasonable dialogue among the American public.
Chris: “Tina, your problem is that you see this as an either/or situation. Both the wealthy and the government have done a lot for me and my family. Without Sam Walton, I wouldn’t have the job I have now; without government aid, I would not be going to college in order to get a better, more rewarding, and higher paying job.”
That is the circumstance of your life but it is not the only possible circumstance for your life.
“Most of us liberals happen to think that the wealthy can still do a fine job running their businesses and providing opportunity, along with having plenty to spare for themselves, if their taxes go back to the rates they were in the late 90s.”
Well good for you. Now tell me…so far, how effective has that government spending been in terms of middle class American businesses and jobs? See the problem isn’t John Kerry and his millions…we know he can afford to pay more and still go skiing any time he wants. The problem is the many small business owners who will have to pay that rate at a time when they are already suffering with slow sales and few customers. They provide about 80% of the jobs in America. Not only would you raise their taxes but you are also enacting policies that will make other expenses go up, like health care costs, energy costs, shipping costs. They know if all those costs are going up for them they are also going up for the people they buy from. So for instance, the guy I buy my metalwork from will raise his prices to me, same with my boards, my packaging and even my office supplies. Yes liberals think people can get along just fine and you know why? Because most liberals have never run a business and they don’t know what the H they are talking about!!!
“To you, this idea constitutes nothing less than a Marxist utopia. This framing may help paint even your opposition’s most moderate positions as extreme, but it does little to promote reasonable dialogue among the American public.”
I got news, sweetheart, since the Marxist radicals took over the Democrat Party there has been no reasonable dialogue. Here’s the bottom line. It is not only STUPID, it is suicidal to raise taxes on those who produce wealth and create jobs in the middle of a deep recession. Only a Marxist utopian would think otherwise.
Since you brought up having a dialogue do you have any comment to make on the subject at hand?
Would it benefit you and your friends to have the opportunity to make deposits into personal investment accounts that earn a 5-10% return rather than the measley 1-2% that the SS program now supplies each worker for the “premium payment” they make from their wages (especially given the big problems in the current system)? Would you be willing to at least entertain the idea?
NICK, asking of Quentin: “What wealth is being transfered from the poor to the wealthy by privatizing social security?”
Fantastic question…one that reveals an ugly lie that many on the left believe.
Tina–“The problem is the many small business owners who will have to pay that rate at a time when they are already suffering with slow sales and few customers. They provide about 80% of the jobs in America. Not only would you raise their taxes”
Tina, what you are saying right now has been proven false so many times that you are embarrassing yourself by repeating it.
From Politifact.com:
“We first fact-checked similar claims during the 2008 election, when Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, aka Joe the Plumber, worried he’d get a tax increase under Obama’s plan if he bought a company that took in around $250,000 a year.
It wasn’t true then, and it isn’t true now. Here’s why: Plumbers — or any other small business owner — get to deduct their business expenses, so they’d have to be bringing in more than $250,000 in gross sales. The tax laws allow small business owners to deduct all kinds of business expenses: employees’ pay, supplies, a car or truck, fuel costs, advertising, association dues, utilities, shop repairs, and the list goes on. (For more details, read chapter 8 of the Tax Guide for Small Business published by the IRS.)
Bachmann said that the tax increases kick in at “$250,000 in gross sales,” which traditionally means total sales at invoice values, or everything the plumbers billed. And, she said the plumbers would be looking at “massive tax increases,” when actually the top two rates would be increasing from 33 percent to 36 percent, and from 35 percent to 39.6 percent.
Finally, of all taxpayers who declare business income, about 2 percent declare enough income to see tax increases if the rates on the top brackets expire. Most small business owners would not see a tax increase, though the most profitable small businesses would.
We’re not sure why Bachmann distorted the point about gross sales. As we said, it’s something that’s been explained several times. Good Morning America posted a note on its website after Bachmann’s appearance, noting that her statement was wrong. We asked her spokesperson for a comment but didn’t hear back.
The proposed increases have been discussed many times and for several years. Her misstatement of the facts on Good Morning America seems designed to scare small business owners into thinking they’re in line for a tax increase, even if their income is modest. For distorting the tax proposals to a ridiculous extent, we rate her statement Pants on Fire.”
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/nov/17/michele-bachmann/michele-bachmann-250000-gross-sales-tax-increase/
Read that again: allowing the Bush tax cuts on the top earners to expire would have only effected 2% of small business owners. And even then it would have only raised their rates by a few percentage points. It’s downright silly to insist that such a small tax increase on such a small number of people, somehow amounts to a Marxist onslaught that will bring about the downfall of the American capitalist system. Yet that’s exactly what you and your side have been insisting since the presidential debates of 2008. The facts have been pointed out to you a million times since then, but they’ve made no difference; you are determined to accuse Obama and the Democrats of hurting small business owners and creeping towards socialism, and it doesn’t seem to matter to you whether this is true or not.
“I got news, sweetheart, since the Marxist radicals took over the Democrat Party there has been no reasonable dialogue.”
Thank you for proving my point.
“Since you brought up having a dialogue do you have any comment to make on the subject at hand?
Would it benefit you and your friends to have the opportunity to make deposits into personal investment accounts that earn a 5-10% return rather than the measley 1-2% that the SS program now supplies each worker for the “premium payment” they make from their wages (especially given the big problems in the current system)? Would you be willing to at least entertain the idea?”
I honestly have no idea on this one, and would have to research the issue more.
Chris, by what authority morale or otherwise do you stake a claim to the honestly and legally secured wealth of others?
The question is not one of Marxist Utopia, it is one of one individual, in this case you, thinking that they have a right to someone else’s property for the purpose of attaining a higher education.
Extremes may be utilized to express points, but why should I accept that your supposition constitutes “reasonable dialogue” when it is literally the advocacy of coercive force to redistribute my property to you?
I find it odd that mere rhetoric and useful if extreme comparisons are often considered more “hostile” to dialogue than the out right support of force against innocent people for self enrichment.
Nick,
What you call “coercive force to redistribute property” is traditionally referred to, in this country, as taxation.
You can pretend all you want that this is some new, socialistic scheme, but it is one that has existed in America since its inception.
The founders rebelled because they were being taxed without proper representation. You, unless I am mistaken, have the right to vote in this country, which means you are not entitled to the same grievance. You may not like where your tax money is going, or how much of it is taken. Everyone has some cause they don’t want their money going to, whether it’s an unnecessary war or a domestic welfare program. But that’s why we have the opportunity to vote for people who will shape tax policy in ways that better reflect our interests. If the majority of Americans vote for people who disagree with what you want taxed and how much you think it should be, well, you have every right to complain about that, and to try to persuade others to your point of view. But it’s stupid and petty to act as if the newly elected government officials JUST INVENTED the concept of forcibly taking money from some Americans in order to serve a larger societal goal. THIS HAS ALWAYS BEEN DONE. It is not suddenly unconstitutional or illegitimate just because it’s now being done in a way you don’t like.
I don’t have a problem with conservatives disagreeing with Obama’s tax plan, or with you doing everything they can to see it changed. But when you start claiming that it’s unconstitutional, Marxist, and all that other unfounded nonsense, that’s when you start to sound like a bunch of whiners who claim rule-breaking when you don’t get your way. It also doesn’t help when you lie about things such as the tax plan hurting the majority of small businesses, when in fact it will only have a small effect on 2% of them.
You are absolutely correct when you say that taxation is the use of force to extract property. The MAJOR difference that you seem to be ignoring is that the taxation YOU are supporting is for direct redistribution. They tax me to pay you or vice versa. This was NOT something that our Founders supported, regardless of whether or not there is a constitutional process for achieving it.
“But when you start claiming that it’s unconstitutional, Marxist, and all that other unfounded nonsense, that’s when you start to sound like a bunch of whiners who claim rule-breaking when you don’t get your way.”
This is a logical fallacy. You are implying that simply because something might be constitutional that it cant be Marxist. That is not the case. You are also making a case that we or maybe I should say that I have claimed that any taxation is unconstitutional. This is a straw man argument as I have never suggested this.
“JUST INVENTED the concept of forcibly taking money from some Americans in order to serve a larger societal goal..”
I love the term “larger societal goal” as if anything is allowed provided that a simple majority declares it a “larger societal goal”. Lets call it what it is Chris…you think you have some inherent right to my property. Call it a larger “societal goal” or whatever else you may wish, but when you think that you are entitled to reach into my pocket and take my money solely for YOUR personal enrichment, in your case higher education that bears a far closer resemblance to Marx than it does Jefferson regardless of whether or not it is legal or even Constitutional.
Your having a problem here recognizing the crux of the argument. Foundationally it is not a legal or constitutional argument but competing principles or philosophies.
If we were to pass a constitutional amendment tomorrow outlawing freedom of speech for conservatives, it would be both legal and constitutional, but certainly not in keeping with our founding principles.
Your not responding with a principled argument but one of semantics or legalism.
You must place your philosophy next to the opposing philosophy and argue them.
your current philosophy states that you have a right, not just a legal right, but a morale one to use the state apparatus to take money form my family in order to give it to your own provided that you make less than me.
My philosophy states that I should have no government imposed obligation to enhance the income of my neighbor against my will. Nor does my neighbor have any obligation to support me. We should of course do so willingly when appropriate but never as a result of government coercion.
What you call a “greater societal goal” in this case is you deciding that my family should do with less so that yours can do with more.
You also realize that Politifact is a left leaning group correct? Not saying that means they wont be accurate on topics, but they, like all of us do have a leaning.
Chris: “…what you are saying right now has been proven false so many times that you are embarrassing yourself by repeating it.”
You…and politifact…don’t know what the hell you are talking about. That’s because most of you make assumptions. Small business owners do not pay taxes on what they take from their business as salary but on what their business profits are. What that means is my business can be grossing as much a 3 million dollars but depending on cash flow after expenses and taxes the owner may only be taking as salary as little as 65K in order to ensure he has enough cash in the business to move forward into the next year. Maybe his equipment needs replacing. Maybe his healthcare, rent, shipping and utility costs are going up. He knows his employee costs are going up.
The problem with taxes is they come in a one size fits all package from a one size fits all mindset. The circumstances for Microsoft are not the same as a small outfit that sells and services well pumps.
“…when actually the top two rates would be increasing from 33 percent to 36 percent, and from 35 percent to 39.6 percent.”
Sounds like a small amout when you it look at it in terms of a percentage. It could amount to an extra 10 to 20 thousand dollars, however. A guy that only dares take 65-75K from his business for his personal expenses every year might find an extra 10-20K in taxes a fairly good sized chunk of money…year, after year, after year!
“It’s downright silly to insist that such a small tax increase on such a small number of people, somehow amounts to a Marxist onslaught that will bring about the downfall of the American capitalist system.”
I don’t think I ever said that. It isn’t the percentage it’s the thinking! We stand against those who continue to defend the tax and spend spread the wealth philosophy that excuses such increases as trivial. Spread the wealth comes straight from Marx…”from each according to their means to each according to their need.” If you deny that Chris, there is no hope for you at all.
“Yet that’s exactly what you and your side have been insisting since the presidential debates of 2008.”
Some of us have been doing it since the 1950’s. And they were right as our burgeoning government with its busted budgets and increased taxes and regualtions show.
“Thank you for proving my point.”
Thank you for proving mine!
“I honestly have no idea on this one, and would have to research the issue more.”
Interesting! I show you a factual account of a 9.23% return on retirement investent in Chile as opposed to a 1-2% payout for SS and you don’t have an opinion that 9.23% is a better better but a 3% increase in tax rates you can get behind in a heartbeat!
wow…I really need to start spell checking more! just insert You’re for your when appropriate, etc.
Chris: “it’s stupid and petty to act as if the newly elected government officials JUST INVENTED the concept of forcibly taking money from some Americans in order to serve a larger societal goal.”
I don’t think Nick or anyone else believes taxation was “just invented”.
I do think that considering the state of our government with its massive debt, waste, and bloated, expensive bureaucracy, it’s fairly smart to begin to say, “enough!”
I also think that anyone as young as you should be particularly alarmed. The ability of the government to follow through on what it has promised will continue to diminish as you age.
We are always asked to give up more through some form of taxation and government is never forced do a better job as managers and conservators of the people’s money. Any business run as incompetently as government is run would soon go out of business. Asking taxpayers to fork over more to support such incompetence should be resisted vociferously by all Americans.
There was a time in this country when the people were willing to consider that some things might be better managed by government but government officials still respected the freedom and autonomy of the citizens. Now government officials have grown hauty and come from the point of view that government is owed whatever it demands. This is a dangerous shift in attitude. It is a shift away from freedom, Chris, and toward a totalitarian mindset. Of course it is wise to resist this, to point it out, and to remind Americans that it is their obligation to monitor and object to government that oversteps its bounds.
“But when you start claiming that it’s unconstitutional, Marxist, and all that other unfounded nonsense…”
With all due respect Chris, your claim that these observations are unfounded is incorrect. Obama’s tax plan is not what is being called Marxist…it is Obamas total mindset that is Marxist innature. These observations are based on his own words, opinions and actions.
Let me remind you that you have taken a post about Chile’s superior pension plan, turned it into a discussion about taxes, and finally about Obama. You directed this line of discussion. That you are now complaining about it is a bit nuts.
Tina–“You…and politifact…don’t know what the hell you are talking about. That’s because most of you make assumptions. Small business owners do not pay taxes on what they take from their business as salary but on what their business profits are. What that means is my business can be grossing as much a 3 million dollars but depending on cash flow after expenses and taxes the owner may only be taking as salary as little as 65K in order to ensure he has enough cash in the business to move forward into the next year.”
I’m not seeing your point. Do you believe that the hypothetical business owners you refer to represent the majority of small business owners, and that this majority would be hurt by a tax increase on those making over $250,000 a year? Do you believe that the 2% figure cited by Politifact and numerous other news and fact-checking sources is incorrect? If so, what reliable data are you basing this opposition on? Because to me, it sounds like you’re the one making “assumptions.”
“Maybe his equipment needs replacing. Maybe his healthcare, rent, shipping and utility costs are going up. He knows his employee costs are going up.”
As I quoted from Politifact, “The tax laws allow small business owners to deduct all kinds of business expenses: employees’ pay, supplies, a car or truck, fuel costs, advertising, association dues, utilities, shop repairs, and the list goes on. (For more details, read chapter 8 of the Tax Guide for Small Business published by the IRS.)”
Tina: “The problem with taxes is they come in a one size fits all package from a one size fits all mindset. The circumstances for Microsoft are not the same as a small outfit that sells and services well pumps.”
Again, what’s your point? Microsoft is a large corporation, one that obviously makes far more than $250,00 a year. The tax laws are absolutely not “one-size-fits-all” with regards to Microsoft and a small business.
“I don’t think I ever said that.”
I think you have.
“It isn’t the percentage it’s the thinking!”
Well, thanks for admitting that you can’t attack Obama’s tax plan on a factual basis.
Unless you have some reliable data to support your position that raising taxes on those making $250,000 a year or more is going to hurt the majority of small businesses. So far you haven’t presented any evidence for this position. Numerous journalists and fact-checking organizations have provided evidence that your claim is false. You counter that they are the ones who are wrong, but you have offered nothing to back up your position.
“Interesting! I show you a factual account of a 9.23% return on retirement investent in Chile as opposed to a 1-2% payout for SS and you don’t have an opinion that 9.23% is a better better but a 3% increase in tax rates you can get behind in a heartbeat!”
Tina, as you well know you can’t just take a policy that works in one country and apply it directly to another without considering other factors first.
“There was a time in this country when the people were willing to consider that some things might be better managed by government but government officials still respected the freedom and autonomy of the citizens.”
What time was this, Tina? Please, be specific. When was this mythical time when government got out of the way, and every American was as free as any other?
The truth is that Americans have more freedom and equality today than at any other time in our history, and that’s due mostly to the efforts of progressives.
“With all due respect Chris, your claim that these observations are unfounded is incorrect. Obama’s tax plan is not what is being called Marxist…it is Obamas total mindset that is Marxist innature.”
That’s a ridiculous statement, Tina, because you are using Obama’s tax plan as evidence of “Obama’s total mindset.” It’s also blatantly untrue that Obama’s tax plan has not been assailed as Marxist; a Google search for the phrase “Obama tax plan Marxist” turns up 213,000 results. John McCain even described Obama’s plan as “socialist” during the campaign.
It’s especially ironic given that Obama’s tax plan actually amounts to less taxation when compared to GDP than Ronald Reagan’s.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/aug/04/sarah-palin/sarah-palin-said-democrats-planning-largest-tax/
“We ran the number with some help from tax experts and found that if only the tax cuts for high earners expire, the resulting tax increases would not be the largest in history. Tax increases for high earners would be roughly 0.4 percent of GDP in the first year they take effect. That’s significantly less than a 1982 tax increase signed into law by President Ronald Reagan. The tax increase resulting from the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 came to 1.23 percent of GDP when the tax changes were fully implemented, four years after the law’s passage.
If you let all the Bush tax cuts expire, the tax increase would come to just above 2.2 percent of GDP. Clearly, that would be larger than the Reagan tax hike of 1982. But it would be smaller than one of the tax increases passed during World War II — the Revenue Act of 1942, which is estimated at 5.04 percent of GDP.
But again, letting all the tax cuts expire isn’t the plan the Democrats are proposing, and it’s not what Wallace asked Palin.
Palin said, “Democrats are poised now to cause this largest tax increase in U.S. history.” She was asked about tax cuts for the top 2 percent. Either Palin is confused about the revenue numbers involved with extending the tax cuts, or she’s willfully distorting the Democratic plans. We’ll let you be the judge of that. Regardless, Wallace was very specific about asking her about tax increases for the top 2 percent. And that does not represent the largest tax increase in history. The unlikely outcome that she seems to be talking about — that all of the Bush tax cuts will be repealed — wouldn’t be the largest tax increase in history either. Palin read the number on her hand correctly, but that’s about all she got right. So we rate her statement Pants on Fire.”
I notice you also haven’t posted on what Obama has done to help small businesses. Back in September, he signed into law a major measure that would make it easier for small businesses to obtain loans. I didn’t see this mentioned on Post Scripts.
Chris: “I’m not seeing your point.”
I’m not sure you care to.
“Do you believe that the hypothetical business owners you refer to represent the majority of small business owners, and that this majority would be hurt by a tax increase on those making over $250,000 a year?”
I believe there are a lot of small business owners that will be hurt by this tax…yes! I never said they were the majority of small businesses. But I want you to think about the town you live in. Think about the shop owners and small cafe’s and the many small service and manufacturing firms. Think about the independent contractors…and people who cut hair or do nails. Now think about all the towns across America. It’s a lot of people we’re talking about not some statistic on a page.
“Do you believe that the 2% figure cited by Politifact and numerous other news and fact-checking sources is incorrect…”
I don’t have any idea where they got the figure or what it means…and I bet they don’t either. Citing a percentage tells us nothing about the circumstances of those business…it also tells us nothing about how this tax increase effects all small business.
“The tax laws allow small business owners to deduct all kinds of business expenses…”
Oh goody. But the business owners, hopefully, aren’t going to pay their taxes and then fold up the chairs and go home. It’s called cash flow, Chris. Tax due comes from a snapshot on a particular day. Business continues and needs to be funded. The more the government takes the less the business has to use for it’s own purposes…like hiring new people for instance!
“For more details, read chapter 8 of the Tax Guide for Small Business published by the IRS.”
I’ve been in business for over 25 years…I’m well aware of the (ever changing) tax code!
“Well, thanks for admitting that you can’t attack Obama’s tax plan on a factual basis.”
Well lets look at the Obama tax plan and the facts. What are we talking about? The plan to let the current tax rates expire? Remember Obama wanted ALL of them to expire. All of them you say? Oh yes…Obama…the guy that kept insisting Bush only gave tax breaks to the rich wanted to let ALL of the Bush tax cuts expire! How can that be if only the rich got a tax break under Bush? Was he being factual?
Or do you want to talk about not changing the rates for two years on the rich. The same people who insist they know this won’t hurt small business are now whining about how much not raising the rates on the rich will cost the government. Idiots! It doesn’t cost the government anything because nothing will change. Are they being factual?
This bunch counts their revenue before it is hatched…typical of those who would kill the goose that lays the golden eggs!
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Testimony/Small-Businesses-Face-Steep-Tax-Hikes-Unless-Congress-Acts-Soon
So this wouldn’t just hurt the business owners in that small percentage you spoke of it would hurt all small business and worse, those people who are looking for work.
Here are some numbers that might actually mean something in terms of the economy and raising taxes at this time:
http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/smallbus.html
There are between 4.5 million and 4.75 million firms with 50 or fewer employees.
http://www.score.org/small_biz_stats.html
Tina: “Well lets look at the Obama tax plan and the facts. What are we talking about? The plan to let the current tax rates expire? Remember Obama wanted ALL of them to expire. All of them you say? Oh yes…Obama…the guy that kept insisting Bush only gave tax breaks to the rich wanted to let ALL of the Bush tax cuts expire!”
Wow, Tina. I assumed you knew the very basic facts that all Americans should know about Obama’s tax plan, but either you haven’t been paying attention to the news at all over the past few years or you are simply lying. Either way, for someone who prides herself on being politically aware and active to post something so blatantly untrue is just shameful. Obama’s tax plan has always been to extend the tax cuts for individuals making less than $200,000 a year in taxable income and couples making less than $250,000. This has been true since his campaign started. I’m honestly shocked that you of all people don’t know this.
“Try any time before 1950”
I didn’t expect you to take the bait on this one, but you really are so obliviously privileged that you can delude yourself into believing that Americans were more free and equal at a time when segregation was legally enforced in a large part of the country!
The imaginary infringements on your liberty that you believe Obama to be undertaking are nothing compared to what the legal injustices in this country prior to the 1950s. Yet because people may have payed a little more in taxes and didn’t borrow money as much, that means they were more free and equal?
Utterly delusional.
Correction: That last part should say “Yet because people may have payed a little LESS in taxes…”
Chris: “Obama’s tax plan has always been to extend the tax cuts for individuals making less than $200,000 a year in taxable income and couples making less than $250,000. This has been true since his campaign started. I’m honestly shocked that you of all people don’t know this.”
Who said I don’t? I didn’t indicate otherwise. I didn’t comment on the Obama tax plan. Iwrote that Obama has not been factually correct when speaking about Bush era tax cuts. Quoting myself:
“you really are so obliviously privileged that you can delude yourself into believing that Americans were more free and equal at a time when segregation was legally enforced in a large part of the country!”
And you are so narrowly focused that the socialists from my generation will easily fool you into letting go of your freedoma gradually until we are all, black, white, brown, yellow and red, mere serfs under the elites running a BIG government plantation. They breed dependency now at a pace so fast it makes the head spin.
“The imaginary infringements on your liberty…”
And you call me delusional! They would hand over control of the US to some global authority in a heartbeat on so many issues today if they thought they could get away with it. If you are any indication at all it will become possible within a few short years…good luck.
Seriously, Tina. WHAT?
You’re not just lying, now–you’re lying about a lie, quoting your own lie, and then pretending you never lied about what you lied about, even though anyone with eyes can read said lie, twice, because you QUOTED IT.
*sigh*
Let me see if I can untangle this indecipherable nonsense. You wrote that Obama wanted to, quote, “let ALL the Bush tax cuts expire.” I told you that this was false–which is easily verifiable–and that Obama’s plan has always been to preserve the Bush tax cuts on the middle and upper middle classes. Then, instead of bringing in counter-arguments to defend your claim, or admitting that it was false, you ridiculously claimed that you, quote, “didn’t comment on the Obama tax plan,” then QUOTED YOURSELF making a FALSE COMMENT about the OBAMA TAX PLAN.
WHAT WHAT WHAT WHAT WHAT.
Then, instead of either defending or conceding on the issue of whether Americans were more free during SEGREGATION–a claim which you have now made–you start ranting about socialism.
It’s impossible to have an intelligent debate with someone who doesn’t have the facts, won’t address the actual points even if avoidance makes her look even more idiotic, and is possibly stoned out of her mind.
Get back to me when you’ve regained your senses, because your last comment was like something out of Lewis Carroll.
Obama tax plan:
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/taxes/Factsheet_Tax_Plan_FINAL.pdf
Middle class families will see their taxes cut and no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase. (ahh…your facts in black and white. feeling smug? Lets move on…)
Families making more than $250,000 will pay either the same or lower tax rates than they paid in the 1990s. Obama will ask the wealthiest 2% of families to give back a portion of the taxes they have received over the past eight years to ensure we are restoring fairness and returning to fiscal responsibility. But no family will pay higher tax rates than they would have paid in the 1990s. (What? What was that? NO FAMILY?)
These are the Obama tax cuts filled with lots of wiggle room and pleasant sounding gotcha for the undeserving wealthy under Bush…raw meat for the progressives.
The Bush tax cuts are separate law. the Bush tax cuts were still set to expire at the end of 2010. Obama would simply have let them. He didnt have to do or say anything and all of our taxes would have gone up. He wouldn’t have said anything either except for the uproar that has occurred. (You still fall for the deceptive unclear rhetoric of change)
“It’s impossible to have an intelligent debate with someone who doesn’t have the facts, won’t address the actual points…blah blah blah…”
No need to get back to me. I can live without your incidious resentful comments, especially considering your own rant was totally off subject and your ability to focus on what I actually wrote questionable.
Tina, I still can’t make heads or tails of what you are trying to say. You seem to still be holding on to the belief that “all of our taxes would have gone up” if Obama had gotten his way, yet you aren’t providing any evidence to back up this viewpoint; in fact, you’re quoting information that explicitly contradicts it. I can’t figure out what the intent of your comment is supposed to be.
Also, my comments were not “resentful,” nor were they “incidious,” which isn’t a word. I presume you meant “insidious,” but even that doesn’t make sense.
Is there something wrong today? Despite our disagreements, you are usually much more clear and reasonable than this. Is it because I forced you to confront your belief that America was more free during segregation? I imagine that must be an uncomfortable position to realize one has taken, but once the cognitive dissonance wears off maybe you’ll feel better.
Chris, Thanks for correcting my spelling error. You’re accurate about my mood, I have had to respond under pressure lately.
I do think there is an element of desire on your part to play the entrapment game when it comes to civil rights issues, hence my choice of the word insidious.
You begin with an assumption of guilt and proceed to make it so in my opinion. I have a different philosophy about race and equality than you do. It is based on the fact that the law we passed in 1965 (and I do mean we; Republicans and most Americans absolutely supported it on moral and Constitutional grounds). I come from the point of view that the law is on the side of every individual and it is up to every individual to work through whatever barriers remain. If an offense is worthy of lawsuit it should be brought to strengthen the laws. If it is petty it should be dismissed as from ignorant fools.
You are all about activism and that’s fine but it doesn’t necessarily make you right or more inclusive of others than I or any of my peers that agree with me.
“You seem to still be holding on to the belief that “all of our taxes would have gone up” if Obama had gotten his way…”
If the people (TEA Partiers) had not made a stink about taxes (Taxed Enough Already TEA), yes I think Obama would have been content to let all of the Bush tax cuts expire. Obama would have let Congress lead the charge of course. Indeed, some have been willing to make the case quite recently:
Dec 2, 2010
http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/12/02/5566080-stabenow-democrats-ready-to-let-bush-tax-cuts-expire
When the Democrats took control (super majority control) of Congress a number of them believed they would hold this power for decades. They saw history repeating itself a la Roosevelt in the thirties which ushered in decades of Democrat dominance of power and big government solutions for everything. One even wrote a book about it:
http://www.amazon.com/40-More-Years-Democrats-Generation/dp/1416569898
You can’t do big government without revenue.
My point about Obama was that he campaigned and then continued to insist that Bush tax cuts were only for the rich…that is not true. Bush gave tax cuts across the board to all working, investing and saving Americans, even eliminating taxes entirely for some lower earning Americans. As the time approached for them to expire he said, under pressure from TPers and Republicans, that he only wanted to let Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire…revealing his lie in an unstated admission that the middle and lower classes had also received tax breaks under the Bush plan.
“Is it because I forced you to confront your belief that America was more free during segregation?”
What a rediculous comment! I didn’t say that. Here is the exchange again:
Now tell me, who is being confronted about the progressive’s contribution to freedom? I’d say it is you. Progressives dont think in terms of people BEING EQUAL. This leads progressives to activism but they don’t fight for equal rights they are activists for special rights! They are activists for redistribution of wealth and special consideration and set asides. They advocate for mediocrity in the name of equality by reward based on need rather than accomplishment.
That is not a recipe for equality or freedom. It is a recipe for controlcentral planning applied to social outcomes.
You are entitled to have a different opinion and philosophy but you are not at all accurate when you maintain a difference in philosophy is a failure to promote equality and freedom. From my point of view progressive activism has harmed the progress of many Americans, particularly poor Americans, by encouraging dependency and promoting the idea that they are victims. (And politically doing everything they can to paint conservatives as racists and bigots so the victims will have an oppressor)
I apologize for anything that was experienced as confusing or unreasonable. That is not my intent.
Tina, thank you for the clear reply. I am glad to see you back on your game. 🙂
I still disagree with much of what you are saying, however.
“If the people (TEA Partiers) had not made a stink about taxes (Taxed Enough Already TEA), yes I think Obama would have been content to let all of the Bush tax cuts expire.”
You can think this, but I still don’t think there is much to base it on. You are correct that some Democrats said they were in favor of letting the Bush tax cuts expire, if their hands were forced by Republicans and it was the only way to get rid of the tax cuts on the rich. In my opinion, this claim was mostly a strategical move used in order to scare Republicans into a compromise that would more heavily favor the Democrats. The few who truly wanted the tax cuts on the middle class to expire are likely among the minority of Democrats who have spoken out about against Obama’s tax compromise. I hardly think these detractors can be used as evidence of Obama’s true intentions.
More importantly, Obama has insisted that he wanted to keep tax cuts on the middle class since before the Tea Party gained any sort of political relevance. The suggestion that he only decided to keep these tax cuts because of Tea Party influence does not carry much weight. This suggestion also ignores the many tax cuts and incentives for middle class workers and small business owners that President Obama has signed into law since his election–16 in all, if Stabenow is to be believed. I don’t have time to verify this exact number right now, but one example is the “Making Work Pay” Act:
http://moneywatch.bnet.com/investing/blog/make-money/obamas-middle-class-tax-cut-yes-the-one-you-never-heard-of-may-expire/626/
“My point about Obama was that he campaigned and then continued to insist that Bush tax cuts were only for the rich…that is not true.”
I’m not sure if he actually said that the Bush tax cuts were only for the wealthy, but I can buy that he may have misleadingly implied it. This makes him guilty of engaging in political manipulation, but this is not evidence that he wanted the Bush tax cuts to expire on anyone but the wealthy. Articles dating back as far as 2008 state that he was strongly opposed to tax increases on those making 250,000 or less. Again, the Tea Party had no political influence at this time, so this cannot be attributed to pressure from them.
“I do think there is an element of desire on your part to play the entrapment game when it comes to civil rights issues, hence my choice of the word insidious.
You begin with an assumption of guilt and proceed to make it so in my opinion.”
To be honest, I did not expect you to answer my question, but I can’t deny feeling a bit satisfied by your answer. To remind you, I asked what time period you felt that Americans were more free and equal and suffered less from government intervention than they do today. You answered, “Try any time before 1950.” I know you didn’t intend it to be so, but this is essentially an argument that Americans were more free under segregation than they are today.
I can understand that we have many political disagreements, and I can even understand your aversion to modern progressive politics. But to claim that the government intervention we face today is worse than segregation–which you unintentionally did–is simply untrue, and inflammatory.
It isn’t racist or offensive to insist that we see too much government intervention today, or that the social welfare programs we have set up are not doing good and should be repealed. But when you and other conservatives fall back on the misguided (but natural) tendency to pine for the good old days, you often ignore the huge, liberty-breeching interventions into the lives of minorities and women that the government was guilty of in that time period.
Despite our disagreements, Tina, I think the general Tea Party position that the government should get out of the way does have some solid arguments to back it up. But “America was better off before the ’50s” is not one of those arguments, and it actually provides a lot of ammo for your opposition.
Nick: “You are absolutely correct when you say that taxation is the use of force to extract property. The MAJOR difference that you seem to be ignoring is that the taxation YOU are supporting is for direct redistribution. They tax me to pay you or vice versa. This was NOT something that our Founders supported, regardless of whether or not there is a constitutional process for achieving it.”
Personally, I don’t see why this is a major difference. In the case of FAFSA, the money goes to individuals, but the ultimate goal is still to enrich America as a whole. I also think this distinction, if adhered to, would eliminate many other positive uses of government money throughout our country’s history; for instance, the G.I. Bill. This legislation enjoys almost unanimous support among Americans, but under your ideal taxation system, it wouldn’t exist, because it gave tax-payer money directly to individuals in order to improve their welfare and the general welfare of the country.
“This is a logical fallacy. You are implying that simply because something might be constitutional that it cant be Marxist. That is not the case.”
I didn’t imply that; I was referring to the framing commonly employed by Tea Partiers and other conservatives on this issue. It’s interesting that you are now arguing that something CAN be both constitutional and Marxist; that idea is definitely something most conservatives would reject.
“You are also making a case that we or maybe I should say that I have claimed that any taxation is unconstitutional. This is a straw man argument as I have never suggested this.”
You did imply that the government taking money from someone and giving it to someone else is wrong. You are correct that you personally did not say it was unconstitutional. I assumed this was your position because this has been one of the central arguments of the Tea Party movement. I did not realize that you differed with them on this, and I am sorry for lumping you in with them.
“I love the term “larger societal goal” as if anything is allowed provided that a simple majority declares it a “larger societal goal”.”
Not anything; the Constitution is, in large part, designed to protect the rights of the minority from the vote of the majority.
“Lets call it what it is Chris…you think you have some inherent right to my property.”
Not a “right;” if the government decides to eliminate the FAFSA program and all other forms of public assistance, I think that would be atrociously stupid policy, but it wouldn’t violate my rights, constitutional or otherwise. I do think our society is better served with publicly paid institutions such as public safety, defense, roads, post office, education, and health care, which are payed for by your tax money. And I don’t think it is a violation of your rights, constitutional or otherwise, to use the legislative process to secure that tax money from you. You are not being forced to live in this country; by choosing to remain, you adhere to the social contract.
“Call it a larger “societal goal” or whatever else you may wish, but when you think that you are entitled to reach into my pocket and take my money solely for YOUR personal enrichment, in your case higher education that bears a far closer resemblance to Marx than it does Jefferson regardless of whether or not it is legal or even Constitutional.”
It isn’t “solely” for my benefit; FAFSA provides aid to thousands of low-income students. More importantly, the entire country benefits from having a more educated populace. A society also benefits from making sure those from a lower income bracket can go to college and become productive citizens. Government assistance for college now makes one less likely to live on government assistance later in life. The FAFSA program most likely saves you from paying more taxes in the future. And you’d be paying more even if only those government programs that you do not oppose remained, and all government assistance to individuals was eliminated. Crime would go up, meaning that things like police departments and the prison system would need to be getting more money.
“If we were to pass a constitutional amendment tomorrow outlawing freedom of speech for conservatives, it would be both legal and constitutional, but certainly not in keeping with our founding principles.”
Even though freedom of speech itself was only added as part of an amendment later, most Americans would recognize an amendment revoking free speech as violating the spirit of the Constitution, and would be justified in calling such an amendment unconstitutional. Perhaps many of the Tea Partiers who have called the progressive taxation system “unconstitutional” are appealing to the spirit of the document, rather than the letter; even so, I don’t think this particular argument is strong–certainly not as strong an argument as exists against the hypothetical “no free speech for conservatives” amendment.
“your current philosophy states that you have a right, not just a legal right, but a morale one to use the state apparatus to take money form my family in order to give it to your own provided that you make less than me.
My philosophy states that I should have no government imposed obligation to enhance the income of my neighbor against my will. Nor does my neighbor have any obligation to support me. We should of course do so willingly when appropriate but never as a result of government coercion.
What you call a “greater societal goal” in this case is you deciding that my family should do with less so that yours can do with more.”
And I think your philosophy is overly broad, and if taken to its logical end, unnecessarily destructive to any society. I also suspect, based mostly on prior arguments I’ve had on this issue with others, that in practice you would find yourself applying this philosophy selectively, rather than in all cases.
Chris, I see no reason to repeat ourselves so Ill try not to do that but I will comment on a few things you’ve said without being too tiresome:
“Articles dating back as far as 2008 state that he was strongly opposed to tax increases on those making 250,000 or less.”
I agree, he has said that repeatedly. But this is misleading (although I’m sure it garnered him more than a few votes) since he never intended to extend Bush tax policy. He also planned to raise rates on interest and dividend income which effect the middle and lower classes, particularly those on fixed incomes like retired people with investments that supplement SS. The increased child allowance that would expire if Bush tax cuts were not extended would also effect all families with dependent children at (I think) $500.00 a head. He also supported bills that would create new taxes or expenses on business which will be passed on to all consumers. This is especially true of his health care legislation, although many of those fees and taxes won’t kick in ’till after he’s well into the second term if he wins one.
So you see the promise not to raise taxes on the middle class is deceptive anyway.
“I’m not sure if he actually said that the Bush tax cuts were only for the wealthy…”
You couldnt possibly have lived through the (over two years) of the Obama campaign, not to mention his last two years in office, without hearing Obama, Pelosi, Reid, et al and the media go on and on about “Bush tax cuts for the rich”…give me a break!!!
Heres an example of the type of erroneous and misleading rhetoric the President used for years against the Bush tax rates (made in September of this year before he realized republicans would win so many seats):
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/obama-rejects-tax-cuts-for-the-rich-calls-for-big-oil-to-pay-fair-share/
Sept 2010 – The President came out swinging in a major economic policy speech in Cleveland, Sept. 8, against Republican Party obstructionism on economic recovery. He flatly rejected GOP plan’s to give mammoth new tax cuts to the richest Americans and accused its leaders of pushing the “same philosophy that was tried for the last decade which led to the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression: tax cuts for millionaires, cut rules for corporations, and leave the middle class to fend for itself.”
A. Extending the Bush era tax rates does not amount to mammoth new tax cuts to the richest Americans. I would keep their rates at the same level as they have been for ten years.
B. Tax rates under Bush had NOTHING to do with the economic crisis.
“But to claim that the government intervention we face today is worse than segregation–which you unintentionally did–is simply untrue, and inflammatory.”
In a discussion about attitudes having to do with taxation, rather than oppression linked to segregation, I don’t think my response was at all out of line. I was referring only to the number of Americans that would take handouts without feeling guilt and without feeling it their duty to end those handouts ASAP. Since 1950 the attitude of Americans about government providing has shifted dangerously toward socialism and away from self reliance. We are reaping the ultimate reward of such thinking with fewer people paying the bills in DC and fewer assuming responsibility for personal expenses. Government social programs are inefficient, filled with abuse, fraud and waste, and ultimately unsustainable.
“when you and other conservatives fall back on the misguided (but natural) tendency to pine for the good old days, you often ignore the huge, liberty-breeching interventions into the lives of minorities and women that the government was guilty of in that time period.”
When young people misinterpret what we are saying and dismiss it for “pining for the good old days’ it’s no wonder you come away thinking we ignore the challenges of the past.
I wasn’t pining for the good old days…I was making the point that attitude and moral underpinnings among ALL Americans prior to 1950 were more indicative of a freedom and liberty loving America. Poor people took pride in being able to care for themselves…maybe blacks more than others since dependecy to them was slavery for many of their parents and grandparents. You can be excused for not realizing this because you did not live through that time.
Chris: “the Constitution is, in large part, designed to protect the rights of the minority from the vote of the majority.”
The Constitution was designed to protect the people from government oppression and subjugation. That would include citizens using government to transfer wealth to themselves from their fellow citizens.
“My philosophy states that I should have no government imposed obligation to enhance the income of my neighbor against my will. Nor does my neighbor have any obligation to support me. We should of course do so willingly when appropriate but never as a result of government coercion.”
I don’t mean to single you out with the following remarks because I expect that you are and will become a productive member of our society.
It’s easy for those who do not earn much money to be generous in supporting redistributive policies…it costs people like that very little or nothing in time, energy or money. They do not pay much in taxes, and they do not take on the responsibilites associated with creating wealth, employing others, complying with the expensive and very time consuming paperwork of complicated federal and state regulations and mandates, collect and pay (often pre-pay) employee taxes, business taxes, and sales taxes.
This is one of the things that make the big government solutions to social problems so distasteful in terms of equality. I read today that 50% of Americans are now exempt from contributing through income taxes and these include some people making over $50,000.00. Some of them not only do not pay taxes but also receive a bonus check due to the EITC (earned income tax credit).
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/25962.html
The more we move in this direction the more dependent, and demanding that segment will become. What wasn’t even heard of until the last half century is now fast becoming not only “fair” in the minds of these people but also their right. The wealthy, using the standard of payers into the system vs takers from the system, are anyone making over 50K and they are considered fair game because they only have what they have because they’ve been lucky.
Someone defined the rich as anyone who has a dollar more than you do. I can’t blame the people who receive from government programs, they have been groomed slowly over time to accept this as reality. The point is this isn’t the only reality.
While it’s true that government programs do good things for some people it is also true that they have terrible consequences over the years on society as a whole with fewer and fewer people reaching their potential, becoming productive and contributing members of society, and experiencing the dignity that comes from being responsible and self-sufficient. It’s also true that a lot of money is spent subsidizing people who don’t really need help. Unfortunately having lived under the system & paying into it makes changing and dismantling them difficult. For those who have paid dearly into SS and made their retirement plans based in part on receiving this entitlement its entirely reasonable that they would feel resentful if that money was denied them.
The Tea Party makes a point about taxes in lettering written on a placard and they are dismissed as selfish, angry, and worse. Their argument and complaint contains a much deeper point but there isn’t much chance it will ever be heard by progressives. There is a stubborn insistance on their part to simply discredit other ideas and defend their progressive policies without ever looking at them with an honest or critical eye. I have yet to see progressives admit there is a down side that has become unsustainable and morally unacceptable or that there might be another better way. The rigidity is frustrating and makes real discussion of what might possibly work better totally impossible.
Now a request. You wrote to Nick:
“I think your philosophy is overly broad, and if taken to its logical end, unnecessarily destructive to any society.”
I’d like to know what you think the “logical end” would look like.
You also wrote:
“I also suspect, based mostly on prior arguments I’ve had on this issue with others, that in practice you would find yourself applying this philosophy selectively, rather than in all cases.”
That’s a convenient dismissal. We can’t downsize government, put more power back into the hands of the people, discover more effective ways to help the less fortunate with the goal of moving them into productivity, allow people to better provide for their own retirement, make all insurances and healthcare more affordable, make college more affordable, and compensate those who defend our nation unless we create systems that will result in people dying and starving as if tossing people out into the streets is the ultimate goal. The conclusion is to just keep things as they are. Aren’t you the guys that keep saying that life isn’t black and white but filled with lots of lovely gray?
The idea to reform social security by taking a portion of what those aged 40 and under contribute and placing it into a personal pension account was worth consideration but never was given a chance for an honest evaluation. Progressives met the idea with the usual dismissive tags and labels.
The fact that conservatives have compromised and even contributed to the plethora of programs we now fund is a matter of record. What we want is an honest discussion about what might work better because the current plan is unsustanable and it is not producing the rosey outcome that it promises.
Chris: Which parts of the Bush tax policy? Obama didn’t intend to extend the cuts on the highest income brackets, but he has always maintained that he intended on extending the cuts for everybody else.
Did he? All along? Perhaps its a matter of semantics but I have never heard him talk about extending the Bush tax cuts, at least not until quite recently. I have never heard him speak honestly about Bush tax cuts. He never gave Bush credit for lowering taxes for all Americans, in fact, he did the opposite. Bush tax policy was part of the evil Republican plan to enrich the wealthy and oppress the poor and had nothing to do with him. He always said HE didnt intend to raise taxes on anyone making less than 200-250K and indeed his tax policy reflected that promise.
Bush tax cuts were set to expire. Obama didnt have had to sign any legislation to stop that from happening. His constant talk of Bush tax cuts for the rich provided him adequate cover in the short term, on the record, and throughout history. The subject became an issue only because the Tea Party protest made it an issue that could not be ignored.
Tax policy can be confusing. You sited a fact checking page that proved Obama critics were not being truthful. Heres one with evidence that Obama has not always been completely truthful:
http://www.ontheissues.org/economic/barack_obama_tax_reform.htm
You have asked me for evidence that Obama did not intend to let the Bush tax cuts expire. I would appreciate some evidence that he intended to keep them in place. I dont recall any words that specifically stated praise for Bushs tax cuts for middle and low income earners. Instead he constantly berated the former President and his tax cuts for the rich. Words can be used, as we both have demonstrated, to mislead. If I am mistaken about Obamas intentions it is due, in part, to the Presidents lack of clarity and his intent to portray himself as the savior of the middle and lower classes while wildly discrediting his predecessor by mischaracterizing the tax breaks that President Bush gave to middle and lower class Americans.
Of course I’ve heard that. It’s true. What I haven’t heard is any of them claim that the tax cuts were ONLY for the rich. And you haven’t provided any quotes of them saying that. You may feel that Obama’s “leave the middle class to fend for itself” statement is erroneous, and I’ve conceded that Obama may have used misleading rhetoric on this issue. But it isn’t the direct lie that you make it out to be.
I have to give your side credit for being incredibly good at creating impressions without coming right out and saying somethingthey are masters of deception and have a media machine to assist them. Im not sure that is something to be proud of or something we should encourage in any of our politicians. The entire progressive machine worked hard, both during the campaign and after to make Bush and the Republicans out to be totally insensitive to middle and lower classes and absolutely deferential to the rich.
The rhetoric about the rich getting richer is misleading, not because they dont, how could they not with all that money to invest, but because it absolutely leaves out the tremendous amount of their money that contributes in ways beyond their income tax rates. They pay the highest total tax burden (57% paid by the top 5% by one account) but their investment in America much greater. They are responsible for the bulk of investment into the economy, private sector jobs, research and development, and big charitable and philanthropic work. What they give back (a stupid phrase) cannot be measured!!!
Tina, thank you for clarifying that your answer was intended to refer only to the specific issue of taxation and government dependency. I phrased my question in a very general way, and you originally answered in a general way as well. I don’t really think you believe that America was more free and equal before the 1950s…but often Tea Partiers do say exactly that, and you fell into the same mistake earlier in this thread. This is not wise, and I only intended for you to come to realize that.
Chris thank you for your praise but it is actually still insulting to me that you think because I hold particular views that are different from yours that that means I am somehow in need of a history lesson about the way blacks and other minorities were treated in that era. I realize your intention was to be helpful so let me help you. It is up to each of us to also be good receivers of communications. You clearly made assumptions about what I said, placing the remarks in a different context than I meant them, and then lecturing me based on what you thought I was saying. While I thank you for the opportunity to clarify my meaning, I really didnt need a lecture about something that was never said or intended.
One explanation is that all of them have a liberal bias, but that doesn’t explain why there are no similar right-leaning fact-checking websites.
Brent Bozell has been watching what gets said in the media since the late 1980s when the right didnt really have much support in the media:
http://www.mrc.org/public/default.aspx
Another possible explanation is that conservatives, in today’s climate, are lying with much greater frequency than liberals.
OH PLEASE!!! As we know statistics can be used to prove almost any point. Both sides haven engaged in the use of statistics in this way.
Creating a negative impression, however, is an art form requiring skilled use of the language. Kindly share with us a few phrases used negatively and reported by main stream media to describe liberal policies and their effects on society or the economy. This form of communication represents the most egregious form of lying in my opinion. The Bush economy was and continues to be portrayed as a disasterthis is a lie. Bush tax cuts have been portrayed as for the rich or making the rich wealthy while harming the not rich…a lie. Bush lied us into waranother lie. Obama has presided over the worst economic recovery ever and caused our debt to skyrocket by spending excessivelythe headlines are not screaming with negativity. He and the Dems in Congress just created another entitlement program that will add trillions in coming years to that debt but is portrayed as manageable and a positivenot true. Democrats promised transparency, jobs and recovery and the media isnt going ballistic. Our gasoline prices and food prices are going upwhere are the negative headlines? Obama and democrats have given stimulus money to organizations and groups that supported themwhere is the outrage about cronyism and lobbyists?
Chris: Which parts of the Bush tax policy? Obama didn’t intend to extend the cuts on the highest income brackets, but he has always maintained that he intended on extending the cuts for everybody else.
Did he? All along? Perhaps its a matter of semantics but I have never heard him talk about extending the Bush tax cuts, at least not until quite recently. I have never heard him speak honestly about Bush tax cuts. He never gave Bush credit for lowering taxes for all Americans, in fact, he did the opposite. Bush tax policy was part of the evil Republican plan to enrich the wealthy and oppress the poor and had nothing to do with him and his tax plans. He always said HE didnt intend to raise taxes on anyone making less than 200-250K and indeed his tax policy reflected that promise.
Bush tax cuts were set to expire. Obama didnt have had to sign any legislation to stop that from happening. His constant talk of Bush tax cuts for the rich provided him adequate cover in the short term, on the record, and throughout future history. The subject became an issue only because the Tea Party protest made it an issue that could not be ignored. The recent election has caused a shift in his rhetoric.
Tax policy can be confusing. You sited a fact checking page that proved Obama critics were not being truthful. Heres one with evidence that Obama has not always been completely truthful:
http://www.ontheissues.org/economic/barack_obama_tax_reform.htm
You have asked me for evidence that Obama did not intend to let the Bush tax cuts expire. I would appreciate some evidence that he intended to keep them in place or address them at all. I dont recall any words that specifically stated praise for Bushs tax cuts for middle and low income earners. Instead he constantly berated the former President and his tax cuts for the rich. Words can be used, as we both have demonstrated, to mislead. If I am mistaken about Obamas intentions it is due, in part, to the Presidents lack of clarity and his intent to portray himself as the savior of the middle and lower classes while wildly discrediting his predecessor by mischaracterizing the tax breaks that President Bush gave to middle and lower class Americans…in fact all Americans.
Of course I’ve heard that. It’s true. What I haven’t heard is any of them claim that the tax cuts were ONLY for the rich. And you haven’t provided any quotes of them saying that. You may feel that Obama’s “leave the middle class to fend for itself” statement is erroneous, and I’ve conceded that Obama may have used misleading rhetoric on this issue. But it isn’t the direct lie that you make it out to be.
I have to give your side credit for being incredibly good at creating impressions, misleading, without coming right out and saying somethingthey are masters of deception and have a media machine to assist them. Im not sure that is something to be proud of or something we should encourage in any of our politicians. The entire progressive machine worked hard, both during the campaign and after to make Bush and the Republicans out to be totally insensitive to middle and lower classes and absolutely deferential to the rich. This was a horrendous lie in my book and absolutely done on purpose in hard ball political mode.
The rhetoric about the rich getting richer is misleading, not because they dont get rich (under any tax plan), how could they not with all that money to invest, but because it absolutely leaves out the tremendous amount of their money that contributes in ways beyond their income tax rates. They pay the highest total tax burden (57% paid by the top 5% by one account) but their investment in America is much, much greater. They are responsible for the bulk of investment into the economy, private sector jobs, research and development, and big charitable and philanthropic work. What they give back (a stupid phrase) cannot be measured!!!
Tina, thank you for clarifying that your answer was intended to refer only to the specific issue of taxation and government dependency. I phrased my question in a very general way, and you originally answered in a general way as well. I don’t really think you believe that America was more free and equal before the 1950s…but often Tea Partiers do say exactly that, and you fell into the same mistake earlier in this thread. This is not wise, and I only intended for you to come to realize that.
Chris thank you for your praise but it is actually still insulting to me that you think because I hold particular views that are different from yours that that means I am somehow in need of a history lesson about the way blacks and other minorities were treated in that era. I realize your intention was to be helpful so let me help you too. It is up to each of us to be good communicators but it is also up to us to be good receivers of communications. You clearly made assumptions about what I said, placing the remarks in a different context than I meant, and then lecturing me based on what you thought I was saying. While I thank you for the opportunity to clarify my meaning, I really didnt need a lecture about something that was never said or intended. I believe you do this based on something you believe rather than something that is true, ie, that tea partiers are racist.
“One explanation is that all of them have a liberal bias, but that doesn’t explain why there are no similar right-leaning fact-checking websites.”
Brent Bozell has been watching what gets said in the media since the late 1980s when the right didnt really have much support in the media:
http://www.mrc.org/public/default.aspx
“Another possible explanation is that conservatives, in today’s climate, are lying with much greater frequency than liberals.”
OH PLEASE!!! As we know statistics can be used to prove almost any point. Both sides haven engaged in the use of statistics in this way but it doesn’t ,make them liars. A campaign to portray the other side negatively by misleading is another story. Creating a negative impression is an art form requiring skilled use of the language and often unbacked by facts or statistics. Kindly share with us a few phrases used negatively and reported by main stream media to describe liberal policies and their effects on society or the economy.
This form of communication represents the most egregious form of lying in my opinion. The Bush economy was and continues to be portrayed as a disasterthis is not true and can be demonstrated. Bush tax cuts have been portrayed as for the rich or making the rich wealthy while harming others…a lie. Bush lied us into waranother lie.
Obama has presided over a terrible economic recovery record and caused our debt to skyrocket by spending excessivelythe headlines are not screaming with negativity. He and the Dems in Congress just created another entitlement program that will add trillions in coming years to that debt but is portrayed as manageable and a positivenot true. Democrats promised transparency, jobs and recovery through spending and the media isnt going ballistic. Our gasoline prices and food prices are going upwhere are the negative headlines?